On Feb. 26, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured a “first of its kind” settlement with the Vanguard Group, which, together with BlackRock and State Street, makes up the “Big three” asset managers representing “the largest shareholders in 88 percent of S&P 500 companies.” Among other things, the press release announcing the settlement noted that “Vanguard has committed to avoid imposing ESG (environmental, social, and governance) goals over its customers’ profitability.” This should be viewed as a win for free-market capitalism. However, two relatively recent posts on the corporate governance blogs of Columbia and Harvard can be read as warning corporate directors and executives who have rushed to embrace ESG that more is at stake than just a haircut for shareholders.    The first, by professor Karen E. Woody, argues the following about ESG and materiality. ESG satisfies all three categories of materiality. First, many ESG factors are substantively material because they affect risk, cost of capital, and long-term value. Second, ESG disclosure requirements are increasingly mandated by jurisdictions around the world, creating regulatory materiality. Third, and most important, ESG is procedurally material because investors have consistently demanded this information. However, there are some obvious rebuttals to each of these points. First, factors that impact long-term value are already accounted for under traditional materiality standards, so we don’t need ESG for them. Second, the costs and benefits of regulation should similarly be accounted for using traditional materiality standards, so, again, ESG adds nothing. Third, to whatever extent investor demand is relevant to this discussion, conflicts of interest must be accounted for—and some of the loudest and most powerful voices calling for ESG are arguably riddled with conflicts of interest due to selling ESG funds and ESG consulting services. All the foregoing leads to the question: If ESG is at best redundant, why do proponents keep selling it so aggressively? To be sure, one answer is that they genuinely believe traditional materiality analysis has blind spots that ESG factors can address. And it’s likely difficult to overstate the aforementioned incentives created by conflicts of interest stretching from asset managers to proxy advisers to corporate managers.  But there is also a darker answer, which brings us to the second piece under review here. Paul Rissman, co-founder of Rights CoLab, argues that, given their widely diversified portfolios, “the asset owner fiduciary imperative for systemic risk reduction will collide with corporate directors’ fiduciary duty to the value of the entity’s shares.” This essentially means that asset managers who have bought into radical leftist ideology regarding issues like diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and climate change will conclude, despite compelling evidence to the contrary (see here, here, and here), that they are duty-bound to force corporations deemed to be creating those excessive externalities to set shareholder value on fire for “the greater good.” This is particularly concerning given that, as alluded to above, whatever value ESG does capture is arguably redundant. Pulling this all together, we would arguably get the following disclosure from leftist asset managers if they were being honest about their ESG agenda: “The dollars you give me to invest on your behalf will be used in part to undermine if not outright destroy individual corporations you may rely on as a worker, consumer, or citizen. But rest assured that this is being done for the greater good.” Once seen in this light, it becomes clear that corporate decision-makers who have embraced ESG may have allowed a Trojan horse in the front door.

INDIANA—Tuesday evening’s primary race here in the Hoosier State once again proved that the press, both local and national, still does not understand the impact that President Donald Trump has on the electorate. Nor do they understand his enduring appeal, as Indiana Republican voters unequivocally sided with the challengers over those who voted down congressional redistricting last year. So far, the results from Tuesday’s primaries saw incumbent Republican state Sens. Travis Holdman of Markle, Jim Buck of Kokomo, Linda Rogers of Granger, Dan Dernulc of Highland, and Greg Walker all go down, and go down big. According to early Associated Press tallies, their challengers received a whopping 60% of the vote. Incumbent state Sen. Spencer Deery of West Lafayette was in the lead by a mere three votes after voting concluded, leaving the race too close to call. Gov. Mike Braun, who supported the challengers, called Trump’s influence and victory in the results historic. Braun said that he was proud that “Republicans stood with me and President Trump to nominate some great America First conservatives.” Going into Tuesday night, both the local and national press professed doom for Trump’s fortunes and influence, with headlines from Politico reading “Trump’s redistricting revenge tour in Indiana isn’t going so well.” The reporter openly mocked the attendance at a Turning Point USA rally with conservative activist Scott Pressler, showing shots of a handful of people attending as proof that the effort was flailing. Perhaps what was missed is that while voters may or may not show up for a rally in the middle of April, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t show up to vote. What TPUSA did effectively was both door-knocking and providing a positive, aspirational presence. That TPUSA presence was also mocked by local Indiana press, including James Briggs of the Indy Star, who, days before the first votes were cast, opined with a column headlined “Trump’s day of reckoning is here—for Mike Braun, Jim Banks.” Briggs wrote that by Wednesday, they’d all be gone, and all that would be left is regret for likely losing the primary battle. “The Turning Point USA organizers call May 5 a day of reckoning in Indiana,” the column said. “They’re cosplaying as an elite special forces unit, mugging for cameras as though we should be thanking them for their service of making seven Republican state senators pay for voting against President Donald Trump’s early redistricting scheme.” The analysis concluded: “The overhyped rallies and social media theatrics will be over. Braun, Banks and the entire Indiana Republican Party will have to wake up and figure out what just happened.” By Tuesday evening, Briggs’ headline for his follow-up story to his prediction read: “Sometimes you gotta hand it to Trump.” However, it wasn’t much of a compliment since the first graph read: “Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in history.” It wasn’t that Politico wasn’t here in Indiana, nor that the Indy Star columnist isn’t here as well. The reporting had nothing to do with a lack of putting yourself in a place to try and understand it. But it does bring into debate just how much reporters try to understand the conservative populist movement and the president. In short, find out what drives them as opposed to making fun of them and their efforts, and dismissing the president’s influence on the conservative populist electorate. CNN also had a reporter here. His headline read: “Indiana GOP lawmakers defied Trump on redistricting. Now GOP voters may thwart his push for revenge.” What was interesting about the language in this race was that most of the challengers wisely focused on local issues and community concerns. They supported conservative ideals in government and the president’s agenda, and not redistricting, which is what many reporters turned the race into—likely because in the world of the press everything revolves around a story about him. That should have been a hint that the challengers were playing the long game and were not one-offs on a revenge tour. Yes, redistricting was always at the core. But representing districts was also there if you paid enough attention to the whole race. 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.

