Social activism among corporate elites isn’t going away, but the Trump administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission have a solution to curb the influence of Wall Street’s largest asset managers, a conservative policy group argues. The Bull Moose Project says that, in the past, the investment firms BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street amassed significant control over shareholder votes through their dominance of passive index funds and used that influence to advance environmental, social, and governance initiatives and diversity, equity, and inclusion policies while wielding outsized power through shareholder proxy voting. However, the group contends that current decision makers at these investment firms are likely to steer these initiatives in the future if they remain in positions of influence. “Many executives at these firms are major Democratic donors, and that’s their right. They may be cozying up to the current administration. But ESG hasn’t gone away,” Aiden Buzzetti, president of The Bull Moose Foundation, told the Daily Signal. The firms collectively own about one-quarter of the U.S. stock market and are the largest single shareholder in about 90% of S&P 500 companies, according to a Bull Moose Project report titled “The Corporate Voting Cartel: How to Stop Wall Street Weaponization of Americans’ Retirement Plans.” “[F]earing scrutiny from the Trump administration and Republican Congress, the Big Three have temporarily backed away from much of their overtly pro-ESG and pro-DEI voting behavior,” the report says. “But the same biased personnel remain entrenched within the firms’ stewardship teams, with the same conviction that they have every right to weaponize their customers’ investment dollars to advance radical agendas when the time is ripe.” President Donald Trump signed an executive order in December on “Protecting American Investors from Foreign-Owned and Politically-Motivated Proxy Advisors.” The order largely targeted proxy advisory firms such as Glass, Lewis & Co. and Institutional Shareholder Services, which offer voting recommendations to shareholders in public companies. It did not address direct asset managers, and more action should be taken, The Bull Moose Project says. Buzzetti said he is “fairly confident” the Trump administration and the SEC will take action.  “Just as some Republican state legislatures have banned DEI and critical race theory long term, we think it’s important to block ESG for the long term,” Buzzetti said. The report names Tanya Levy-Odom, BlackRock’s head of investment stewardship of the Americas, who has authored articles focused on ESG and DEI. It also names State Street’s Americas head of asset stewardship, Holly Fetter, who discussed “wealth redistribution, economic and racial justice” in a 2018 podcast and is an advisory council member with the Clayman Institute of Gender Research at Stanford University. The firms have countered that they focus on getting the best return on investments for their customers, not on political concerns. “Vanguard does not have a house view on corporate governance nor do our funds vote in a uniform manner,” Netanel Spero, a spokesperson for Vanguard, told the Daily Signal in a written statement. “Proxy voting for Vanguard funds is managed, depending on the company in question, by the respective third-party managers, separate stewardship teams representing the two internal Vanguard investment managers, and via Vanguard Investor Choice.” BlackRock declined to comment for this story, but referenced its annual report, which said it is “legally required to make proxy voting determinations on behalf of clients who have delegated voting authority to us in a manner that is consistent with their investment objectives.” It further states proxy votes are cast on a “financial materiality-based approach and are focused solely on advancing clients’ long-term financial interests.” BlackRock also points to a report by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a conservative economic group that opposes ESG. The report examined 600 investment management companies on 50 ESG proposals in 2024. BlackRock was among the 11 that received an “A” rating. A State Street spokesperson declined to comment. The Bull Moose Project report recommends the SEC issue guidance encouraging or requiring “mirror voting,” in which passive index fund managers would vote their shares in the same proportion as active investors at shareholder meetings. “Asset managers are signaling they are backing off ESG and social activism for now, but the reason we are pushing for mirror voting is because when a Democratic administration eventually takes power, they will eventually utilize that power,” Buzzetti said. The report explains under “mirror voting,” if active shareholders supported a proposal by a 55%-45% margin, passive funds would automatically cast their votes in the same ratio. “Mirror voting simply holds passive funds to their own sales pitch: mirroring the market, not distorting it,” the report notes. The topic of mirror voting came up at an early June SEC Investor Advisory Committee meeting. Among the examples cited in the report is the 2021 proxy fight at Exxon Mobil. All three asset managers voted to back the environmental hedge fund Engine No. 1’s successful effort to add two members to the Exxon Mobil board of directors.

