A Kentucky Republican running to replace Senator Mitch McConnell deleted multiple environmental-themed tweets just months before launching his campaign, a Daily Wire review found.
Businessman Nate Morris deleted a number of tweets promoting environmentalist concepts and celebrating “World Environment Day” in early 2025, just months before launching his Senate campaign. Morris, the CEO of Morris Industries, has <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/congressional/3466274/deleted-dei-posts-culture-war-kentucky-senate-gop-primary/">pledged</a> to fight diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment mandates if elected, saying his experience as a businessman showed him the need to “end this crap.” 
Morris is running an anti-establishment campaign to replace McConnell, accusing his opponents — Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) and former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) — of being the former Senate Majority Leader&#8217;s puppets. He has <a href="https://natemorris.com/">pledged</a> to support mass deportations, opposing amnesty, banning doctors from doing transgender procedures on kids, cutting federal funding to woke schools, opposing gun control, and backing President Donald Trump’s tariff policies. 
The deleted tweets included multiple posts promoting the concept of a circular economy, a movement <a href="https://www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/what-circular-economy">defined</a> by the Environmental Protection Agency as a model that “keeps materials and products in circulation for as long as possible” and “an important part of slowing climate change.” The concept, promoted by organizations like the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/stories/circular-economy/">World Economic Forum</a> and the <a href="https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/circular_economy_14_march.pdf">United Nations</a>, frequently comes alongside government regulations and mandates. 
“A Circular economy generates no waste. To get to that point, we will need to change minds and change habits. #EnvironemntalInnovation,” Morris wrote in a May 8, 2020, tweet that has now been deleted. 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-954845" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/May-8-2020-deleted-tweet.png" alt="" width="1462" height="1189" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/May-8-2020-deleted-tweet.png 1462w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/May-8-2020-deleted-tweet-300x244.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/May-8-2020-deleted-tweet-708x576.png 708w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/May-8-2020-deleted-tweet-768x625.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1462px) 100vw, 1462px" /></div>
On June 5, 2020, Morris shared an article called “A Future Without Waste,” writing: “Changing habits. Changing minds. Changing the world in small and difficult – yet impactful – steps. There can be no alternative. #WorldEnvironmentDay #EnvironmentalInnovation.”
Two other tweets from around the same time were deleted related to the “circular economy,” include one from June 29, 2020, where he wrote “we must do everything in our power to create a truly circular, free market economy and make the planet a better place for future generations” and another from July 10, 2020 sharing an <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/editor-can-circular-economy-help-reduce-waste">article</a> from National Geographic that said that a circular economy could “save the world.” 
“I’m glad to see [National Geographic] raising awareness about the critical need to move toward a [circular economy]. It is a realistic goal and we can make it happen through [American innovation],” he wrote. 
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-954851" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/July-10-2020-deleted-tweet.png" alt="" width="1387" height="1182" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/July-10-2020-deleted-tweet.png 1387w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/July-10-2020-deleted-tweet-300x256.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/July-10-2020-deleted-tweet-676x576.png 676w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/July-10-2020-deleted-tweet-768x654.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1387px) 100vw, 1387px" />
The tweets were all deleted in early 2025, prior to the launching of the Senate campaign in June on Donald Trump Jr.&#8217;s &#8220;Triggered&#8221; podcast. 
In a statement to The Daily Wire, Trump Jr. vouched for Morris’s anti-ESG credentials. 
“Few people have been more outspoken against ESG and woke capital than me over the past five years, and I can say with total certainty that Nate is 100% aligned with us on supporting the parallel economy, combating ESG, and destroying woke capital once and for all,” he said.
“Nate hasn’t just talked the talk on these issues either — he actually put his money where his mouth is and invested in Vivek Ramaswamy’s anti-ESG investment fund.&#8221;
In July 2024, Morris Industries <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240725415339/en/Morris-Industries-Invests-in-Series-B-Round-of-Strive-Enterprises">invested</a> in Strive, an anti-woke wealth management venture backed by Ramaswamy.
In recent months, Morris Holdings removed renewable drinking water company Source Global from its list of select holdings on its website. Source Global includes major investors like BlackRock, Bill Gates, and Duke Energy. 
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-954879" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-30-at-3.25.50-PM.png" alt="" width="811" height="911" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-30-at-3.25.50-PM.png 811w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-30-at-3.25.50-PM-267x300.png 267w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-30-at-3.25.50-PM-513x576.png 513w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-30-at-3.25.50-PM-768x863.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 811px) 100vw, 811px" />
“Nate does not have a meaningful position in Source Global, which is why it no longer appears on the Morris Holdings website,” Morris campaign spokesman Conor McGuinness told The Daily Wire. “At no point has Nate ever advocated for government-mandated anything.&#8221;
Previously <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/congressional/3466274/deleted-dei-posts-culture-war-kentucky-senate-gop-primary/">deleted</a> blog posts from Morris’ time as CEO of Rubicon, a large recycling company, have come under scrutiny for their promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and Environmental Social and Governance (ESG). For example, in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250418092835/https:/www.rubicon.com/blog/elizabeth-montoya-board-of-directors/">one post</a> from September 2020, Morris praised a new board member of Rubicon for helping the company remain “at the forefront of the ESG movement.”
In another <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250312153932/https:/www.rubicon.com/blog/we-must-listen-we-must-lead/">deleted post</a> from June 1, 2020, Morris wrote that he was “feeling profound sadness and anger at the tragic events of recent weeks&#8221; in the wake of the death of George Floyd. 
“The protests we are seeing are a manifestation of the pain and anger that so many are feeling,” he wrote. “While it is important that we understand that pain and anger, it cannot bring back the lives that have been lost or undo the past injustices that have plagued our nation for generations. That pain and anger must fuel real, measurable, and decisive action to light a better path forward.”
Another <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250513063137/https:/www.rubicon.com/news/rubicon-global-joins-ceo-action-diversity-inclusion/">pos</a>t highlighted Morris’ decision to sign a DEI commitment, which included pledges “to have complex discussions about diversity and inclusion, to implement and expand upon unconscious bias education, and to share best and unsuccessful diversity and inclusion practices.”
“I was at Rubicon when it got its first round of funding in 2011 and returned a decade later when it was a more mature business. Nate was always known to be a conservative Republican and a Trump supporter; it was no secret, really,” Graham Salazar, former employee of Rubicon, told The Daily Wire.
“While he wasn’t overtly political at work, he did push back against progressive employees who wanted to bring more activism into the company culture. That kind of pressure was common in startups, and it was obvious he didn’t go along with it.”
Barr and Cameron, Morris&#8217;s main opponents, have accused the businessman of exaggerating his conservative credentials, criticizing him in particular over the Rubicon DEI pledge.

2022 Concordia Lexington Summit – Reception

Republican Senate Candidate Deleted Environmentalist Tweets Before Launching Campaign

Climate Change

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Donald Trump Jr.

