Summary Corporate ESG investments often lack traditional expected-value and return-on-investment scrutiny. Wasteful ESG spending can harm affordability, national security, free enterprise, and social cohesion. Heritage’s American Investor Initiative seeks greater ESG ROI transparency and corporate accountability. Environmental, social, and governance factors, including diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, continue to play a material role in corporate governance, reportedly driving trillions of dollars in investments.  Shareholders and other corporate stakeholders likely assume these investments—such as net-zero commitments and employee resource groups that divide employees on the basis of race and sex—are subject to traditional screens like expected value and return-on-investment calculations.   In fact, fiduciary duties arguably require investments to be vetted via expected value and ROI unless a good reason exists not to. Yet corporate ESG and sustainability reports rarely, if ever, even mention expected value or return on investment, leading to serious questions about how shareholders’ money is being spent on what are often ideologically driven agendas.  While it may come as a surprise, when corporations waste money on ESG, the subsequent loss of shareholder value implicates (1) affordability, (2) the growing national security threat of China, (3) the rise of socialism, and even (4) the Islamification of the United States.  First, if corporations “go woke, go broke” by wasting money on ESG investments, necessities become harder to afford for retirees relying on the stock performance of those companies. Likewise, when ESG investments take the form of DEI initiatives that discriminate on the basis of race and sex in the name of racist “equity,” the individuals left unemployed or underemployed because of such initiatives face similar affordability challenges.     Second, ESG investments that undermine the energy independence of the United States via utopian “green” initiatives are notorious for strengthening China. For example, as I put it in September, “while net-zero commitments undermine U.S. energy independence, prosperity, and national security, China is not similarly limited,” which means U.S. corporate net-zero commitments may give China a leg up in its competition with the U.S. Relatedly, corporate DEI initiatives that divide employees on the basis of race and sex can undermine social cohesion in the U.S. in ways that China can take advantage of.  Third, wasteful spending in the name of ESG may be deemed a form of crony capitalism, but when the consequent costs are mistakenly or purposefully improperly attributed to free market capitalism, the destructive specter of socialism grows.  Finally, when ESG investments promote a nihilistic multiculturalism and a war on Western civilization and Christianity in the name of “inclusion,” the threat of Islamification of the United States similarly grows.  The foregoing are just some of the costs arguably imposed on Americans via corporate ESG investments untethered from the market discipline of traditional expected value calculations or ROI. They help explain why one of the areas of focus for The Heritage Foundation’s American Investor Initiative is ESG ROI. Among other things, the initiative files shareholder proposals requesting ESG ROI transparency and negotiates related improvements in corporate disclosures.   Even a seemingly open-ended statement that a corporation “may” consider expected value and ROI in making ESG investments can materially improve corporate disclosure and market accountability, if for no other reason than what such a statement does not say.   For example, a corporation making such a statement could have said that calculating ESG ROI is impossible or that ESG ROI is irrelevant because all ESG investments are compliance cost centers. In fact, in a recent post on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, my colleague Allen Mendenhall and I noted that “when we have offered to withdraw shareholder proposals if a company would state publicly that its sustainability commitments are legally required, companies have generally declined to do so.”   Incremental disclosure improvements that take such objections to ESG ROI off the table—at least as across-the-board excuses—set the stage for further transparency and accountability.  In the end, improving corporate accountability for ESG ROI benefits corporations, their shareholders, and other stakeholders, as well as free enterprise generally. Accordingly, more work needs to be done to improve corporate ESG ROI disclosures and accountability, and Heritage’s American Investor Initiative will continue to do that work. 

