More than 25 state financial officers have drawn a line in the sand with corporate giants including BlackRock and Fidelity.
The group, made up of mostly treasurers, represents 21 states, 16 of which are governed by Republicans and five by Democrats. Together, they sent a damning letter to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, along with other major financial firms like JPMorgan Chase and Vanguard, announcing that their states are willing to cut off ties if certain stipulations are not met.
The letter is in reaction to a recent decision by Texan authorities to remove BlackRock from its state blacklist after the investment firm announced it would roll back its climate change initiatives. The other 21 states say, however, that BlackRock and others have not done enough.
'These financial officers are doing the right thing for their states.'
The state reps, all of whom are Republican, said that these companies must return to a "traditional fiduciary duty" in which they focus 100% on financial return, instead of using capital to advance left-wing social and political agendas.
In their letter to Fink, the financial officers said that while some companies have started moving in the right direction by withdrawing from global climate coalitions, there is still more work to be done.
The treasurers outlined five actions the firms must take to demonstrate a "commitment to a fiduciary model grounded in financial integrity, not political advocacy."
RELATED: BlackRock and friends may soon control your digital wallet
The first term called for the end of "framing deterministic future outcomes as long-term risks to justify immediate ideological interventions through corporate engagement or proxy votes." Climate change initiatives are listed as the most common example of this issue.
Other requirements demanded that companies "abstain from embedding international political agendas" within their company framework, which included "net-zero climate mandates" and the "EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)."
Additionally, in order to work with these states, firms must also divulge all "affiliations and collaborative initiatives" that could influence investment strategies or priorities.
"Participation in such groups must not compromise a fiduciary's obligation to act solely on behalf of beneficiaries," the state representatives declared.
RELATED: This investor is wiping out white-collar jobs
"Actions always speak louder than words. Requiring America's financial giants to prove their independence from woke ideology with concrete steps before doing business with a state's dollars is fully necessary and just makes sense," OJ Oleka, CEO of State Financial Officers Foundation, said in a statement provided to Blaze News.
Oleka added, "These financial officers are doing the right thing for their states and the taxpayers whose financial security they've been entrusted to protect."
In total, 18 companies received a letter from the state financial officers: Amundi, BlackRock Inc., BNY Mellon, Capital Group, Fidelity Investments, Franklin Templeton Investments, Geode Capital Management, Goldman Sachs, Invesco, JPMorgan Chase, Legal & General, Morgan Stanley, Northern Trust, Nuveen, State Street Corporation, T. Rowe Price, Vanguard, and Wellington Management Company.
The states represented in the letter to investment firms were as follows: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.
You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.
Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.
I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.
Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.
Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.
Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.
— (@)
That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.
It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.
To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.
His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.
In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.
Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?
RELATED: No, Mike Lee isn’t paving over Yellowstone for condos
As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.
That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.
Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.
Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.
Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?
The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”
BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.
That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.
I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.
This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.
More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
America is on the edge of a financial cliff, and Washington’s so-called “solution” is yet another clever ploy that could further centralize power and lead to a reduction in freedom.
The latest scheme is a bipartisan bill dubbed the Genius Act. The U.S. Senate passed the bill on Tuesday by a vote of 68-30. The bill now moves on to the House, where its prospects are less clear.
It’s time for the right to sound the alarm and reject the Genius Act — at least until it offers protections for individual liberty.
Supporters of the law claim it will modernize digital finance by issuing new regulations for stablecoins, shoring up assets currently used by millions of people worldwide.
But the legislation comes with serious threats to liberty as well. It could ultimately become a backdoor way to create a digital dollar, one that offers minimal privacy protections and is easily controlled by massive institutions unaccountable to voters.
Officially named the “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act,” the Genius Act aims to bring order and credibility to the booming stablecoin market.
Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies tied to supposedly “stable” assets like the U.S. dollar. USD Coin and Tether — two of the most widely used — circulate more than $200 billion combined.
The bill creates a regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers, allowing them to operate under either state or federal supervision. Lawmakers believe this approach will boost credibility with consumers and financial institutions.
The legislation also forces issuers to disclose their reserve assets, submit to public audits, and comply with the Bank Secrecy Act. That law requires financial entities to implement know-your-customer protocols and anti-money-laundering measures — rules that many stablecoin issuers currently avoid.
Most importantly, the Genius Act would force issuers to back their coins with liquid assets, such as U.S. dollars and Treasury securities. For example, for every USD Coin distributed, the issuer would need to maintain $1 in reserves or Treasury bills of equivalent value, ensuring that users can always exchange their stablecoins for dollars.
The Genius Act has drawn broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers from both parties praise its regulatory ambitions. But behind the applause lie serious risks.