Kentucky

Senate

Hold onto your loofahs, folks — Dr. Squatch, the rugged soap brand marketed toward dudes who love a good scrub, just <a href="https://www.unilever.com/news/press-and-media/press-releases/2025/unilever-to-acquire-mens-personal-care-brand-dr-squatch/">dove</a> headfirst into the glittery arms of Unilever, the mega-corp that’s all about <a href="https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2022/building-equity-and-equality-with-pride/#:~:text=Recognising%20our%20own%20uneven%20landscape,of%20support%20for%20LGBTQI+%20rights.">rainbow flags</a>, abortion <a href="https://cosmeticsbusiness.com/beauty-brands-pledge-to-protect-staff-from-roe-v-wade-overturning-201829#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20will%20cover%20travel%20expenses%20for%20any,employees%20with%20%E2%80%9Ccomprehensive%20reproductive%20health%20care%20benefits%E2%80%9D.">travel perks</a>, and saving the planet one <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/unilever-alan-jope-company-will-not-back-down-sustainability-agenda">ESG</a> checklist at a time.
Dr. Squatch will now join Dove — <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wokest-wash-around-heres-how-dove-has-pushed-woke-nonsense">the wokest wash around</a> — Axe, and TRESemmé under the umbrella of Unilever personal care products. 
“I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Squatch into the Unilever family. Dr. Squatch has built a solid foundation and loyal following with highly desirable products and clever digital engagement strategies. Building on its success in the US, we are excited to scale the brand internationally and complement our offering in the fast-growing men’s personal care segment,” <a href="https://www.unilever.com/news/press-and-media/press-releases/2025/unilever-to-acquire-mens-personal-care-brand-dr-squatch/">said</a> Fabian Garcia, the president of Unilever Personal Care. 
Now, Unilever isn’t just about clean bodies — they’re all in on woke vibes too. They’re waving the pride flag high, footing the bill for employees’ out-of-state abortion trips, and <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/unilever-alan-jope-company-will-not-back-down-sustainability-agenda">preaching</a> the gospel of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals like it’s their day job. 
While some brands are hitting the brakes on woke agendas after public shade, Unilever’s like, “Nah, we’re flooring it!” Along with pushing abortion and LGBT propaganda, Unilever has also <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/unilever-alan-jope-company-will-not-back-down-sustainability-agenda">supported</a> the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) pushed by leftist climate activists. 
“We have been driving an ambitious sustainability agenda for over two decades. Yet, in the face of ever-growing economic, environmental and social challenges, we are evolving our approach,” Unilever <a href="https://www.unilever.com/sustainability/">said</a>. “Ringing the alarm and setting long-term ambitions isn&#8217;t good enough anymore. Now is the time to focus on delivering impact by making sustainability progress integral to business performance. We are determined to face into this reality to deliver consistent and competitive performance, while transforming our business to achieve our sustainability goals.” 
Unilever <a href="https://www.unilever.com/sustainability/climate/">says</a> that it will continue to advocate for the “fight against climate change,” vowing “to reduce emissions across our value chain.” 
This is the company Dr. Squatch decided to sell its soul to. The news came shortly after Dr. Squatch ran one of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/not-woke-just-weird-dr-squatch-makes-soap-with-sydney-sweeneys-bath-water">strangest marketing campaigns</a>, selling a soap that is infused with the bathwater of popular actress Sydney Sweeney.
Only time will tell if Dr. Squatch follows in the woke footsteps of Dove and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/axe-stinks-of-wokeness-fend-off-the-left-with-a-new-scent-from-jeremys-deodorant-instead">Axe</a> and forces its customers to drink the leftist Kool-Aid. 
If you don’t want to worry about the soap brand you use turning into a leftist, just get your soap from <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/collections/hair-body?utm_campaign=Squatchilever&amp;utm_content=20250624&amp;utm_source=editorial">Jeremy’s Razors</a>, the company that will always focus on quality over woke policy. For men looking to wash the woke right down the drain, Jeremy&#8217;s Razors doesn&#8217;t just deliver a superior shave (that you can now <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/products/precision-5-special-offer?selling_plan=4201873621?utm_campaign=Squatchilever&amp;utm_content=20250624&amp;utm_source=editorial">try for just $7.99</a>) — they&#8217;ve got the entire shower covered with products that won&#8217;t lecture customers about their carbon footprint or stance on drag queen story hour. Their <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/products/shampoo?selling_plan=3530457301utm_campaign=Squatchilever&amp;utm_content=20250624&amp;utm_source=editorial">Tea Tree, Argan Oil, &amp; Peppermint Shampoo</a> and <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/products/mens-conditioner?selling_plan=3529801941utm_campaign=Squatchilever&amp;utm_content=20250624&amp;utm_source=editorial">Conditioner</a> clean hair without stripping away conservative values, while their <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/products/active-charcoal-soap?selling_plan=3529638101utm_campaign=Squatchilever&amp;utm_content=20250624&amp;utm_source=editorial">Charcoal Body Wash</a> scrubs away the day&#8217;s grime and leftist nonsense. And for those who prefer the classic bar soap experience, Jeremy&#8217;s Razors offers <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/products/birch-bark-body-soap?selling_plan=4232937685?utm_campaign=Squatchilever&amp;utm_content=20250624&amp;utm_source=editorial">Birch Bark</a> and <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/collections/hair-body/products/oatmeal-citrus-body-soap?selling_plan=4204200149?utm_campaign=Squatchilever&amp;utm_content=20250624&amp;utm_source=editorial">Oatmeal &amp; Citrus exfoliating bars</a> — real soap for real men who don&#8217;t need a side of social justice with their suds. Because when other brands are busy virtue signaling, Jeremy&#8217;s Razors stays busy making products that actually work.
Jeremy&#8217;s Razors shares common ownership with The Daily Wire.

Soap

Popular Soap Brand Gets Sudsy With Woke Giant

Abortion

Jeremy's Razors

LGBT

Wokeness

Ever since the unconscionable horror of October 7 and the brutal war that followed, there’s been a disturbing uptick in corporate activists competing to have the worst possible takes on the conflict — and getting big business to share those takes. This activism is aimed not at establishing a serious way for America’s largest tech &amp; defense companies to view the war against Hamas, but for foisting activist (i.e. non-fiduciary) objectives on the way they conduct their business involving it.
This is nothing new — last year saw a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/since-october-7-anti-israel-activism-has-failed-where-it-matters-most" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surge</a> in anti-Israel activism at numerous shareholder meetings, albeit not activism that resonated with the shareholder audience (in fact, its influence is notably decreasing). Why, then, does this activism persist? This Tuesday, we got a rare sneak peak at the real reason.
Intel is one of the largest private businesses operating in Israel. The company has been in the country since 1974 and is maybe the most crucial company in the Israeli high-tech sector, with other major corporate actors like Nvidia &amp; Apple also maintaining major presences in the region. And yet, despite this 50+ year business relationship that’s not only created tremendous wealth for Israel but generated massive return for Intel shareholders across the globe, corporate activists aren’t happy. Again, nothing new. But at Intel’s <a href="https://central.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/vsm/web?pvskey=INTEL25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">annual meeting</a> on Tuesday, the company fielded a proposal urging the company not merely for risk analysis, but to divest from the country entirely.
Dubbed an “ethical impact assessment,” the <a href="https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_1d2493931f76b3eb3a02f6d948d9f540/intel/files/documents/flipbook/Intel_Proxy_2025_Files/90/index.html#zoom=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shareholder proposal</a> pushed Intel to consider the “moral &amp; legal implications” of continuing to do business with Israel — many anti-Israel proposals, from <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1526520/000119312524129373/d725214dars.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">TripAdvisor</a> to <a href="https://investors.rtx.com/static-files/f5957454-3174-4285-bf5f-06462044467d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Raytheon</a>, couch the pressure to divest in innocuous, noble-sounding sentiments involving ethics and human rights (or borrow activist terms like ‘apartheid.’)
Activists at Intel argued that the company should completely “reassess [its] business relationship with Israel,” alleging that the human costs of war against Hamas are grounds for Intel to uproot its ties to a country it’s invested in for more than half a century. And then came the <a href="https://central.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/vsm/web?pvskey=INTEL25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">boom</a>: “We risk exclusion from important ESG indices that screen for human rights compliance in conflict zones.”
There’s no analysis that could make it plainer than that. The real case for why Israel’s most consistent business partners should divest, at its heart, boiled down to ESG ratings. That’s the case: this long standing relationship, that both provides shareholder return and protects innocent civilian life in a just war against one of the world’s most brutal terrorist organizations, has to go so that Intel’s ESG score doesn’t suffer.
<div id="attachment_918149" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-918149" class="size-large wp-image-918149" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-864x576.jpg" alt="A display of missiles and drones at the Lockheed Martin Corp. booth at the DEFEA international defense exhibition in Athens, Greece, on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. The Defence Exhibition Athens takes place between May 6 to May 8. Photographer: Nick Paleologos/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />A display of missiles and drones at the Lockheed Martin Corp. booth at the DEFEA international defense exhibition in Athens, Greece, on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. Nick Paleologos/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
The implicit premise here is, of course, that Israel’s actions to subdue Hamas and defend itself against a fighting force that expressly seeks its annihilation are incompatible with ESG dogma. And it’s not just Intel — today, Lockheed Martin shareholders will vote for the second year in a row on a <a href="https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/eo/documents/annual-reports/2025-proxy-statement.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shareholder proposal</a> pushing the company to stop its similarly long standing relationship with Israel, arguing that Lockheed selling fighter jets renders it complicit in war crimes.
These activist narratives, while arguably nobly intentioned, make the perfect (i.e. a world where war apparently doesn’t involve business decisions and difficult questions) the enemy of the good (i.e. the real world). War has never been free of moral questions — and the philosophical questions involved in companies that operate in war-adjacent industries are real and <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1996368/000109690625000722/bowy_px14a6g.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">worth discussing</a>. But ESG-aligned activists are making it abundantly clear that their answers don’t pass muster.
Pushing a tech company like Intel to divest from an entire nation based on nothing more than chronically vague statements about human rights and a handful of Amnesty International articles opining about ‘apartheid’ (yes, that’s what activists put forward at the meeting Tuesday) isn’t a serious business argument. And pushing a weapons company like Lockheed Martin to stop selling weapons to a longtime business partner engaged in a just war, fighting terrorists that hide among innocent civilian populations, based on nothing more than vague language about “misalignment” with human rights policies, isn’t a serious business argument either.
Too often, ESG-aligned arguments boil down to profoundly unwise ideas wrapped in nice-sounding turns of phrase. Pressuring energy companies into wildly non-fiduciary <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemmagreen/2024/08/29/why-big-corporations-are-quietly-abandoning-their-climate-commitments/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">net-zero commitments</a> is portrayed as being “climate conscious.” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-radical-intolerance-behind-woke-corporate-activism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pressuring</a> companies into providing puberty blockers for employees’ children is portrayed as “healthcare,” “corporate equality,” and “inclusion.” And now, pressuring companies to divest from Israel, not for demonstrated business but activist narratives that can’t acknowledge the existence of just war, is being portrayed as “responsibly reduc[ing] risk.”
Shareholders are increasingly rejecting these arguments — given their implicit premises, perhaps that’s not surprising. But it’s as good a moment as any to remember that nice sounding business words don’t mean anything without real moral arguments behind them. And if keeping your ESG score means disarming Israeli civilians being targeted by Hamas, that says more about ESG than it does about anything else.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Intel Headquarters Ahead Of Earnings Figures