China is not merely America’s geopolitical opponent. It is America’s geopolitical enemy—and has been since the establishment of the Chinese communist regime in 1949. For decades, American leaders and elites indulged the fantasy that this reality could be softened or reversed. Richard Nixon opened relations with China in part to split Beijing from the Soviet Union. Later, economic globalists insisted that bringing China into global markets would moderate its politics. The theory was that free trade would lead to freer people. It didn’t. China never stopped being what it has always been: a communist surveillance state with an appetite for repression at home and influence abroad. It is a historically mass-murdering regime and a government whose ambition is nothing less than the destruction of America’s global dominance. And China plays the long game. Unlike democratic nations that operate on election cycles, the Chinese Communist Party operates on decades. It can wait. It can plan. It can exploit. It has taken advantage of America’s openness—our markets, our universities, even our political institutions—to undermine us from within. Whether it’s the theft of tens of billions of dollars in intellectual property, the infiltration of American universities, or influence campaigns aimed at shaping public discourse, China has treated the United States like an enemy—because it is. That reality became impossible to ignore in 2020. China unleashed the Wuhan virus on the world while lying about the outbreak and downplaying evidence of human-to-human transmission. It misled the World Health Organization, which by that point had become so deferential to Beijing that it functioned more like a diplomatic arm of Chinese interests than an independent watchdog. The pandemic was a wake-up call, but it should not have been the first. For years, Americans have warned that the United States built supply chains through hostile territory. We outsourced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and strategic industries to a nation openly committed to replacing us. Now the question is unavoidable: What should we do? First, America must use its economic leverage to isolate China. That means cutting strong trade deals with reliable allies and strategic partners—Canada, Mexico, Europe, and developing countries that may be tempted to drift into China’s orbit. The goal should be simple: Force nations to choose. Countries should understand they can either have access to American markets and investment, or dependence on Chinese manufacturing and influence. They should not be allowed to have both. Second, America must cut off China’s sources of revenue and influence. Much of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy has been aimed at this. Pressure against Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela was about oil revenue that strengthens China. The same is true with Iran, a major supplier of oil to Beijing. Even the war in Ukraine has implications, as Russia increasingly functions as a resource pipeline for China. Third, America must strengthen itself. One of the most dangerous vulnerabilities we face is financial dependency. China owns trillions of dollars in American debt. The implicit threat is always present: Beijing could dump U.S. bonds onto the market to destabilize our economy. China could absorb the pain. It does not fear public backlash the way democratic governments do. This is what happens when a nation becomes bloated, complacent, and addicted to spending. If the United States wishes to remain a world power, it cannot behave like a decadent welfare state. Debt is not just an economic problem—it is a national security threat. Finally, America must close the doors China uses to steal, spy, and infiltrate. One obvious step is also the most controversial: no more Chinese foreign exchange students. Zero. Our universities have strong financial incentives to bring them in, but national security cannot be treated like a revenue stream. We should not be importing students from hostile regimes to access American research and institutions, only for them to return home and strengthen systems that seek our destruction. Pretending geopolitical enemies will not exploit American openness is naive. They already have. The United States is still the most powerful country on Earth, but power is not permanent. It must be defended and strategically deployed. China is not a competitor playing by the rules of commerce and diplomacy. It is an adversary playing for dominance. The steps needed to confront that reality are available—and necessary. 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.