The bill lays the foundation for a programmable digital currency system — one that lacks basic protections for privacy and liberty.
By granting stablecoins federal recognition and placing them under strict oversight and reserve rules, the Genius Act effectively turns them into government-blessed digital dollars, even if the federal government doesn’t issue them directly.
That might sound like progress — if the bill actually protected consumers. But it doesn’t.
The legislation includes no safeguards to prevent stablecoin issuers from linking usage to social credit systems, such as ESG scores, or restricting legal but politically disfavored transactions. These programmable currencies could easily reflect the ideological preferences of their creators.
RELATED: A brutal wake-up call from America’s most powerful banker
Want to donate to a political cause that a stablecoin company opposes? Expect a digital roadblock. Want to buy red meat, a gas-powered car, or anything else that fails to meet an ESG benchmark? Your money might simply stop working.
That’s not science fiction. That’s the likely outcome if Congress fails to add robust consumer protections to the Genius Act.
No one needs to use stablecoins — at least not yet. The Genius Act doesn’t eliminate traditional dollars. For now, consumers still have alternatives. But that could change quickly.
Stablecoins regulated by the U.S. government offer clear advantages over traditional currency. They move instantly, cost little or nothing to send, and operate around the clock. Because they’re digital, they require no physical infrastructure to create or distribute.
In nearly every respect, government-regulated stablecoins outperform paper money. Once the U.S. government legitimizes them and guarantees their safety, adoption will surge.
As usage grows, demand for traditional dollars could shrink. The companies issuing stablecoins would gain enormous control over economic life. Financial institutions could even begin phasing out physical currency, leaving those who resist digital money with no practical alternative.
That’s why Congress must include strong protections for individual liberty in any bill that accelerates stablecoin adoption. Without those safeguards, Americans may one day wake up to find their economic freedom coded out of existence.
One of the primary reasons so many in Washington support the Genius Act is that it would increase demand for Treasury bills, which helps the federal government finance its massive debt.
The Genius Act would require stablecoin issuers to back their currencies with cash or U.S. Treasurys. Of the two options, Treasury bills often make more sense for the companies issuing stablecoins. Why? Because Treasury bills pay interest.
Washington is drowning in red ink. With over $36 trillion in national debt and counting, the government desperately needs someone to keep buying its IOUs. Stablecoins could offer a trillion-dollar solution. By 2028, the Treasury Department estimates that stablecoin issuers could hold up to $1 trillion in Treasurys, so long as legislation like the Genius Act becomes law.
The Genius Act isn’t primarily about innovation. It’s about bailing out a bankrupt government.
Even more troubling is who stands to benefit. Major players behind these stablecoins include BlackRock, Fidelity, and other financial giants with deep ties to the globalist ESG agenda and organizations like the World Economic Forum. These aren’t neutral actors. They are ideological enforcers with an appetite for control.
Are these the people we want managing the digital currency of the future?
Are these the institutions we trust to safeguard our freedoms?
It’s time for the right to sound the alarm and reject the Genius Act — at least until it offers protections for individual liberty. If we do not act now, we may soon find ourselves in a nation where every transaction is tracked, every purchase scrutinized, and every dollar you “own” is merely rented from a system that can revoke your access with the flick of a switch.
BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, announced in a Friday memo that it dropped its diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, citing a shift in policy under President Donald Trump.
A company-wide email from senior executives — CEO Larry Fink, President Robert Kapito, and global head of human resources Caroline Heller — noted "significant changes to the U.S. legal and policy environment related to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) that apply to many companies, including BlackRock."
'These values have been fundamental.'
BlackRock stated that, as a result, it would conduct an ongoing review of its "global practices and announc[e] several changes today."
The company explained that it would not renew its "aspirational workforce representation" targets, dropping requirements for hiring managers to interview a diverse pool of candidates.
Additionally, BlackRock announced that its existing DEI staff would merge into a "Talent and Culture" team.
"Our employee networks, which are open to all employees and to which over 90% of employees belong, will continue to serve as important resources for our colleagues," the memo stated. "Last year, we welcomed more than 3,000 new colleagues and we are adding many more in 2025. Our connected and inclusive culture is imperative to achieving our commercial objectives and delivering performance for our clients."
In a 2021 letter to shareholders, Fink previously vowed to "embed DEI into everything we do."
In 2020, the asset manager established a goal to boost U.S. black and Latino employees by 30% and double the leadership numbers of those individuals by 2024. It has since abandoned these goals.
The company's 2023 annual report previously disclosed the percentage of its U.S.-based employees who identified as black and Latino. It also provided a breakdown of gender demographics. However, BlackRock's latest 2024 report did not disclose these stats.
Despite committing to ditching DEI-related practices, BlackRock reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining a diverse workforce and avoiding "groupthink."