How ESG Scores Became The New Weapon In The War On Israel

Boycott Divest Sanction

Business

Corporations

Dow Jones

Israel

Lockheed Martin

Opinion

shareholders

The following is an excerpt from the new book &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Last-Call-Bud-Light-Americas/dp/1668070901" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Last Call For Bud Light:</a> The Fall and Future of America’s Favorite Beer,” by Anson Frericks (Threshold Editions/Simon &amp; Schuster).
* * *
The wait for the seven-floor elevator ride was taking longer than usual. Anheuser-Busch had recently moved its sales and marketing team from St. Louis to New York City, and more and more people were crammed into the glitzy new office. One of the elevators was broken, and a mob was waiting in the lobby. I decided to take the stairs.
I was on my way to meet Brendan Whitworth, the North American CEO of Anheuser-Busch. The meeting was critical. We had an opportunity for a partnership that could breathe new life into a company that had entered something of a midlife crisis. I’d crunched the numbers. The capital outlay would be negligible, but the profits could be immense. Anheuser-Busch, where I was President of U.S. Sales &amp; Distribution, could make millions.
As I rounded the corner from the stairwell to Brendan’s desk, the office décor suddenly struck me with new meaning. A turn-of-the-century advertisement hawking Anheuser-Busch’s 10-cent Faust beers hung on an iron-textured wall. The rare visual indulgence among what was otherwise an efficient, modern, glass-walled space. Nearby, an oil painting of a bottle of Budweiser rested in an oversized gilded frame, just barely missing the exposed pipes in the ceiling above. It was the perfect juxtaposition of the old and new. The vintage and modern. Even the lighting was marked by contrast. Naked industrial Edison bulbs hung from the ceiling aside sculptures made from dangling Bud Light bottles that looked like they might have been enjoyed at a backyard barbecue the weekend before. The ways of the old guard and the new.
The company had gone through many big transitions. From generations of ownership by the famed Busch family to the takeover by the unstoppable global beer conglomerate InBev. From opulence and Clydesdales to efficiency and zero-based budgeting. From Saint Louis to New York. Somehow, all of it was captured on my way to Brendan’s desk. This could be a turning point, too: Anheuser-Busch could go from a storied brewery whose brands were getting a little flat to something modern, something of-the-moment, something more.
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Last-Call-Bud-Light-Americas/dp/1668070901"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-874813 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-384x576.jpg" alt="" width="384" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-384x576.jpg 384w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-200x300.jpg 200w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-768x1152.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-1024x1536.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-1365x2048.jpg 1365w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-1360x2040.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr.jpg 1400w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 384px) 100vw, 384px" /></a>
The partnership wasn’t without its risks, of course. The proposed partner was controversial—polarizing even—in some quarters. Some of our customers might be turned off. There might even be boycotts, though I thought the risk was extremely low.
But the upside was huge. It was an expansion opportunity, a chance to introduce ourselves to a new community. To make an impact, in a way that aligned with our mission to create a future with more cheers. We could start out small, see how it went, and hopefully grow our relationship over time. Our partner’s existing fans would grow to become our fans, and vice versa. A partnership to expand our audience, to appeal to a younger, more contemporary crowd.
I made my pitch. The CEO wasn’t convinced. Neither was Legal.
“Denied,” Anheuser-Busch’s Legal &amp; External Affairs Chief, Cesar Vargas, decried. “The reputational risks are simply too high.” Brendan didn’t push back. The partnership was killed on the spot.
You might think I’m describing a conversation in which Bud Light decided not to pursue its ill-fated marketing partnership with transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney. But I’m not. I’m describing a very real conversation about a different partnership: a proposed distribution partnership with Black Rifle Coffee Company in 2022.
If you haven’t heard, Black Rifle Coffee’s mission is to serve coffee and culture to people who love America. For many customers, it’s the American heartland alternative to Starbucks. Its founder, a former U.S. Army Green Beret, was fed up with the way that Starbucks seemingly caters to the coastal, latte-loving elites. How it pledges to hire refugees over American citizens and promotes progressive politics. Black Rifle would be different. It would be pro-veteran, pro–first responder, pro-America. Its name is a reference to the black training rifle issued to troops at boot camp. It hires veterans and military spouses. It hosts archery tournaments for disabled vets. For a time, the founder let one of his down-on-his-luck former military colleagues crash in a trailer on the office grounds. It is a brand for someone who wants a drink that respects freedom and the people who fight for it, that doesn’t hold rural and blue-collar workers in contempt.
The company’s coffee, by the way, is also quite good.
The combination of strong product and targeted marketing was proving explosive. In 2019, Black Rifle sold $82 million worth of coffee. By year end 2021, that figure had ballooned to $233 million. The company had opened a handful of brick-and-mortar coffee shops where baristas slung handcrafted drinks with colorful names like a “camo latte” with Irish cream and mint and what I presume must be a highly caffeinated beverage called only “jet fuel.” But the real growth potential was in selling ready-to-drink cans and bagged coffee through retail channels. In certain markets, Black Rifle was already on the shelves at Walmart, Publix, 7-Eleven, Sam’s Club, and more. But it wanted to expand.
That’s where Anheuser-Busch could come in. Since the end of Prohibition, Anheuser-Busch has invested hundreds of millions of dollars building out a world-class distribution network. Hundreds of wholesalers already managed routes to deliver Budweiser, Bud Light, Busch, Michelob Ultra, Stella Artois, and other Anheuser-Busch brands to these very same grocers, convenience stores, and retail outlets. They also distributed non–Anheuser-Busch brands like energy drinks, waters, and teas.
It would be a match made in heaven: Anheuser-Busch could distribute Black Rifle Coffee’s coffee cans on the same trucks that carried Bud Light. Black Rifle Coffee wouldn’t have to set up its own logistics chain, and Anheuser-Busch could grow its revenue.
But in January 2022, Anheuser-Busch’s top brass didn’t see it that way. Black Rifle Coffee may have been beloved by veterans and the Fox News crowd, but what would the New York City illuminati think of Brendan when news of the partnership spread at cocktail hours and dinner parties? Of course, they didn’t frame it that way. Instead, they invoked the mantra of “reputational risk” as though Anheuser-Busch’s customers would suddenly revolt if they knew that the truck that carried their beer to the store had also carried Black Rifle Coffee. &#8230;
At that moment, I knew that the company where I had spent eleven years had changed. And not for the better. Anheuser-Busch’s executives weren’t evaluating a partnership that could reach new customers and increase shareholder value, they were concerned because Black Rifle Coffee didn’t jive with their personal values and those held by their progressive stakeholders. They had lost touch with Anheuser-Busch’s brand. With its mission. With its consumers. And that’s what set the company up for a much bigger, much more public failure nearly a year later.
* * *
Excerpted from &#8220;<a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Last-Call-for-Bud-Light/Anson-Frericks/9781668070901" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LAST CALL FOR BUD LIGHT</a>,&#8221; by Anson Frericks, published by Threshold Editions, a division of Simon &amp; Schuster. Copyright © 2025 by Anson Frericks.
Anson Frericks is the founder of Athletic Capital and the cofounder, with Vivek Ramaswamy, of Strive Asset Management. Prior to founding Strive, he led finance, sales, and marketing operations as president of Anheuser-Busch Sales &amp; Distribution Company. Anson is a frequent guest on Fox Business, CNBC, Fox &amp; Friends, Jesse Watters Primetime, and NewsNation, and his op-eds have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and more. He lives with his family in Cincinnati and received his BA from Yale and his MBA from Harvard.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Los Angeles Dodgers v Baltimore Orioles

I Worked At Anheuser-Busch When Bud Light Imploded. Here’s What I Learned.