While “woke” policies, such as environmental and diversity initiatives, might appear to be on life support in the political realm, they are still very active in state courts, with pending cases. State lawsuits can still have a national impact, warns O.H. Skinner, executive director of the watchdog group Alliance for Consumers. This is also the case for federal lawsuits seeking to supplant local policymakers, he said. Lawsuits against private companies are used as instruments to promote an environmental, social, and governance agenda as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, he said. “The climate cases are a means to change nationwide behavior through the state courts,” Skinner, a former lawyer for the Arizona attorney general’s office who argued for the state before the U.S. Supreme Court, told the Daily Signal. “Suing companies over DEI and ESG can set national conditions and establish a stepping stone to build momentum for other cases,” Skinner added. 1. California v. ExxonMobil A 2024 case brought by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with the Sierra Club, against ExxonMobil in San Francisco Superior Court, alleged the energy company “caused or substantially contributed to the deluge of plastic pollution that has harmed and continues to harm California’s environment, wildlife, natural resources, and people.” The suit claims plastics are a public nuisance, and the company’s focus on recycling constituted misleading marketing. “For decades, ExxonMobil has been deceiving the public to convince us that plastic recycling could solve the plastic waste and pollution crisis when they clearly knew this wasn’t possible,” Bonta said in announcing the lawsuit. Skinner said this is an attempt to bypass the legislative process to control corporate speech and impose plastic manufacturing and use restrictions through litigation. 2. Honolulu v. Sunoco A lawsuit in one of the smallest states alleged that multiple oil companies were responsible for climate damages. The public nuisance suit by the city of Honolulu, Hawaii’s state capital, against major oil and gas companies, filed in 2020 and still pending, names Sunoco as the lead defendant. It alleges the companies are responsible for problems such as sea-level rise and infrastructure issues. Honolulu is seeking damages to fund claimed “climate-related infrastructure costs” for the city; the establishment of “cleanup funds”; and climate mitigation actions mandated by court order to curtail the energy industry. Defendants contended the case should be heard in federal court, but the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected the argument in 2023. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. The other defendants are ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips. A case affecting so many companies could put state judges in charge of sweeping energy policy rather than elected legislatures, the Alliance for Consumers contends. 3. Plaquemines Parish v. Chevron A Louisiana lawsuit aims to unlock potentially billions for environmental groups and remove energy production from the coastal parishes. It began in Louisiana state court and moved to federal court. Plaquemines Parish is the lead plaintiff in the case. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2013, but is still winding through the courts. In April 2025, a Louisiana state-court jury awarded Plaquemines Parish about $740 million in damages against Chevron based on plaintiff’s claims that the oil company caused wetland erosion and failed to obtain proper permits. However, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in January about whether proceedings should be in state or federal court and determined in April that the case should be in federal court. This voided the earlier judgment, but the case hasn’t been decided on its merits. 4. Inclusive Louisiana v. St. James Parish In another Louisiana case, a progressive nonprofit, led by Inclusive Louisiana, with representation from the left-leaning Center for Constitutional Rights, alleges St. James Parish’s 2014 land-use policy is part of the “deep and lasting harms of slavery and its afterlife.” The plaintiffs allege “environmental racism.” The case is a federal lawsuit filed in 2023 that could allow courts to supplant local policymaking, Skinner said. Other plaintiffs are Mount Triumph Baptist Church and RISE St. James. The complaint alleges the parish engaged in racially discriminatory zoning when steering the petrochemical industry into predominantly Black neighborhoods. The plaintiffs seek a moratorium on new industrial facilities and court-supervised revision of local zoning and land-use policies.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Virginia to honor gerrymandered districts that favor Democrats. This comes a week after the state’s high court issued a rebuke to the redistricting effort that would have created a map with a 10-1 party advantage. Democrats made an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the map had been left in place, Democrats would have likely picked up an additional four seats in the House of Representatives. Virginia currently has an independent redistricting committee that drew a congressional map with a Democrat advantage of 6-5. However, voters in April approved a change to the state constitution to allow the partisan redistricting in a narrow referendum last month. The state’s high court determined the state legislature violated the Virginia Constitution in bypassing normal procedures to pass a constitutional amendment. The one-sentence, unsigned decision said, “The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice andby him referred to the Court is denied.” There was no dissent. Generally, the high court has opted to stay out of redistricting cases, as a state political matter. While the court did strike down a Louisiana map that it determined was drawn based strictly on racial lines, it also declined to hear gerrymandering cases coming out of Texas and California. Virginia Democrats tried to convince justices that the state high court misread federal law and Supreme Court precedent, holding that, even if early voting is underway, an election does not happen until Election Day itself, the Associated Press reported. Earlier this week, Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger confirmed that the state will hold this year’s elections under the current districts established in 2021, after the 2020 Census.