The memo read, "We are committed to creating a culture that welcomes diverse people and perspectives to foster creative solutions and avoid groupthink. These values have been fundamental to our One BlackRock culture since our founding 37 years ago."
BlackRock has also been gradually retreating from woke practices, including environmental, social, and governance objectives. The company exited the United Nations-sponsored Net Zero Asset Managers coalition earlier this year.
Other corporations, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., McDonald's, Ford, and Walmart, have likewise recently walked back their DEI objectives following Trump's directive to investigate such programs for potential civil rights violations.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
In a significant victory, a federal judge in Texas has ruled that employers and asset managers cannot use environmental, social, and governance factors in employee retirement accounts. If this ruling holds up — which is likely, given the conservative composition of the appellate court — it will dramatically shift the balance of power between corporations and their employees.
This decision represents one of the most substantial blows to the ESG agenda to date. Companies that have been steering employees into ESG-focused investments, which prioritize progressive values over financial returns, now face legal repercussions. Continuing such practices would directly violate federal law. The ruling forces companies to re-evaluate their commitment to ESG initiatives, and many may withdraw from these funds before the case even reaches the appellate court.
Watching these corporations squirm as they try to backtrack and avoid legal repercussions is ever so satisfying.
The impact of this ruling could very well be the beginning of the end for the ESG movement as it’s been pushed by elites.
In even better news, BlackRock, a major player in the ESG movement, has officially left the United Nations’ International Association of Asset Managers. This is a direct rebuke of the global push for ESG initiatives and a major sign that the tide is turning. In contrast to the Glasgow Net Zero Conference in which the Global Financial Alliance for Net Zero — an organization championed by global elites — was pushing for ESG to be a central focus, BlackRock’s departure from the group signals that even those who were at the forefront of this movement are starting to distance themselves.
But it doesn't stop there. Every major U.S. bank has now announced that they too are leaving the U.N.’s Association of Net Zero ESG Bankers, another key part of the Glasgow Financial Alliance. For years, we’ve been warning that ESG in banking was one of the primary ways elites like Biden, the Davos crowd, and others were planning to reset the world’s economy.
The tides have turned — and now those very same banks are running away from ESG, a powerful signal of things to come. They know they’re on the losing side, and they’re scared that a new administration will come down hard on them for their involvement in these globalist initiatives.
In another win, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unveiled a shocking new rule that, if it survives, would prohibit many financial institutions from de-banking customers based on their political or religious views, or even certain types of speech. While the rule is not as comprehensive as we need it to be, it’s a step in the right direction — and it includes concerns raised by our allies about the dangers of ESG. The Trump administration has promised to come down even harder on the banks with tougher rules, and this is a very good start.
Watching these corporations squirm as they try to backtrack and avoid legal repercussions is ever so satisfying. Some are running for cover while others are desperately trying to ingratiate themselves with the powers that be. It’s clear that the backbone of these companies is made of rubber, not steel. They don’t really believe in the ESG values they preach — they’re just playing the game to get in bed with the political elites.
Now that Trump is back in town, these corporations are showing their true colors. They never cared about their customers or the values they forced upon them. It was always about the power they could acquire through catering to those in power at the time.
No company should be afraid of the president of the United States. But they’re not afraid of Donald Trump. They’re afraid of the return of the rule of law. They know that fascistic public-private partnerships between the government and corporations are on the way out. That’s a victory for freedom and a victory for the American people.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
A federal judge in Texas granted a victory Friday to American Airlines pilots suing the company for sacrificing the profitability of their 401(k) fund to pursue liberal causes.
It’s a potentially major blow in a long battle against political investing, called ESG (or environmental, social, and governance). And it paves the way for battles against BlackRock and other globe-dominating businesses that funnel trillions of Americans’ retirement and investment dollars toward left-wing causes. More, it demonstrates how the political catastrophe that has befallen corporate governance these past five years can be undone — by the same tool with which it was made.
We stumbled into this morass through risk aversion at the top. By risk aversion it must be undone.
The judge found that American Airlines violated its fiduciary duty of loyalty to the pilots. It comes on the heels of the same judge deciding that the class action can include every pilot who joined the 401(k) since 2017. That’s more than 100,000 people. The judge also found that American Airlines acted within the industry standards at the time, meaning the company did not violate its fiduciary duty of prudence.
“Industry standard” indeed. BlackRock, the firm American Airlines allowed to manage its $26 billion plan, essentially dominates the retirement plan industry, managing $11.5 trillion in assets globally. It is one of the most powerful firms on the planet, but that doesn't mean the company is a friend of the American dream. These are the guys literally buying up every affordable starter house across the country they can, turning would-be owners into permanent renters. The company says it doesn’t buy individual family homes, which is true — it buys the companies that do. While BlackRock isn’t named as a plaintiff in the Texas case, the implications are clear.