Anheuser-Busch

Books

Dylan Mulvaney

Woke Culture

Costco won’t be gutting its diversity initiatives in response to the latest shareholder pushback. At its annual meeting yesterday, more than 98% of shareholders voted against a recent proposal urging the company to axe its diversity initiatives. Sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, the <a href="https://s201.q4cdn.com/287523651/files/doc_financials/2024/ar/FY24-Proxy-Statement.pdf">proposal</a> asserted that “DEI holds litigation, reputational and financial risks to the Company, and therefore financial risks to shareholders,” and laid out an explanation of Costco’s shifting diversity initiatives, including the company renaming its DEI efforts to “People and Communities.” As of today, Costco’s defense of diversity seems to have dealt a serious blow to the growing skepticism and criticism of DEI within many American companies. Seems.
So what’s to be made of this? Several weeks ago, I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-costcos-doubling-down-on-dei-means-and-doesnt-mean">wrote</a> that “Costco may not be the kind of company that flips overnight on biased corporate policies,” which is undoubtedly the case. Is Costco’s resounding rejection of this proposal an indicator that anti-DEI shareholder groups simply are falling on uncaring ears?
In a recent Axios <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/01/23/costco-dei-shareholders-reject-anti-diversity-proposal#" target="_blank" rel="noopener">piece</a> covering the vote, Trillium Asset Management chief advocacy officer Jonas Kron made the case. “It&#8217;s also a strong indication that all the media reports of the death of DEI and ESG are way overblown,” Kron said. “The investing community clearly understands the importance and value of these ESG and DEI approaches.” Let’s leave aside the whole “death of DEI” business, that’s been covered <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-year-the-dei-tide-turned" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in depth before</a>, how no serious corporate engagement figure thinks diversity programs are actually dead. However, what about Kron’s opinions on the “investing community?” This is clever wording, intentionally or otherwise, from Kron. Who exactly are the “investing community” that generated such a strong pushback to Costco’s DEI-skeptical shareholders?
To explain how shareholder proposals work, we’re going to have to get a bit technical. Perspective time: you’re a Costco shareholder and as such receive a proxy statement from the company ahead of its annual meeting, containing all the items to be voted on, including this anti-DEI proposal. But the reality? Most people don’t vote directly on shareholder proposals. That job gets outsourced to what’s called a “proxy adviser,” prominent <a href="https://www.diligent.com/resources/blog/Proxy-advisory-firms" target="_blank" rel="noopener">examples</a> of which include Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis &amp; Co. Such proxy advisory firms are the ones that make recommendations regarding the best way to vote on many shareholder proposals, including ones that pertain to ESG &amp; DEI initiatives. Very few alternatives exist for ESG and DEI skeptical shareholders — the firm I work for, Bowyer Research, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/proxy-adviser-iss-expands-offerings-esg-skeptic-clients-2024-03-04/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">currently offers</a> the only such set of ESG skeptical guidelines offered through ISS.
The point of this explanation? Most Costco shareholders didn’t directly vote their shares on the anti-DEI proposal on the company’s ballot yesterday. Proxy advisory services are notably unfriendly to proposals calling for corporate depoliticization — and their recommendations determine the votes of vast swaths of corporate shareholders. To be clear, many pro-ESG resolutions are also not looked fondly upon by proxy advisers.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?_gl=1*1lail3r*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MzIyMDEyNDkuQ2owS0NRaUEwZnU1QmhEUUFSSXNBTVhVQk9JSkM0VnNsMFVreURxYXUxVWVEVWdOdjZkNzR2Y1pEeEZQeHVBcGl2R3BLaTdBMjVzT1p5TWFBdG1nRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*NDUxNDQ0NzYwLjE3MzY3ODI2NDY.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNjk1NzYwMy4zNDAuMS4xNzM2OTU3NzE2LjYwLjAuMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener">CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT</a></h3>
The pro-DEI crowd, as evidenced by perspectives like Kron’s, would like you to think that the Costco narrative is one of shareholders directly voting en masse to keep their diversity initiatives. But, as with many things, the reality is more complicated. Most of the “against” votes on this proposal were determined by the will of a proxy adviser. The bias of proxy advisers is another obstacle that ESG/DEI-skeptical corporate engagement groups have to overcome — and that work is ongoing. We’re in this for the long game, and setbacks are no longer a deterrent.
Costco clearly isn’t flipping overnight on DEI, but that doesn’t mean they’re immune from pressure — and it definitely doesn’t mean the pressure’s going anywhere.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Costco Wholesale store exterior, Connecticut

Costco Votes To Keep DEI. What Now?

Costco

Watchdog group Consumers&#8217; Research warned butter giant <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/land-olakes-drops-its-racist-native-american-packaging-after-nearly-100-years" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Land O’Lakes</a> on Friday that its climate-focused initiatives could expose it to lawsuits that may raise costs for customers, according to a letter first shared with The Daily Wire. 
In a <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Land-O-Lakes-Industry-Warning-Letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> to Land O’Lakes CEO Beth Ford, Consumers&#8217; Research Executive Director Will Hild said that the agricultural company should stop pushing net-zero initiatives and focus on satisfying customers. Hild said the climate targets could create legal risks, pointing to a <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2024/attorney-general-james-sues-worlds-largest-beef-producer-misrepresenting" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> filed against meat processor JBS by New York Attorney General Letitia James over its climate promises. 
&#8220;Consumers’ Research is concerned that it is only a matter of time before national grocers, food producers, and food retailers, including Land O&#8217; Lakes, Inc., are subjected to state actions targeting their unrealistic net-zero commitments, as has happened with JBS,&#8221; Hild wrote.
Hild’s letter pointed to multiple Land O&#8217;Lakes climate goals, which closely mirror net-zero targets set by JBS. These goals, featured in its <a href="https://careers.landolakesinc.com/us/en/blogarticle/2021-esg-report-commitment-to-social-responsibility" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2021 ESG report</a> and 2023 <a href="https://api.landolakesinc.com/getmedia/8eea43e3-8d04-49ef-bf06-33204ed772d3/1224-lol-cir-digital.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Community Impact report</a>, include reducing direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2030, and net-zero in 2050.
&#8220;As this comparison makes plain, Land O&#8217; Lakes’ statements on emissions reduction goals expose the company to the same type of litigation JBS currently faces,&#8221; Hild wrote.
James has alleged that JBS’s net-zero target is “greenwashing” that “exploits the pocketbooks of everyday Americans and the promise of a healthy planet for future generations” by misleading customers. 
&#8220;The JBS lawsuit by General James has made plain that there is risk lurking in the ESG and sustainability commitments of countless grocers and food retailers. There is no better time than now for Land O&#8217; Lakes to course correct, remove this ESG risk, and pivot back to a pro-consumer approach to its business,&#8221; Hild wrote.
The letter went out the same time as Consumers&#8217; Research sent out a “woke alert” detailing how Land O’Lakes has embraced a variety of other DEI and ESG policies. 
For example, the company detailed in its 2021 ESG report that it had mandated “unconscious bias training for all people leaders,” noted that the company has an annual DEI-themed summit, and boasted that it scored 100% when ranked by the leftist Human Rights Campaign. 
Its 2023 community impact report also included a bar measuring how many non-white males it had working for the company. 
<div id="attachment_859881" style="width: 1472px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-859881" class="size-full wp-image-859881" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-16-at-12.32.17-PM.png" alt="" width="1462" height="566" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-16-at-12.32.17-PM.png 1462w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-16-at-12.32.17-PM-300x116.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-16-at-12.32.17-PM-1024x396.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-16-at-12.32.17-PM-768x297.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1462px) 100vw, 1462px" />Screen shot: Community impact report Land O&#8217;Lakes.</div>
The report said that the company wants to &#8220;expand supplier equity&#8221; and has instituted a &#8220;Supplier Diversity Program.&#8221; This program is for the company to focus on working with businesses owned by women, minorities, people who identify as gay or transgender, and disabled people.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?_gl=1*1lail3r*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MzIyMDEyNDkuQ2owS0NRaUEwZnU1QmhEUUFSSXNBTVhVQk9JSkM0VnNsMFVreURxYXUxVWVEVWdOdjZkNzR2Y1pEeEZQeHVBcGl2R3BLaTdBMjVzT1p5TWFBdG1nRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*NDUxNDQ0NzYwLjE3MzY3ODI2NDY.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNjk1NzYwMy4zNDAuMS4xNzM2OTU3NzE2LjYwLjAuMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?_gl%3D1*1lail3r*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MzIyMDEyNDkuQ2owS0NRaUEwZnU1QmhEUUFSSXNBTVhVQk9JSkM0VnNsMFVreURxYXUxVWVEVWdOdjZkNzR2Y1pEeEZQeHVBcGl2R3BLaTdBMjVzT1p5TWFBdG1nRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*NDUxNDQ0NzYwLjE3MzY3ODI2NDY.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNjk1NzYwMy4zNDAuMS4xNzM2OTU3NzE2LjYwLjAuMA..&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1737044212122000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3mp2MZNwEXBk00lKmCtOss">CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT</a>
In addition to its net-zero goals, Land O&#8217;Lakes also pushes several climate focused initiatives.
For example, the community impact report said that the company was “committed to helping our member-owners reduce the environmental impact of farming, especially the impacts of on-farm greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” through its Dairy 2025 initiative. As part of this project, the company hires consultants to measure the farmers&#8217; “milk emission factor.”
In 2020, the Minnesota-based Land O&#8217;Lakes dropped the American Indian woman who had adorned its packaging for nearly 100 years after some people complained the logo was racist.

