BlackRock drops DEI goals, citing US policy shift



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!

How a Texas court ruling could crush the left’s ESG agenda



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.

How BlackRock And The Rest Of The ‘Climate Cartel’ Stacked Exxon’s Board With Fossil Fuel Haters

The Big Three used the power they derive from investing other people's money to force compliance with a radical political goal.

A major legal victory over woke investment



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.

THE FIRE RISES

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 ...

GOP states sue ESG 'cartel': BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street accused of manipulating energy market



A coalition of 11 Republican-led states filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against BlackRock, Vanguard Group, and State Street Corporation, accusing the three asset managers of violating antitrust laws.

According to the complaint, the companies' promotion of environmental, social, and governance standards resulted in less coal production and higher energy prices.

Companies 'formed a cartel to rig the coal market.'

The lawsuit stated that the financial institutions "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 themselves by leveraging their power.

Reuters reported that the three financial institutions have more than $26 trillion in assets under their management.

The companies have pressured coal companies to reduce their carbon emission by more than 50% by 2030, the complaint noted.

"Competitive markets — not the dictates of far-flung asset managers — should determine the price Americans pay for electricity," it read.

The coalition of states — including Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, West Virginia, and Wyoming — was led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R).

Paxton accused the asset managers of "illegally conspiring to manipulate energy markets."

"These firms also deceived thousands of investors who elected to invest in non-ESG funds to maximize their profits. Yet these funds pursued ESG strategies notwithstanding the defendants' representations to the contrary," he claimed.

The lawsuit accused BlackRock of "actively deceiving investors about the nature of its funds" by using all of its holdings, even those in non-ESG funds, to advance its climate goals.

Paxton told Turning Point USA founder and CEO Charlie Kirk that the reduced coal production forces the U.S. to purchase more energy overseas.

"It's affecting consumers in all kinds of ways," he said.

Paxton wrote in a post on X, "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. Their conspiracy has harmed American energy production and hurt consumers. This is a stunning violation of State and federal law."

BlackRock said in a statement to Bloomberg that the lawsuit "undermines Texas' pro-business reputation."

"The suggestion that BlackRock invested money in companies with the goal of harming those companies is baseless and defies common sense," the company said.

Vanguard Group and State Street Corporation did not respond to a request for comment from Reuters or Bloomberg.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Letter to the Editor: Gasparino vs. Tice

Wokeness is stuff that most Americans of all races and genders can't stand. If they ate this stuff up, Disney—which has been indoctrinating children in gender fluidity through its programming—wouldn't have a stock price that hasn't moved in eight years. Bud Light would still be the nation's No 1. beer, not No. 3, after featuring a trans woman activist in a commercial. BlackRock would be advertising its fealty to Environmental, Social, and Governance investing instead of running away from it.

The post Letter to the Editor: Gasparino vs. Tice appeared first on .

BlackRock: The puppet master behind Kamala Harris



Kamala Harris is not a comedian, but you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

During the recent presidential debate, the tireless TikToker somehow managed to maintain a straight face while pledging to create an "opportunity economy" for the middle class. Yet, this promise rings hollow when both she and President Biden are deeply entangled with BlackRock, a firm notorious for crushing the very group she claims to uplift.

BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, openly praises the efficiency of totalitarian regimes; what does this say about where the firm’s loyalties lie?

In short, BlackRock has used its vast financial influence to sway political decisions, control market outcomes, and prioritize profits over the interests of everyday people.

Master of puppets

It's the puppet master behind the scenes, shaping policies that favor the elite while leaving the middle class to foot the bill. Harris' cozy relationship with BlackRock exposes her "opportunity economy" as nothing more than a smokescreen for serving the powerful.

The facts speak for themselves.

Harris' two top economic advisers, Michael Pyle and Brian Deese, were key players at BlackRock. Both weredrafted last month, likely to help her craft policies in anticipation of a potential presidency.