Gov. Mike DeWine on Tuesday revealed his stance on the death penalty, ruffling the feathers of many Ohio Republicans in the process. “I believe Ohio should abolish the death penalty. The Legislature could take this action, and I think they should take this action,” the governor said during a press conference. DeWine, a Republican leader who has been in Ohio politics for decades, cosponsored Senate Bill 1 to reinstate the death penalty while he was a state lawmaker. That bill was signed into law in 1981. The Columbus Dispatch reported that DeWine supported the death penalty when he was lieutenant governor, a member of the U.S. Congress, and also Ohio’s attorney general. “When I voted for the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1981, I believed that in some cases capital punishment could serve as a deterrent to keep some people from killing. For me, it was the moral justification for having the death penalty,” DeWine explained. He no longer believes it is a deterrent, however, and even said it is “impossible to make the case” today. A bipartisan bill in the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Bill 134, pertains to abolishing the death penalty. The bill’s sponsors include state Sen. Nickie Antonio, a Democrat, and state Sen. Stephen Huffman, a Republican. ACLU Ohio posted that DeWine “can and must use his executive authority to issue commutations to death row inmates who have exhausted all of their appeals in the courts.” DeWine received some support at the federal level as well, including from U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, who referenced his pro-life beliefs from “conception all the way through natural death.” “I support his moral point of view,” Moreno said about DeWine’s stance. Sen. @berniemoreno tells me he agrees with @GovMikeDeWine and personally opposes the death penalty, saying it’s “not something humans should do.”(stating the obvious here: Moreno doesn’t have a vote in the Ohio leg, but he’s among the highest ranking members of the Ohio GOP!) pic.twitter.com/XEyDfleSL3— Sarah Donaldson (@SarahEDon) June 17, 2026 State Rep. Brian Stewart, who supports the death penalty, nevertheless called the governor’s announcement “the least surprising news imaginable.” He further expressed his own support of the death penalty by highlighting individuals convicted of vicious crimes and by noting that the General Assembly “has already spoken” when it comes to keeping the death penalty as the law. There’s no “onus” to put on lawmakers. The General Assembly has already spoken: capital punishment is the law. The “onus” is on the executive branch to carry it out and enforce it. https://t.co/TU97SaKMkZ— Brian Stewart (@BrianStewartOH) June 16, 2026 Dave Yost, who left his attorney general role earlier this month to work for Alliance Defending Freedom, posted on X that his replacement, Andy Wilson, signaled his commitment to keeping the death penalty. I wondered how the new guy would react to his former boss’s public repentance on the death penalty. He stood his ground, and proved up again his prosecutor chops. https://t.co/T2l88XfWId— Dave Yost (@DaveYostOH) June 17, 2026 Wilson issued a statement on Wednesday that referenced his own experience as a prosecutor. “Having personally handled several death penalty trials, I understand the value of the death penalty as an option for prosecutors and victims in very limited circumstances. The decision to seek the death penalty is the most serious decision a prosecutor can make. My experience working with prosecutors across the state is that they do not make this choice lightly,” it read. Wilson’s statement also referenced that there are a few cases where “the death penalty is the only option that can bring a measure of justice and closure to the families of victims who rely on the criminal justice system to help them through the worst moments of their lives.” Despite DeWine’s stance, Wilson noted that the death penalty is “currently allowable under Ohio law.” Both the Republican and Democrat nominees running to replace Wilson for attorney general favor keeping the death penalty, reflecting bipartisan opposition to DeWine’s new stance. Auditor Keith Faber, the Republican nominee, stressed a need to utilize the current law and to “work with the General Assembly to identify constitutional methods of execution that can be implemented immediately.” He also argued that the death penalty serves as a deterrence to crime. While I appreciate that Governor DeWine has come to his new position on the death penalty earnestly, I believe he’s wrong on this issue. The current law has not been utilized. It should be. I’ll work with the General Assembly to identify constitutional methods of execution that…— Keith Faber (@KeithFaber) June 16, 2026 Democrat candidate John Kulewicz said he supports “the continued existence” of the death penalty, given that there are some crimes, “such as prisoners killing guards,” for which there “can be no other remedy.” “We must be exceedingly cautious, careful, and deliberate in applying it, because it is irrevocable,” Kulewicz said. The last time Ohio carried out the death penalty was in 2018. Although DeWine paused executions in 2019, the next execution has been scheduled for Jan. 13, 2027, right after DeWine leaves office, the Columbus Dispatch also noted.