Albertsons U.S. IPO Seeks Up To $1.3 Billion

EXCLUSIVE: Watchdog Warns Land O’Lakes To Steer Clear Of ‘Unrealistic’ Climate Targets

Economics

Letitia James

BlackRock announced this week that it was leaving a major climate activist group after Republicans criticized its involvement with the group. 
The company <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-09/blackrock-leaves-major-climate-group-amid-wall-street-exodus" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a letter that it would be leaving the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative, an organization of asset managers <a href="https://www.netzeroassetmanagers.org/">committed</a> to “supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner.” At one point, NZAM boasted its members controlled over $57 trillion in assets. 
BlackRock’s announcement comes after 11 Republican attorneys general, led by Texas AG Ken Paxton, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/republican-ags-sue-blackrock-say-it-has-conspired-against-coal-production" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed a lawsuit</a> in November against the asset manager over its involvement with groups like NZAM. Texas’ lawsuit accused BlackRock of violating antitrust laws by allegedly engaging in a conspiracy with other asset managers to constrict the market for coal. BlackRock has denied the allegations and said the suit is without merit. 
BlackRock’s letter, first obtained by Bloomberg, acknowledged that its involvement with NZAM “caused confusion regarding BlackRock’s practices and subjected us to legal inquiries from various public officials.”
“Our participation in NZAM didn’t impact the way we managed client portfolios,” the company said. “Therefore, our departure doesn’t change the way we develop products and solutions for clients or how we manage their portfolios.”
Despite exiting NZAM, BlackRock said it would “continue to assess material climate-related risks, alongside other investment risks, in delivering for clients.”
NZAM, which also lost the involvement of asset giant Vanguard, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5077576-blackrock-leaves-net-zero-climate-group/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> it was sad to see BlackRock go.
“We are disappointed to see any investor withdraw, but as a voluntary initiative, we respect any individual decisions signatories take,” NZAM told The Hill. “Climate risk is financial risk. NZAM exists to help investors mitigate these risks and to realise the benefits of the economic transition to net zero.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN ’25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a>
Will Hild, the executive director of Consumer’s Research, an organization opposed to the injection of politics into business, told The Daily Wire that the result of companies like BlackRock’s involvement in NZAM was to raise prices for consumers and lower the return for investors. 
“This should be music to the ears of every consumer in the entire country,” he said of BlackRock leaving NZAM. “It’s a good thing for consumers because it’s going to help alleviate some of the inflationary effects of ESG and net zero.”
He attributed BlackRock’s exit to Donald Trump&#8217;s re-election and Paxton&#8217;s lawsuit.

First Day Of Trading For 2025 At The NYSE And NASDAQ

BlackRock Exits Climate Activist Group After Pressure From Republicans

BlackRock

Texas

Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase have just abandoned the Net Zero Banking Alliance. While it seems to be yet another dire omen for so-called environment, social and corporate governance (ESG) investing, it would be premature for people on the Right to imagine that the Left’s lock on the finance industry is ending.
ESG investing is notionally the idea that investors should consider the eponymous non-financial factors of ESG in making finance and investment decisions. The biggest part of “ESG” investing is the “E” (environment) and the biggest part of the “E” is climate and the dubious goal of “net zero emissions,” which I have previously written about <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-quiet-refutation-of-net-zero-climate-change-emissions-energy-global-warming-sec-goals-clean-power-11672262963?mod=opinion_lead_pos8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a> and <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-zero-never-mind-environment-electrical-grid-carbon-emissions-climate-change-southern-co-energy-information-administration-db856556?mod=opinion_lead_pos10" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.
The phenomenon of ESG investing started out in the 1960s as “socially responsible investing” (SRI) investing, was rebranded as “corporate social responsibility” investing in the late 1990s and then rebranded again as ESG investing in the 2010s.
SRI/CSR/ESG investing was invented by the Left as a means of using stock ownership for political purposes. The practice started with labor unions in the 1960s. After the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, a cadre of Left-wing activists got together to figure out how to use investment as a means of advancing the rest of the Left’s agenda.
In “Biz-War and the Out of Power Elite,&#8221; author Jarol B. Manheim writes, “22 young and wealthy individuals who shared a common concern about the conservative turn the country had taken … hit upon the idea to pool their [financial] resources and direct them at what they saw as socially and politically desirable programs&#8230;” aimed at corporations. Though it took time, this program succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Meanwhile, the Right was largely asleep.
While Nobel laureate Milton Friedman prominently pushed back against SRI investing in his 1970 New York Times magazine article entitled, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” there was no organized follow-up until 2005. At that point, a friend of mine and I launched a publicly traded mutual fund called the Free Enterprise Action Fund to push back against the success the Left was having in foisting its CSR agenda on publicly-traded companies.
While our fund had <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114411692660116163" target="_blank" rel="noopener">success</a>, we didn’t have the resources to survive the catastrophic market conditions of the housing bubble collapse. The deep-pocketed Left, though, easily survived the tough market conditions and emerged on the other side with near total control of the finance industry with its rebranded and steroidal ESG investing strategy. Virtually all large banks and Wall Street firms joined one or more of the Net Zero Bank Alliance, Net Zero Asset Managers, Net Zero Insurance Alliance, Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), Climate Act 100+ and other similar groups.
But this success bred arrogance on the Left and awoke conservatives to a degree that the Free Enterprise Action Fund could only have dreamed about in the 2000s. By 2020, the ESG empire and its anti-fossil fuel, anti-conservative, DEI and other “woke” policies and practices had sufficiently alarmed red state politicians into pushback. State investigations, hearings and laws reining in ubiquitous ESG actors and activities popped up. Congress got involved. Then, ESG investing began to reveal itself as <a href="https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1866505394635645146" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a poor investment strategy.</a>
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN &#8217;25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a></h3>
Perhaps most importantly, though, it had become increasingly clear that the ESG actors were illegally colluding as a cartel, possibly running afoul of anti-trust laws. While the ESG actors could possibly organize themselves into pushback against red states, the post-2024-election prospect of facing a federal government entirely controlled by Republicans would be too daunting. So, amid the holiday distractions, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase all dropped out of the Net Zero Banking Alliance.
But those concerned about ESG would be wise not to declare victory and move on. The Left has acquired immense influence and power over the financial industry and has no intention of surrendering it. ESG may be dead as brand, but not as a strategy. The Left has been invested in SRI/CSR/ESG for a long time and for the long-term. While they will likely head underground for a few years, they will certainly be plotting a comeback that may start as soon as the 2026 elections.
* * *
Steve Milloy is a senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environment Legal Institute.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