Summary Churches became battlegrounds over political authority as the American Revolution approached. Loyalist ministers defended obedience to the Crown as resistance gathered strength. Some preachers argued resistance could be consistent with Christian duty and liberty. On Aug. 14, 1774, the Rev. John Bullman climbed into the towering pulpit of Charleston’s St. Michael’s Church and told his South Carolina congregation that they needed to know their place.  As tensions with Great Britain mounted, Bullman, St. Michael’s assistant rector, preached “The Christian Duty of Peaceableness.”  He ridiculed the “silly Clown” and “illiterate Mechanic” who presumed to “censure the conduct of his Prince or Governor.” There was, Bullman declared, “no greater Instrument or Ornament of Peace” than for every man to keep “his own Rank” and perform the duties of his station. The congregation erupted.  The next day, the vestry—the parish’s lay governing body—considered a sermon that had caused “great offence and exasperated many of the inhabitants.” Some parishioners threatened to leave the church; the controversy grew so heated that violence was feared.  The vestry moved against Bullman almost immediately. By the following morning, he had been relieved of his position. He remained in Charleston for several months, hoping for reinstatement, before returning to England.  Completed in 1761 at Charleston’s famous Four Corners, St. Michael’s was among colonial America’s grandest churches. Its 186-foot steeple dominated the skyline. Its pews held men who would help lead a revolution their ministers struggled to accept. Thomas Heyward Jr. and Thomas Lynch Jr. would sign the Declaration of Independence; Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge, and Pierce Butler would sign the Constitution.  At nearby St. Philip’s, the Rev. Robert Smith reached a different conclusion about Christian duty and political resistance. In February 1775, he preached to South Carolina’s political leaders on a day of fasting and prayer amid the dispute with Britain. Smith defended the colonists’ cause as the “sole Defence of undoubted rights,” while urging them to examine their own conduct and acknowledge their dependence on God. He rejected the claim that resistance necessarily sprang from an “unreasonable thirst of power, or factious discontent.”  Smith called his listeners to repentance and placed their cause under divine judgment, but he made clear that defending their rights could be consistent with Christian duty. Sixteen months later, he enlisted as a private to defend Charleston.  The Church of England was intertwined with the British establishment, and its clergy had sworn allegiance to the Crown. Anglican worship included prayers for the king, a practice that became politically explosive as resistance turned toward revolution.  Yet Anglicanism did not dictate one political position. Smith showed that a clergyman could defend the colonists’ rights while remaining a priest of the Church of England. For Bullman and other loyalist clergy, obedience to established authority was a religious obligation. As resistance hardened, Anglican priests faced a question of conscience: What did a clergyman owe the king when his congregation turned against him?  Bullman chose loyalty to the Crown. Many parishioners did not.  St. Michael’s rector, the Rev. Robert Cooper, also remained loyal. He refused to sign the Patriot association, join the militia, or take an oath of allegiance to South Carolina.  By the summer of 1776, the dispute over allegiance was no longer confined to sermons and vestry meetings. It was about to be tested by cannon fire.  The British Royal Navy opened fire on the unfinished palmetto-log fort on Sullivan’s Island. Among Col. William Moultrie’s defenders were Rev. Smith, my fifth-great-grandfather James Baggett, Catawba warriors, Francis Marion, William Jasper, Danger Thomson, and more than 1,200 other soldiers.   Outnumbered by a British force of nearly 3,000 men and facing nine armed warships, Moultrie’s defenders endured hours of cannon fire and lost 12 men, but they ultimately repelled the Royal Navy’s assault. Charleston rejoiced!   Christopher Gadsden, commanding at Fort Johnson across the harbor, sent Moultrie a message: “I congratulate you on the drubbing you gave those fellows.”   Susannah Elliott sailed to Sullivan’s Island to congratulate the defenders, including her husband, Maj. Barnard Elliott, who had fought in the battle. She presented the Second South Carolina Regiment with two silk banners she had embroidered herself, praising their gallant defense of “Liberty & your country.”  The victory at Sullivan’s Island made heroes of Charleston’s defenders. It also made neutrality increasingly impossible.  As Moultrie’s men fought the British fleet on June 28, Cooper publicly prayed at St. Michael’s that God would strengthen George III to triumph over his enemies.  Smith, however, returned to the pulpit at St. Philip’s on June 30 and hailed Charleston’s defenders. The contrast between the two clergymen could hardly have been clearer. One prayed for the king’s victory; the other thanked God for a Patriot triumph he had helped secure.  This was too much for St. Michael’s vestry. On July 2, they dismissed Cooper for persisting in his allegiance to the Crown.   That same day in Philadelphia, the Continental Congress declared that the colonies “are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.” Two days later, Congress adopted the Declaration explaining that decision.  Bullman and Cooper may sincerely have believed that Christian duty required obedience to the Crown. But the question was not settled by sincerity alone. Political authority is not absolute, and resistance to earthly authority is not necessarily rebellion against God.  Smith’s example offered another understanding of Christian responsibility. He defended the colonists’ rights while placing their cause under moral scrutiny. The Patriot conviction that government existed to secure liberties endowed by the Creator, rather than exercise unlimited authority over the people, gave many colonists a powerful moral argument for resistance.  The dividing line in Charleston did not always run between denominations, or even between churches. Sometimes it ran straight down the aisle.  In August 1774, Bullman climbed into one of colonial America’s grandest pulpits and told his congregation that peace required every man to keep his proper place. The people listening were about to help create a new country.  They had no intention of staying in their place.  This article is part of a series on the American Revolution in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia.   We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal

American voters have spoken. And in our 250th anniversary year, it’s encouraging to know that our constitutional order has survived another election.   Yes, we finalize our political battles in the private voting booth.   It appears yet again that the majority of American voters prefer a divided government to coerce political consensus.  As Congress prepares to return for a postelection legislative session, there are major items on its agenda, and hopefully personal agendas can be set aside on behalf of some needed reforms for its constituents.  On Nov. 9, the Senate will vote to consider the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. This bill proposes to reform the federal environmental review and permitting processes with the goal of delivering cheaper energy, more jobs, and responsible growth across the United States.  The bill has been introduced by the Republican chairmen and ranking Democrat members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Despite this high-level support from Democrat committee leaders, it’s not certain that Democrat senators will provide enough support to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary under Senate rules to proceed to consideration of the bill.  After running a midterm elections campaign in which Democrats repeatedly professed their concern about affordability, it’s time to transform their campaign rhetoric into votes to proceed to Senate consideration of this legislation and final passage in both houses of Congress before the end of 2026.  As an advocate for limited government and free market economic policies, I joined Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and other coalition leaders in calling on the Senate to pass this legislation expeditiously. Our call points out that BAAJA will “lower energy costs, speed up approval of critical infrastructure projects, curb superfluous litigation, and give builders and investors the certainty they need to commit capital.”  Urgently needed energy and infrastructure projects currently spend years under review before they can even begin. Approvals can be delayed by redundant paperwork, blocked by a single state for political reasons or tied up in litigation long after a permit is issued. Left-wing activists, who oppose entire categories of American energy production, use these tedious review processes to stall or stop projects.  These delays discourage investment and reward obstruction, leaving America more dependent on foreign energy sources. The costs are passed on to families and businesses through higher energy costs and fewer jobs.  The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has warned that 13 of 23 regional assessment areas will face resource adequacy challenges over the next 10 years. Other data shows that electricity demand is growing at its fastest pace since 2000 and that residential prices are up nearly 5% this year.  The Americans for Tax Reform coalition letter to Senate leaders points out that “With these growing problems, lawmakers must act to ensure more growth to keep up with rising demand. Otherwise, Americans will see even higher energy bills and face a less reliable grid.”  As data centers drive demand for more power, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act will require them to pay for all of their associated transmission costs. It will also ensure that the centers pay their fair share of the grid updates they require.   The postelection legislative session, colloquially known as a lame-duck session of Congress, includes members who have run for other offices, decided to retire, or just lost their campaigns. Attendance and attentiveness can become challenging, but most members recognize that they have an obligation to serve their constituents and the nation during the remaining weeks of this term.  Permitting reform is one of several issues that will be addressed in the lame-duck session. There is important work to be done, and the American people deserve a bipartisan commitment toward delivering cheaper energy, more jobs, and responsible growth. We don’t want lame excuses from the lame-duck Congress. It’s time to put the election behind us and get our economy firing on all cylinders.  COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal. 

Summary Jailing opponents or condemning them to death is what dictatorships do, not democracies. Stories from South Korea, Brazil, and certainly Ancient Rome show the dangers. America is warned not to fall down that rabbit hole. Politics has high enough stakes without the losers being sent to prison—or losing their heads. Jailing opponents or condemning them to death is what dictatorships do, not democracies. But times are changing, rapidly, and democracy isn’t what it used to be, thanks to a vengeful spirit that’s taken hold from Brazil to South Korea, and we’ve had a taste of it as well. As Americans think about what’s in store for the next two years after a new Congress is sworn in next January, with the 2028 presidential election now on the horizon, we should take heed of just how far “lawfare” is going in other parts of the world. In Seoul, former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has literally been on trial for his life. Prosecutors last week renewed demands that Yoon be put to death for his attempt to impose martial law in late 2024. Prosperous as South Korea is, its democracy is still young, less than 40 years old, and three of the country’s last five presidents have wound up being sent to prison. But prosecutors are not satisfied with the life sentence (and additional time) already imposed on Yoon—they want him dead, despite the farcical nature of his attempt at martial law, which lasted barely six hours. President Donald Trump’s critics have at times invoked South Korea as a precedent for how they would like him to be treated. The idea is sheer madness, not only because of the differences between Trump and South Korea’s