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Socialist City Councilwoman Janeese Lewis George won Washington D.C.’s Democratic mayoral primary putting her on track to be the deep blue city’s next leader. Lewis George won 52.9% of the first choice vote, beating out her closest challenger former City Councilman Kenyan McDuffie who garnered 36.4%, the Associated Press reported Thursday with 75% of the vote counted. The AP called the race nearly two full days after polls closed Tuesday night. The race took long to call partly due to the fact that this was the first D.C. mayoral election conducted using ranked-choice voting. No other candidate in the race received more than 4% of the vote. Lewis George has represented the District’s Ward 4 since 2021, when she defeated a more moderate Democrat in the primary. During her campaign she has been compared to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and she is a self-described socialist. Like Mamdani, her campaign focused on cost-of-living issues and strengthening public services. Democratic D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has led the nation’s capital since 2015, did not seek reelection to a fourth term. McDuffie has served as D.C. council for Ward 5 for nearly ten years before spending three as an at-large council member. During Lewis George’s last reelection campaign, her opponents criticized her for being soft on crime. McDuffie has pointed out that Lewis George did not vote for sweeping crime bills in 2023 and voted against allowing landlords to evict potentially violent tenants, according to WAMU 88.5. Lewis George told Fox 5 that her vision is “someone who addresses retention, recruitment, morale and police enforcement.” Teen takeovers have been infiltrating D.C. leading to several arrests and violence occurring within the city. Lewis George said she was against the idea of implementing a youth curfew to combat teen takeovers and youth violence, according to USA Today. Lewis George has claimed that the cities teen takeovers can be solved by “investing more in safe spaces and activities for teenagers,” according to the outlet. “It is dangerous because we have federal troops who are in our city, masked [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ICE agents who are in our city,” Lewis George said in May. “These are the people enforcing this law in our young people, and these individuals are not trained in deescalation,” she added, according to USA Today. McDuffie criticized Lewis George’s take on crime and claimed that “doing nothing is not an option,” USA Today reported. In an effort to crack down on crime President Donald Trump deployed national guard to D.C. in August 2025. Lewis George was endorsed by the Working Families Party, the Metro D.C. Democratic Socialists of America and Our America, according to the AP. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Nearly three decades after the end of the Troubles, Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, is once again on fire. On Monday, June 8, a Sudanese “asylum” seeker attacked a local man on the street with a kitchen knife, slashing him across the face and neck. Graphic video of the attack, which blinded the victim in one eye, rapidly spread online. The suspect, identified as Hadi Alodid, has been charged with attempted murder, possession of a knife in a public place, and making threats to kill. In response, Belfast erupted. Rioters took to the streets, hurling bricks and bottles at police, torching vehicles, and burning homes in some Belfast neighborhoods with large migrant populations. Police deployed water cannons. Families were forced to flee burning buildings. The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service responded to 62 incidents in a single night. At least 27 people have been left homeless. Lest there be any doubt: Arson, mob violence, and the burning of innocent people’s homes are all indefensible acts. Mobocracy is here, there and everywhere the enemy of civilization. The masked men who burned out their neighbors for no reason disgraced themselves and their cause. But that hopefully obvious point aside, here is the question the Western press refuses to ask: Why does this keep happening? Because it does keep happening. Almost exactly a year ago, Northern Ireland convulsed in riots after two Romanian teenagers were charged with the attempted rape of a schoolgirl in Ballymena. The year before that, riots swept across England itself—Southport, Rotherham, town after town—following a mass stabbing at a girls’ dance class by a Muslim terrorist. The pattern is not difficult to discern. A horrific crime, or series of crimes, is committed. The perpetrator is a migrant, often some variety of “asylum” seeker. The government responds by condemning the violence of an enraged public while studiously avoiding any reckoning with the underlying policies that generated the crime and the inevitable subsequent rage. The Pravda press dutifully follows the official, regime-approved script. This week’s coverage has been instructive. The framing in outlet after establishment outlet has been nothing if not predictable: “anti-immigrant violence,” “far-right protesters,” “racist riots.” Northern Ireland’s first minister called the rioters “thugs” but had very little to say about the fact a Sudanese national blinded a constituent in Northern Ireland’s largest city. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the stabbing as “sickening”-fine—but devoted considerably more rhetorical energy to warning that “violence against people based on their background would not be tolerated.” As the late Canadian comic Norm MacDonald so memorably quipped a decade ago: “What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?” No one in the current British or Irish political leadership has earnestly asked whether a government that imports the whole world, with inadequate vetting and nonexistent assimilation, bears some meaningful share of the culpability for the social fractures now detonating like dynamite all across the British Isles. Why bother with any introspection? Far easier to just blame the “fascist” street thug menace. As for the regime media: It’s not that the press fails to condemn mob violence. On the contrary, it condemns it loudly and with great self-satisfaction. The press’s failure is more insidious: It’s the deliberate suppression of honest inquiry into cause and effect. It’s the refusal to consider why working-class people across Britain and Ireland are at a boiling point. The