NYSE Opens For Last Day Of Trading In 2024

As Banks Flee ESG, Conservatives Should Remain Vigilant

Bank of America

Banking

Citigroup

finance

Goldman Sachs

JP Morgan

Social Justice

Is the anti-DEI movement losing momentum? Costco certainly isn’t a fan of it.
Several days ago, the retail giant sparked <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/27/business/costco-dei/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">headlines</a> for a robust defense of its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, in response to an anti-DEI shareholder proposal from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR). “Our focus on diversity, equity and inclusion is to enhance our culture and the well-being of people whose lives we influence,” Costco <a href="https://s201.q4cdn.com/287523651/files/doc_financials/2024/ar/FY24-Proxy-Statement.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> in its response. “Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all.”
What does Costco’s doubling down actually mean? Is this the first stumble in the anti-DEI trend? Does a single company standing by its diversity efforts indicate a larger rebirth of support for biased corporate policies? The simple answer is: no. As someone whose day job involves dealing with corporate DEI, and who has helped submit shareholder proposals critical of DEI and other aspects of ESG (environmental, social, and governance issues), let me break down Costco’s DEI decision before explaining what it actually means.
<h3>What Actually Happened At Costco</h3>
To understand Costco’s decision, we first have to understand the basics of how shareholders talk to companies that they own. Under the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, eligible shareholders are allowed to submit proposals to the company and have those proposals featured on what’s known as a “proxy statement,” a document that goes to all shareholders of record before a company’s annual meeting. That proxy statement contains all the items of business on which a company’s shareholders vote — directors who are up for election, management issues, and whatever shareholder proposals are submitted.
In Costco’s case, the proposal was a simple one: evaluate the risks of Costco having DEI initiatives. That proposal is now on Costco’s ballot, and shareholders will vote on it later this month. The statement from Costco that generated the brouhaha is called a ‘statement of opposition,’ which company management issued in response to NCPPR’s shareholder proposal.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN &#8217;25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a></h3>
Now that we’re all clear on the basics, here’s the key truth about Costco’s statement on DEI: as a matter of corporate policy, this statement isn’t unusual. Companies issue statements of opposition for virtually every shareholder proposal they receive, whether it’s Lockheed Martin shareholders urging the company to ditch Israel, Google shareholders urging the company to censor pro-life pregnancy centers, or Costco shareholders urging the company to abandon DEI. As someone in the corporate engagement industry, these statements are very commonplace.
The <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/91254055/costco-no-nonsense-defense-of-dei-branding" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argument</a> that Costco’s statement, by itself, is a game-changer in the DEI debate makes no sense. It’s simply a part of the process on a matter of corporate business that hasn’t even been voted on yet.
<h3>What is Costco Actually A Litmus Test For?</h3>
That said, does the broader corporate stance behind Costco’s statement matter? Undoubtedly — and that’s also worth examining. Costco’s vision — where DEI can be simply framed as a milquetoast respect for diversity against which no one but (presumably) dysfunctional race-baiters would seriously argue — would have played quite nicely in 2021 or 2022, when the spirit of post-George Floyd racialism still permeated American corporate culture. But that vision is a hollow one in 2025. The legal/cultural <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-year-the-dei-tide-turned" target="_blank" rel="noopener">backlash</a> to DEI, combined with the reality of an incoming Republican administration that’s put DEI and ESG efforts in its crosshairs, is ushering in a new world — a world where companies with DEI programs are going to have to marshall a lot more to defend their diversity initiatives than the boilerplate rhetoric of “opportunity for all.” The microscopes of scrutiny have been brought out, by everyone from activists like Robby Starbuck to lawyers and corporate engagement professionals — and one brand’s willingness to stick to its guns now is no guarantee that it’ll do so indefinitely.
Costco’s doubling down on DEI is an unspoken appeal to a corporate zeitgeist that no longer exists. It’s a hard contrast to their competitors’ moves — such as Walmart’s admirable decision to listen to shareholder concerns about DEI. This is a different, undoubtedly shortsighted strategy: trying to peddle vaguery to shareholders and customers demanding specificity. Costco may not be the kind of company that flips overnight on biased corporate policies — but the vast majority of people working in the corporate engagement world are playing this for the long game. A short-term setback is nothing if not expected.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN and the Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Costco Wholesale in Folsom California