As for Joe Biden, since taking office, he has surrounded himself with former BlackRock executives, embedding the financial giant's influence at the highest levels of government.

Take Michael Pyle, once BlackRock’s global chief investment strategist, who recently served as U.S. deputy national security adviser for international economics. In this critical role, Pyle directed the administration's international economic policy and acted as Biden’s key representative, or “sherpa,” at the G7 and G20 summits. His sway over global economic strategy was significant.

Before this, Pyle helped shape domestic policy as Harris’ chief economic adviser during the administration's disastrous first year. His deep ties to BlackRock underscore the firm’s growing grip on the Biden administration's decision-making, further aligning government policy with Wall Street’s interests.

Last week BlackRock announced that it was rehiring Pyle as deputy head of it's $3.2 trillion portfolio management group.

And let’s not forget Adewale "Wally" Adeyemo, another key player in the Biden administration. Currently serving as deputy secretary of the treasury, the 43-year-old was once Larry Fink'sright-hand man at BlackRock. During his time at the investment giant, Adeyemo acted as a senior adviser and led the firm's public policy team, directly shaping BlackRock’s strategy in navigating government relations and regulatory frameworks. His current role places him in a powerful position to influence U.S. financial policy.

You break it, you bought it

Then there's Eric Van Nostrand, a former BlackRock executive now serving as a senior adviser under Biden on economic issues related to Russia and Ukraine,as reported by Bloomberg. Since Van Nostrand’s appointment, BlackRock’s interest and involvement in Ukraine have suspiciously intensified, with the firm advising on reconstruction efforts and channeling investment into critical sectors.

BlackRock's history suggests this support is far from altruistic. The firm has a notorious track record of capitalizing on geopolitical crises for financial gain, rather than genuinely aiding nations in need. Much like itsexploitative role during the 2008 financial crisis, when BlackRock profited from the collapse it helped precipitate, the firm now stands to benefit from Ukraine’s instability. Its influence over Kyiv’s policies, including the deregulation of urban planning, paves the way for corporate interests to exploit a rather dire situation.

Chinese democracy

It doesn’t stop at Ukraine. BlackRock isn’t just funding the destabilization of democracies abroad — it’s actively helping China, a regime that poses an existential threat to American interests.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America has revealed how BlackRock funnels billions into Chinese companies, many linked to the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army. This raises alarming questions about national security and America’s economic sovereignty.

BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, openly praises the efficiency of totalitarian regimes; what does this say about where the firm’s loyalties lie? Certainly not with the average American family struggling to make ends meet.

As if that weren't enough, BlackRock’s involvement in the U.S. military-industrial complex adds another layer to its nefarious influence. As highlighted by researchers at Corporate Accountability, an organization committed to exposing corporations that undermine democracy, BlackRock holds tens of billions in investments in major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing. By profiting directly from never-ending wars, BlackRock reaps enormous financial rewards while American taxpayers are left to foot the bill.

Which brings us back to Kamala Harris. For all her posturing, the flip-flopper-in-chief is not here to challenge this system. She’s here to safeguard it. If elected, Harris' economic policies will be molded by the same firm responsible for widening income inequality and eroding democracy. The Wall Street Journal has shed light on how BlackRock has amassed entire residential neighborhoods, turning these homes into rental properties. This aggressive acquisition strategy fuels bidding wars and drives up home prices, directly disadvantaging the middle class.

As Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale professor, has pointed out, Kamala Harris’ ties to Wall Street are even more intimate than Biden’s. And when Wall Street speaks, it’s really BlackRock’s voice you’re hearing. Harris’ campaign promises to support the middle class appear to be nothing more than a boldfaced lie. But this is what she excels at: bending the truth.

Make no mistake about it: BlackRock’s interests are diametrically opposed to those of the American people. A Harris presidency would mean more policies that enrich the few at the expense of the many. Kamala Harris isn’t the answer; on the contrary, she’s part of the problem.