imprisoned presidents but even more importantly because the South Korean example illustrates how escalatory these episodes can be. The threat of winding up in prison, like some of his predecessors, only made Yoon more determined to stay in office at any cost. Killing him risks making the next leader who fears for his life as well as his freedom even more desperate to survive by whatever means he can muster. This was the predicament Julius Caesar found himself in 2,000 years ago. His political enemies were waiting for his military command outside Rome to expire, so when he returned to the city, they could prosecute him. Caesar didn’t give them the chance—instead he took his army with him to Rome, and that was the beginning of the final chapter for the republic. The end had been a long time coming, in truth: prosecutions had become so politically weaponized that practically every Roman leader was vulnerable and had to fear for his own safety. Even the great champion of liberty Cicero, a man who was morally Caesar’s opposite, was accused of breaking the law and putting Roman citizens to death without due process in the course of stopping a conspiracy against the republic. The law was a weapon that could be used against the just as well as the unjust. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime,” was reputed to be the motto of Josef Stalin’s secret-policy chief, Lavrentiy Beria. If prosecutors are ambitious enough, they can find a law under which to charge anyone. That’s as true in democracies where the law has become politicized as it is in openly authoritarian states—and this abuse of prosecutorial power is one thing that marks the turn from freedom to tyranny. Flavio Bolsonaro, the conservative candidate who lost Brazil’s recent second-round election, was warned he wouldn’t remain a free man with his rival, the leftist incumbent President Lula da Silva, reconfirmed in power—so when the police demanded Bolsonaro hand over his passports shortly after the election, he took no chances: he fled into exile here in America. Poland in recent days has provided a fresh warning to the world of what happens when law ceases to be seen as protecting everyone in politics equally. Police took over the country’s Constitutional Tribunal as part of Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s campaign to purge government institutions of holdovers from the previous administration. Poland’s president—who is one of those holdovers—showed up to protest the police action. Tusk and his right-wing opponents each claim the other side is corrupt, and the opposition says they are being subjected to legal abuse and intimidation: in effect, outlawed for their anti-European Union—and anti-Tusk—politics. When Donald Trump was put before America’s voters after years of legal battles, the people acquitted him, making him president once more, and in effect canceling most of the setbacks he’d suffered in court. That was the American people’s verdict on lawfare: they would not stand for it. The next Congress, and eventually the next president, should remember that—Americans do not want our democracy to become like Brazil’s, South Korea’s, or Poland’s or our republic to end like Rome’s. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., plans to bring articles of impeachment against Department of War Secretary Pete Hegseth for “high crimes and misdemeanors” first thing next week. “I plan on introducing it Monday or Tuesday, as soon as we get back,” Massie told the Daily Signal, adding that he “believe[s] support for impeachment has grown” since the election. Republicans, including President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, claim that the midterm election blue wave was due to the war in Iran. “The reason we lost is the war,” Vance wrote on X. “The president himself said so last night. If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so.” However, the president has said he has “every intention to keep” Hegseth. At the War Department: We Stand.We Fight. We Defend the Republic. pic.twitter.com/Kkr0DazmCE— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) November 5, 2026 The congressman brought similar charges against Hegseth in September. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson blocked his attempts to force a vote by sending members home early. Massie says the re-introduced privileged impeachment resolution will be substantially the same as the eight charges he filed in September, but he will have to update it as the U.S. has continued military action since. “There’s a just a few things we’ve changed in it. They’ve bombed more fishing boats since the last time. Yeah, we have to update a few numbers, and so there’ll be just minor changes to it probably,” he said. While Massie said he believes support for Hegseth’s impeachment has grown, he doesn’t know if his resolution will pass. “Chances are better now than they were before the election,” he said. “Some people will vote for it because they’re not coming back, I think, and some people will vote for it because they want to put some daylight between themselves and this administration or themselves in this war. It’s an opportunity for them to show the people that they got the message, even if Trump hasn’t shown that he got the message,” Massie continued. Massie says he has not spoken with Johnson or other members of the GOP about his plans. Johnson has not yet responded to the Daily Signal’s request for comment. “It’s possible that the vote won’t be on the impeachment itself—it’ll be a vote on a motion to table or a motion to refer it to committee, and both of those would effectively kill it,” Massie said. “It’s possible that Mike Johnson will try a couple of dilatory things first to kill it. … We’d have to survive both of those things and then vote on the articles themselves.” Massie, who will not return to Congress in January since he lost his May primary, has roughly 20 legislative days left in office. He plans to use them to work to impeach Hegseth and to advance his Epstein Files Transparency Act II, which he says needs only two more signatures to force a vote. “These two things will be more than the entire conference does on its own, outside of the CR [continuing resolution]. I mean, they had to shut Congress down for two-and-a-half weeks to avoid these two things,” he concluded.