What Costco’s Doubling Down On DEI Means — And Doesn’t Mean

What Costco's Doubling Down On DEI Means — And Doesn't Mean

You may have seen that Donald Trump rang the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/12/style/donald-trump-time-stock-exchange.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opening bell</a> at the New York Stock Exchange today. And as far as ceremonial events in the lead-up to the inauguration, it&#8217;s a pretty big one. It&#8217;s a moment that highlights why the markets have been through the roof since Election Day. The incoming administration is giving investors a lot of hope because, in contrast to Kamala Harris — who wanted to tax the markets in unprecedented ways until they were completely destroyed — Trump wants less taxes, less regulation and less corrupt oversight from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which lately has become proficient at hassling Elon Musk over his political opinions.
But the New York Stock Exchange isn&#8217;t the only stock exchange where conservatives are taking a well-deserved victory lap today. Over at the NASDAQ, where the nation&#8217;s biggest technology companies are traded, yet another crushing blow was just dealt to so-called diversity, equity and inclusion practices, or DEI. This has been a year full of setbacks to the entire DEI industry, which I&#8217;ll recap in just a second. But what just happened at the NASDAQ deserves some explanation, because most people aren&#8217;t aware of what happened, even though it&#8217;s one of the most significant developments in the financial industry in recent years.
Let&#8217;s start at the beginning of the timeline. After George Floyd&#8217;s fateful overdose, the leaders of the NASDAQ decided that they needed to take decisive action. They believed that, if only the NASDAQ had different rules and regulations, George Floyd never would&#8217;ve spent his entire life committing violent felonies, robbing stores and resisting arrest. George Floyd would have been a wealthy stockbroker, if not for the lack of DEI in the financial industry. 
To that end, the CEO of NASDAQ went on CNBC and began promoting the idea of mandatory DEI disclosure rules for every company that was listed on the exchange. If companies didn&#8217;t comply with these rules, they would be delisted entirely, and their company would probably collapse.
So what did these DEI disclosure rules entail? Here&#8217;s the CEO of NASDAQ with the explanation. 
This is from late 2020, just a few months into the George Floyd hysteria. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Nasdaq CEO" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5WSjbdavvxQ?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So the idea is that every company that&#8217;s listed on the NASDAQ — which amounts to several thousand companies, including Apple, Google, Amazon, and so on — has to publish a DEI report every year. And this report requires one of two things.
The first option is for companies to state in their report that they have two members on their board of directors from an &#8220;underrepresented group,&#8221; including at least one female and, in addition to the female, one person who, &#8220;identifies as Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, biracial, or LGBTQ+.&#8221;
Alternatively, companies have the option of explaining in their reports why they didn&#8217;t meet the requirement. They have to publicly provide an explanation as to why they didn&#8217;t meet NASDAQ&#8217;s quota, which of course is intended to subject these companies to accusations of racism, bigotry and so on.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1504-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
This is coercion, obviously. It&#8217;s also unconstitutional and extremely, comically arbitrary. For some reason, NASDAQ demands that company&#8217;s have a &#8220;female&#8221; on the board (although they <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman">can&#8217;t define the word</a>). That&#8217;s a must-have. If you don&#8217;t have a female on the board, then you can&#8217;t pass Go, and you can&#8217;t collect your $200. But at the same time, NASDAQ isn&#8217;t insistent on having, say, a gay guy on the board. That&#8217;s not too important to them. If you have a Pacific Islander, that&#8217;s good enough. That basically counts as a gay guy, in NASDAQ&#8217;s eyes. All of the ethnic minority groups are interchangeable. Just pick one at random and you’re fine. Go grab an Alaskan native from the bargain bin. If you can’t find one, see if there are a couple of Native Americans on the clearance rack. That seems to be the attitude.
Later on in the same interview, the NASDAQ CEO decides to drop the pretense that this rule is about &#8220;disclosure.&#8221; 
She all but admits that the point is to strong-arm companies into making diversity hires. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Diversity Board Benefits" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kec-bKLsVS0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So, she repeats the debunked McKinsey study about how &#8220;diversity&#8221; supposedly makes companies more money, which is a complete fraud. We&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imLMG7C6oF4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">talked about</a> that before. McKinsey never found that DEI makes companies more money. They actually found that companies with a lot of money tend to practice DEI, which just proves that when companies have a lot of excess money lying around, they tend to waste it. So, saying that DEI makes companies money because successful companies have DEI is like saying that owning a Ferrari makes you money because people with lots of money own Ferraris.
But the important part of that clip is how the NASDAQ CEO admits that there&#8217;s been more than a decade of thinking about, &#8220;how can we bring more diversity on boards.&#8221; That&#8217;s their intent. And they finally decided on this course of action. They&#8217;re going to publicly shame companies that try to select board members on the basis of merit, instead of race and gender.
The rule went into effect shortly after that interview. And it&#8217;s been in effect for some time now. 
Yesterday, however, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in New Orleans, finally <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/12/12/nasdaq-board-diversity-regulations-appeals-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">put an end</a> to this insanity. They <a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60626-CV0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> that the Securities and Exchange Commission didn&#8217;t have the legal authority to approve this DEI policy. And it&#8217;s quite a takedown, to the point that it&#8217;s worth going through some of it.
Here&#8217;s one section of the <a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60626-CV0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">majority opinion</a> for example:
<blockquote>What is the public interest here? Nasdaq [claimed there is an] established link between the racial, gender, and LGTBQ+ identities of a company’s board members and &#8216;the quality of a company’s financial reporting, internal controls, public disclosures, and management oversight.&#8217; But Nasdaq offered little support for its assertion that there is an empirically established—or even logical—link between the racial, gender, and sexual composition of a company’s board and the quality of its governance. .. Nasdaq offered only the barest speculation to support the proposition that there is any link between investor protection and racial and sexual diversity.</blockquote>
In other words, the court did what no one in the corporate media did for the past five years. They actually looked at the studies that supposedly show that DEI helps companies improve their performance. And they found that there&#8217;s no evidence at all. This is something that activists in the federal government simply asserted, out of thin air — and then they accused you of being a racist if you disagreed. That tactic used to work. It doesn&#8217;t work anymore.
There are other reasons the court struck down this rule, as well. One of them is that the SEC is supposed to regulate things like &#8220;market manipulation and proxy voting.&#8221; They&#8217;re not supposed to be involved in forcing DEI mandates and social engineering down everyone&#8217;s throat. So they&#8217;re wildly overstepping their authority — especially since states, not the federal government, are supposed to have the primary authority to regulate corporations.
The only surprising part of this ruling is that it took so long. Initially, when the Fifth Circuit heard this case, they upheld the DEI rule, probably because all three judges on the panel were appointed by Democrat presidents. But two conservative groups — the National Center for Public Policy Research and the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment — appealed to a full panel of the Fifth Circuit, which ultimately overturned the rule.
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a></h3>
This is, among other things, a devastating blow to the DEI agenda. It&#8217;s a rejection of the federal government&#8217;s efforts to force some of the most powerful companies on the planet to practice DEI. It also creates a lot of problems for so-called E.S.G. investing, where major investment firms direct money to companies that practice DEI. These activists recognized that financial incentives are some of the most potent tools they have, in order to force compliance with their agenda. And now they&#8217;re losing control over those incentives.
And this is just one of the major court victories in the past week concerning DEI. 
Separately, federal judge Reed O&#8217;Connor in Texas just struck down Boeing&#8217;s proposed plea deal with the Biden administration, concerning the crashes of those 737 MAX jets a few years ago. The Biden DOJ and Boeing came to an agreement that will allow Boeing to avoid a federal criminal trial for its negligence. And part of that deal involves the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee Boeing, since they appear to struggle with designing planes that don&#8217;t try to deliberately crash themselves.
But the plea deal had a major problem, which the DOJ and Boeing tried to slip past the judge. It requires that the monitor be selected on the basis of DEI. And the judge threw out the plea deal as a result. He&#8217;s not going to tolerate DEI being used when people&#8217;s lives are at stake, which in this situation, they clearly are. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Boeing and DOJ" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1R6-RODoCfk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
When we <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhXiDL4kN3k" target="_blank" rel="noopener">talked about</a> this case a few weeks ago, it looked like Judge O&#8217;Connor was going to toss this plea deal. He <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/planes-are-falling-from-the-sky-and-the-dojs-priority-is-dei" target="_blank" rel="noopener">grilled</a> lawyers for Boeing and the Biden administration about the provision that the independent monitor should be selected, &#8220;‘in keeping with the Department’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.” Specifically, the judge wanted to know whether the government had excluded any candidates based on race or gender. And the lawyers provided inconsistent responses, because they didn&#8217;t want to admit that the answer was obviously &#8220;yes.&#8221; That&#8217;s what DEI is.
So here&#8217;s what O&#8217;Connor <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/judge-didnt-need-to-cite-dei-to-reject-boeing-deal-experts-say" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in his ruling last week:
<blockquote>In a case of this magnitude, it is in the utmost interest of justice that the public is confident this monitor selection is done based solely on competency. The parties’ DEI efforts only serve to undermine this confidence in the Government and Boeing’s ethics and anti-fraud efforts.</blockquote>
Again, this is a major blow for DEI activists, in both the federal government and in government contractors. Unless they want future programs and plea deals to be held up in court, they&#8217;re now on notice that they should get rid of DEI entirely.
And already, it&#8217;s pretty obvious that Boeing understands that. They&#8217;ve recently <a href="https://www.johnlocke.org/boeing-joins-list-of-major-companies-dropping-dei/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> that they&#8217;re scrapping their entire DEI department. They&#8217;re under new leadership now, and the new CEO has decided — in no uncertain terms — that the whole concept of DEI has been a disaster for the company. In this case, Boeing&#8217;s announcement came after the filmmaker <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pure-lunacy-robby-starbuck-on-exposing-dei-in-corporate-america" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Robby Starbuck</a> reached out to the company, vowing to wage a war against their DEI policies. Starbuck has already <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/11/25/business/walmart-rolls-back-dei-policies-after-robby-starbuck-pressure/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pushed</a> multiple major corporations — from Jack Daniels to John Deere to Harley Davidson to Walmart to Ford — to gut or eliminate their DEI programs. And apparently Boeing didn&#8217;t want their own public shaming.
But there&#8217;s another important reason why Boeing and other companies are getting rid of DEI, as well. Republicans in Congress are currently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-that-would-purge-dei-from-the-government-one-step-closer-to-becoming-law" target="_blank" rel="noopener">advancing</a> the &#8220;Dismantle DEI Act,&#8221; which will eliminate DEI in the federal government. And crucially, the bill would also ban the federal government from hiring any contractors that practice DEI. In other words, these companies stand to lose billions of dollars if they keep discriminating on the basis of race. For companies like Boeing, which make nearly half of their money from the government, that would be devastating.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>
So they&#8217;re getting rid of this nonsense. In other words, Republicans in Congress, for the first time in a while, are generating very positive and very noticeable social change. And Democrats, for their part, can only screech and howl in response. I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-dei-is-finally-on-the-chopping-block-in-d-c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">covered</a> some of their reactions to the bill recently. They know they&#8217;re losing. They know they have no argument.
That has been the story of DEI in general this year. From states and universities dismantling their DEI programs, to the success of my film &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/am-i-racist#" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Am I Racist?</a>,&#8221; to the crushing defeat of Kamala Harris — the ultimate DEI candidate — it&#8217;s very clear that DEI is on its way out. The ideology that was so dominant just a few years ago has now been thoroughly exposed, humiliated, and laughed out of court. Just like BLM and hateful, fraudulent anti-white <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daniel-penny-is-not-guilty-justice-wins-in-spite-of-new-yorks-rigged-court-system" target="_blank" rel="noopener">narratives</a>, DEI has rapidly become irrelevant. Merit, competence and the rule of law are now ascendant. That&#8217;s one of the Right&#8217;s biggest victories of 2024. And it&#8217;s worth celebrating and memorializing, so that we never make the mistake of allowing these corrupt and moronic peddlers of race-hatred to ever hold power again.

Stock Rotation Hits Megacaps As Wall Street Traders Gear Up For The Fed’s Rate Decision

Is This The Final Deathblow To DEI?