Nasdaq Exempts Chinese Business Partners From Woke Politics It Forces On Americans

The Nasdaq is forcing identity politics onto corporate America, all the while exempting Communist China from its DEI agenda.

Glenn Beck / RFK Jr. interview going viral — especially the part when Kennedy says how Fauci avoided jail time ...



Last week, Glenn Beck sat down with independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for an extensive interview. The duo broached a wide range of subjects, including the World Economic Forum, NATO, the conflicts in Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, climate change, and of course, Big Pharma — which Kennedy has been incredibly outspoken about.

On that subject, Kennedy was quick to bring up the absurdity of how COVID-19 was handled, starting with Donald Trump.

“During COVID ... President Trump got rolled by his bureaucrats, and he came in saying, ‘I’m a businessman, I’m gonna run this place like a business,' [so] he gave the keys to all of our shops and stores and businesses to Tony Fauci and shut down 3.3 million businesses,” he told Glenn.

Glenn agreed wholeheartedly and followed with a question we all want answered: “What do you do to restore the trust [in the medical industry]?”

“What we now know because of the Wuhan lab ... [is] they’re messing with Ebola and they’re messing with Chikungunya and all of these really horrific diseases ... with 50%, 20%, 10% [mortality rates],” he told Glenn, adding that “of course some of them escape every year.”

Who’s behind this atrocity?

If you guessed Anthony Fauci, you’re correct.

Kennedy explained that when the Patriot Act was passed, it mandated “that any federal officer or employee who violates [the Geneva Convention or the 1973 Bioweapons Convention] cannot be prosecuted.”

“That relaunched the bioweapons arms race,” he said. The Pentagon “started redirecting all that money to Anthony Fauci to do bioweapons research.”

“So, why isn’t he in jail?” Glenn asked.

“He’s not in jail because Joe Biden is president,” was Kennedy’s frank answer.

That honesty perked up the ears of news outlets such as the New York Post and the Daily Mail, which published articles covering Glenn and Kennedy’s candid conversation.

To see the full interview, watch the video below.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

RFK Jr. admits he was WRONG to call for Glenn Beck’s censorship: 'I would never say anything like that today'



Last week, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sat down for an extensive interview with Glenn Beck. The two discussed a range of subjects, including the World Economic Forum (which Kennedy fittingly called the “billionaires boys' club”), the complexities of NATO, the depravity of Big Pharma, and the ongoing conflicts between Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, among other issues.

Glenn also pressed Kennedy on his thoughts regarding ESG, the Second Amendment, as well as the candidate's previous statements on climate change — one of which was aimed directly at Glenn.

At a Live Earth concert back in 2007, RFK Jr. made the following statement:

“So, I'm gonna tell you this, that the next time you see John Stossel or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity — these flat-earthers, these corporate toadies lying to you, lying to the American public, and telling you that global warming doesn't exist — you send an email to their advertisers and tell them you're not going to buy their products anymore. This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors.”

“You’re smart enough to know what that means constitutionally,” Glenn said after reading the quote.

“I wouldn’t say that today,” was Kennedy’s humble response. “Part of the reason I wouldn’t say that is because I watched our country run over not only the First Amendment but all three arms of the First Amendment.”

He then cited the way the government “closed a million churches for a year,” “[rolled] over the rights of freedom of assembly,” “shut down 3.3 million businesses with no due process, no just compensation,” and “got rid of the Seventh Amendment” as the reasons he feels differently today.

“The First Amendment was not written to protect speech that we all want to hear. It was for the speech nobody wants to hear,” even if it’s “embarrassing,” “appalling,” or shares “ideas that are horrible ideas,” he told Glenn.

“I would never say anything like that today,” he continued, referring to his 2007 statement. “My thinking on it has evolved, and I can see how dangerous statements like that are.”

To hear Glenn’s response, watch the video below.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.