The surest way to defeat and destroy woke corporate politics is through litigation and the threat of litigation. We stumbled into this morass through risk aversion at the top. By risk aversion it must be undone.
Attorney General Bill Barr understood this well. In the final days of the first Trump administration, his Department of Justice issued memoranda warning corporations that that weighing race in their decisions could run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. In other words, you can’t punish people for being white, no matter how popular it is at the moment.
This was a real problem. If you believe the statistics from the peak woke years, white men made up only 6% of corporate hires. That’s overt discrimination in hiring practices.
Legal routes are so much more effective than shame, because human resources departments and others completely dominated by 20- and 30-something left-wing activists are hard to manage, even for top company executives. Few things are more ominous than being accused of racism, sexism, or anti-LGBT bias in corporate America, a fear even corporate directors share. Those directors need a way to say “no” loudly and clearly the next time they’re told to stop hiring white men.
Do you know what changes their calculus? Lawyers, lawsuits, and money. Few things would turn the tide quicker than a Justice Department punishing anti-white-male bias for four-plus years, along with an anonymous tip line bringing the force of investigation down on corporations. If the directors won’t shut down the left-wing crusaders in their midst, litigation will.
That’s why the Texas decision is so noteworthy. There’s plenty of road left for the pilots’ class action (and others), but the implications are clear. ESG investing is no longer a safe space. Corporate directors and state officials looking to invest their 401(k)s will all be looking at their own vulnerability — and pushing back on companies like BlackRock that expose them to potential liability. The real battle is going to be in employment, but that’s still big news, even if it isn’t over.
Bedford, July 2021: Corporations like BlackRock are steamrolling small business, buying up homes, and crushing the dream, but we can fight back
Federalist Radio Hour: Can we rescue the American dream from bully corporations?
Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter
Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford's newsletter.
CITY JOURNAL: Trump should abolish the federal mental health agency
People have a habit of assuming the changes all around us are naturally occurring. We grumble when there’s a sudden and clear increase in drug-addicted and mentally ill homeless menacing commuters and taking over public spaces, but we rarely wonder, “Is someone actively doing this? Is someone paying for this outcome because they want it? Am I paying for this outcome?” Sometimes it is just natural. But this one is not. Carolyn D. Gorman reports:
...The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the federal mental health agency ... was created in 1992 to “reduce the impact of ... mental illness on America’s communities” and to target services to people “most in need.” The agency has failed on both counts. People with serious mental illnesses, like schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, remain disproportionately represented among the homeless, incarcerated, and violent criminal populations. Mental illness has been a factor in nearly all of the deadliest mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, Viriginia Tech, Parkland, Aurora, Uvalde, El Paso, Sutherland Springs, Charleston, Oregon, Navy Yard, Binghamton, Killeen, Lewiston, Austin, Edmond, Pittsburgh, Santa Fe, Boulder, Dayton, Omaha, and Indianapolis — to name only a few.
The agency has not only failed to reduce the impact of mental illness in American life but also has undermined proven solutions by derailing resources from high-quality, intensive psychiatric treatment and advocating against involuntary commitment. Consider SAMHSA’s Protection and Advocacy (PAIMI) Program. The agency claims the program “is intended to protect and advocate for the rights” for people with serious mental illness, but in practice, it often directs funds to lawyers seeking to prevent needed hospitalizations. This can have disastrous results, as it did in 2006, when a mentally ill man named William Bruce killed his mother with a hatchet after SAMHSA-funded lawyers reportedly coached him on how to avoid involuntary treatment.
The federal mental health agency is also a hub for progressive activism. Seemingly any left-wing priority can win SAMHSA support if proponents claim that addressing it would reduce “trauma” or improve “mental well-being.” Billions of taxpayer dollars have been hijacked for things like “non-traditional holistic support” for “LGBTQI+” families; “affirming, comprehensive care” for “unhoused LGBTQ+ youth”; employee trainings and agency publications on “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, [and] Accessibility”; bulletins on the behavioral health effects of climate change; “Keep it Safe but Sexy” harm-reduction sessions for the “incarcerated and post-incarcerated socially disenfranchised”; and pop psychology-inspired social-emotional learning programs ...
The inclusion of a Chinese state-owned shipping company in this port deal would not just alter the agreement's original purpose but also jeopardize America’s control over this vital gateway.
Indiana's treasurer helped push banks to back down on canceling conservatives, and now a banker-backed bill would strip his office's powers.
The Big Three used the power they derive from investing other people's money to force compliance with a radical political goal.
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com