Boeing

LGBTQ

Stock Market

Eleven Republican attorneys general sued <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/blackrock" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BlackRock</a> on Wednesday, alleging it had engaged in a conspiracy with other massive asset managers to constrict the market for coal.
Led by Texas, the attorneys general filed a <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/States%20v%20BlackRock%20Complaint%20Filed.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suit</a> on Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street have worked together to push climate policies in order to artificially restrict the supply of coal. The states say that the financial giants, which <a href="https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2024-11-27/blackrock-state-street-vanguard-sued-by-republican-states-over-climate-accords" target="_blank" rel="noopener">control</a> around $26 trillion, have violated federal and state antitrust laws.
“Texas will not tolerate the illegal weaponization of the financial industry in service of a destructive, politicized ‘environmental’ agenda. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street formed a cartel to rig the coal market, artificially reduce the energy supply, and raise prices,” <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-sues-blackrock-state-street-and-vanguard-illegally-conspiring-manipulate">said</a> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. “Their conspiracy has harmed American energy production and hurt consumers. This is a stunning violation of State and federal law.”
The suit was joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, West Virginia, and Wyoming. They argue that the asset managers have weaponized their holdings in coal companies to restrict the industry and raise prices.
“Defendants have leveraged their holdings and voting of shares to facilitate an output reduction scheme, which has artificially constrained the supply of coal, significantly diminished competition in the markets for coal, increased energy prices for American consumers, and produced cartel-level profits for Defendants,” the suit says.
“Competitive markets — not the dictates of far-flung asset managers — should determine the price Americans pay for electricity,” the Republican AGs added, saying that the companies pursued environmental, social, and governance policies that harmed investors&#8217; bottom line.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
Both State Street and BlackRock responded to the lawsuit by saying it was without merit.
&#8220;State Street acts in the long-term financial interests of investors with a focus on enhancing shareholder value. As long-term capital providers, we have a mutual interest in the long-term success of our portfolio companies. T​his lawsuit is baseless and look forward to presenting the facts through the legal process,&#8221; State Street said.
“BlackRock&#8217;s holdings in energy companies are regularly reviewed by federal and state regulators. We make these investments on behalf of our clients, and our focus is on delivering them financial returns,” the company told The Daily Wire.
“The suggestion that BlackRock has invested money in companies with the goal of harming those companies is baseless and defies common sense. This lawsuit undermines Texas&#8217; pro-business reputation and discourages investments in the companies consumers rely on,” it added.
BlackRock has long faced criticism from conservatives who have argued that it prioritizes leftist activism over customer benefit. The asset manager has been involved in climate-focused groups like the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, and Ceres.

Climate activists protest against fossil fuel use in New York

Republican AGs Sue BlackRock, Say It Has Conspired Against Coal Production

Coal

Ken Paxton

Social Issues

U.S.

Vanguard

The question of ‘how America’s biggest brands caved to political activists’ is one with a thousand different answers, from specific turning points like the post-George Floyd <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-fate-of-the-racially-furious" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DEI-ification</a> of the Fortune 250 to the gradual, institutional, <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/09/business-roundtables-failure-to-redefine-corporations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">redefinition</a> of business purpose via the term ‘stakeholder capitalism.’ Yet, as companies from Black &amp; Decker to Tractor Supply are saying no to corporate politicization, there are several major actors standing in their way, well-funded and properly entrenched organizations who’ve made destroying fiduciary duty their full-time mission. Perhaps the most effective of these actors? The Human Rights Campaign.
Formed in 1980, the HRC is one of the most prominent LGBTQ activist organizations in the country, and currently serves to advance a partisan, progressive agenda through the corporate policies of America’s most prominent brands. It does so through what’s called the Corporate Equality Index (CEI), a list of criteria that determine how worthy a corporation is of the ever-changing vacuous label of inclusive. What does a company have to do in 2024 to be considered perfectly inclusive? As per a recent HRC <a href="https://hrc-prod-requests.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/2023-CEI-Criteria-Toolkit-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criteria list</a>, the truly inclusive company provides employees with features such as: 
<ul>
<li>Health coverage for ‘medically necessary’ care for hormone replacement therapy, reconstructive gender reassignment surgeries </li>
<li>Puberty blockers for youth</li>
<li>Executive performance measures that include LGBTQ+ diversity metrics</li>
<li>Supplier diversity programs with special emphasis on LGBTQ+ suppliers</li>
</ul>
You’ll notice all of these have very little to do with confronting any real workplace bias, and even less to do with creating value for businesses and their shareholders, unless you truly believe that any business that doesn’t provide puberty blockers for children is actually transphobic. The increasing radicalism of the Human Rights Campaign’s business-scoring index, combined with the rhetoric of its leaders, increased media scrutiny, and pushback from the pro-shareholder side of the corporate world, led many brands to reevaluate their partnership with the activist organization. As the HRC declared 2023 a “state of emergency for LGBTQ+ people,” it would actually be the year that several big names decided to turn the page on the Index and the organization’s divisive, partisan, and non-business goals.
Fast forward to the present day, and the number of companies that have made public statements denouncing wokeness is only increasing: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tractor-supply-reverses-course-backs-out-of-woke-initiatives-following-conservative-backlash" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tractor Supply</a>, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/john-deere-is-latest-company-to-diminish-dei-says-it-wont-join-social-or-cultural-awareness-parades" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Deere</a>, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/08/28/dei-backlash-hits-ford/74982898007/">Ford</a>, <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/16/stanley-black-decker-nukes-corporate-diversity-robby-starbuck-craftsman-dewalt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stanley Black &amp; Decker</a>, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/04/molson-coors-pumps-the-brakes-on-dei-practices.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Molson Coors</a>, and the list goes on. From a certain POV, this is an absolute conservative win: discriminatory DEI policies gone, a renewed focus on business purpose instead of employee groups based on racial/gendered characteristics, and in many cases a severing of ties with the Human Rights Campaign (Tractor Supply, Ford, and Black &amp; Decker, for example, explicitly said they would no longer partner with the group). Victory lap time?
Not so fast—corporate wokeness didn’t come about overnight, and it’d be naive to assume that it’d go away that quickly. Nor did the Human Rights Campaign take this slight lying down. HRC president Kelley Robinson slammed the decision as “short-sighted,” and the group made a very public show of <a href="https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/hrc-foundation-announces-record-participation-in-upcoming-2025-corporate-equality-index-docks-scores-of-seven-companies-in-current-ranking-following-their-pullback-from-workplace-inclusion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">demoting</a> the Index scores of 7 companies (Ford, Molson Coors, Tractor Supply Co., John Deere, Lowe’s, Harley-Davidson and Brown-Forman).
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a></h3>
But then the HRC rolled out their next strategy, setting up anonymous tip lines for employees to document (1) experiences of discrimination and (2) what internal “inclusive” policies still existed at companies who’d ditched their partnership with the HRC. It’s a clever tactic—take inclusive policies behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes and meddlesome hands of shareholders and customers radical enough to believe that providing puberty blockers is not, in fact, an essential business function. But it also accomplishes a second objective that, for those of us combatting corporate bias, is similarly concerning: it allows companies to publicly back away from DEI to appease the anti-woke voices at their front door, whilst smuggling the same policies through the backdoor.
The HRC’s open scolding of companies that ditch wokeism highlights a final tactical lesson in the fight against business politicization: When ESG activists stop getting what they want from businesses, they stop pretending to be pro-business. As I <a href="https://x.com/IsaacWillour/status/1842022380643688486" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> on X several weeks ago, “People who actually care about businesses succeeding don&#8217;t solicit anonymous, non-verifiable &#8216;tips&#8217; on them. But the HRC does &#8211; they&#8217;re activists… with no incentive to preserve actual business function.” 
As someone in the trenches of the fight against ESG, the organizations and people pushing for political neutrality in business are doing it from a pro-business perspective. Of course they are — they’re investors and shareholders, who see the mavericks of the free enterprise system as good things, not convenient stepping stones for achieving radical social goals. The battle for political neutrality, shareholder primacy, and business success is one that extends beyond the election cycle. It behooves us, whether shareholders or investors or customers, to fight that battle with a realistic sense of scope. The activists we’re up against have spent years and countless sums of money to pressure businesses away from their fiduciary goals. We’re not getting rid of them overnight.
* * *
Isaac Willour is a corporate analyst at Bowyer Research, the leading shareholder-first proxy consulting firm. He is an award-winning journalist and political commentator, with work in outlets including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, C-SPAN, RealClearMarkets and the Daily Wire. He can be found on X at <a href="https://x.com/IsaacWillour">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Tractor Supply Co.

How Left-Wing Activists Are Trying To Save Corporate Wokeness

Human Rights Campaign

Puberty blockers

Menu

ESG