question goes unasked, the fateful underlying policies go unexamined, and the pressure cooker keeps building. The relevant facts are not in dispute. The United Kingdom has presided over one of the largest and least-managed immigration expansions—and, specifically, Muslim population expansions—in modern Western history. Applications for asylum, legitimate or not, have surged. Vetting has been porous. Integration has been an afterthought. And communities that were never consulted have borne the consequences most acutely. They have been told, repeatedly, that their discomfort reflects moral failure on their part rather than policy failure on the government’s part. That is British snobbishness at its absolute worst. Call this, instead, what it is: social transformation without representation. And ruinous social transformation, at that. At some point, the people who actually live with the consequences of the elite’s destructive policies cease asking permission to be heard. The answer is not to excuse violence but to take the underlying grievances seriously before the violence erupts in the first place. Starmer does not want to have that conversation. The BBC does not want to have that conversation. The New York Times most certainly does not want to have that conversation. But Belfast is having it—and it’s ugly. Worse, it may not stop anytime soon. Because unless Western governments stop treating skepticism of mass migration as a thought crime and start treating it as a legitimate concern, the fires will keep burning. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

After hearing that Vice President JD Vance had installed a chicken coop at the Naval Observatory, some people treated it as a political statement, but I suspect it is something much simpler. Recent estimates suggest roughly 11 million American households keep backyard chickens. That means the chicken coop behind the vice president’s residence is not unusual. The unusual thing is how many Americans have quietly decided they want a closer relationship with their food. Much of contemporary life—with its bureaucracy, homeowners associations, and planners—often seems to resist this trend, one arbitrary rule at a time. I do not believe that this resistance is rooted in a mistaken belief that chickens are somehow dangerous. I think it is because chickens are decentralized. They produce food close to home, and this reminds people that not every solution requires a large, stifling system. Long before I owned a ranch in Texas, I lived in Knollwood Country Club Estates, a golf course community in Southern California. I was a restaurant owner with a backyard chicken coop, a compost pile, a worm bin, and a growing fascination with where food comes from. The chickens taught me that food does not magically appear on grocery store shelves. They taught me that waste is often just a resource in the wrong place. They taught me that healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy animals, and healthy people are all connected. For decades, Americans have become increasingly disconnected from the production of their own food. Most people never question the arrangement until something goes wrong. Egg prices spike, supply chains break down, or grocery shelves sit empty of favorite ingredients. Then suddenly people realize how dependent they have become on systems they do not control, or even understand. That is why backyard chickens matter. Not because they will replace all of commercial agriculture, but because they reconnect people to food production. Chickens are the gateway drug to food sovereignty, and America seems to be rediscovering them. And the market has begun to take notice. Twenty years ago, finding a chicken coop usually meant a trip to a farm supply store. The other day, I walked through Costco and found ready-made chicken coops for sale. A few aisles away sat hydroponic towers designed to grow vegetables at home. Retailers do not dedicate floor space to products nobody wants. The desire to reconnect with food is real. For nearly all of human history, producing food was not a hobby. It was simply life. The appeal of collecting eggs still warm from the hen is not reserved for homesteaders or hobby farmers. Every one of us is only a few generations removed from an agrarian society. Whenever you gather eggs, plant a tomato, or harvest food with your own hands, you experience a kind of recollection of this reality. That recollection extends beyond food production itself; it also changes the way people think about waste. Roughly one-third of America’s food supply goes uneaten. A chicken sees opportunity where we see garbage. Vegetable scraps, stale bread, and even garden weeds become eggs. Yesterday’s leftovers become tomorrow’s breakfast. In Belgium, thousands of households received chickens as part of a waste reduction initiative. Instead of creating landfill waste, families are empowered to create food. One of the lessons farming has taught me is that God’s technology is often better than ours. A chicken takes weeds, insects, food scraps, and leftovers and transforms them into food while producing fertilizer for the next crop. No batteries or software updates are needed—just biology doing exactly what it was designed to do. Food sovereignty does not mean complete self-sufficiency. It simply means having some ability to participate in the production of your own food. Backyard chickens remind us that food can move directly from the land to the family without passing through a maze of institutions along the way. A flock of six hens will not feed a city, but it changes the way a family thinks. Then comes a tomato plant, a garden, composting, healthier soil, and eventually a deeper appreciation for where food comes from. A healthy society does not consist entirely of consumers. It consists of participants: people who grow some of their food, know their farmers, compost their scraps, and contribute to the life of their communities. That is why the chicken coop behind Vance’s house matters. It reminds people of something many Americans have forgotten: Food production is not reserved for corporations, governments, or professional farmers. Long before I owned a ranch, I learned that lesson in a golf course community in Southern California. It started with a chicken coop I was not supposed to have and eggs collected warm from the nest. Looking back, I was not just raising chickens. I was remembering something humans have known for thousands of years. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.