A BlackRock spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times that the company has decided to withdraw from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM), a coalition comprised of over 325 signatories managing more than $57.5 trillion, all committed to the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by aligning investment strategies with this objective.

Membership in the climate pact did not affect the way BlackRock managed client portfolios, according to the spokesperson, but it did lead to confusion about the company’s practices and subjected it to legal inquiries from public officials. Despite the NZAM exit, BlackRock remains committed to sustainable investing.

Several major Wall Street banks have recently exited a similar climate-focused organization for lenders called the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), which similarly pushes a net-zero goal.

Republicans, particularly from energy-producing states, have criticized the participation of banks and asset managers in net-zero coalitions as part of a progressive agenda and have accused them of antitrust violations.

In November, Texas and 10 other Republican-led states sued BlackRock and rivals, alleging that they disrupted coal production and raised energy prices.

“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,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “This is a stunning violation of State and federal law.”

BlackRock has rejected the allegations, stating that the lawsuit undermines investments in essential companies that consumers depend on.

In a 2024 letter to shareholders, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said that the company has “never supported divesting from traditional energy firms” and that it has over $300 billion invested in traditional energy firms on behalf of its clients.

“If they want to invest in hydrocarbons, we give them every opportunity to do it–the same way we invest roughly $138 billion in energy transition strategies for our clients,” Fink wrote. “That’s part of being an asset manager. We follow our clients’ mandates.”

In December, a Republican-controlled congressional committee requested information from BlackRock and dozens of other asset managers regarding their involvement with NZAM.

“The over 60 asset managers with membership in NZAM must answer for their involvement in prioritizing woke investments over their own fiduciary duties,” the House Judiciary Committee said in a statement, while letters sent to various asset managers demanded the preservation of records that may be associated with “NZAM’s collusive activity that would inform potential legislative reforms.”

After a number of financial institutions left the climate pact for lenders, the Texas attorney general praised them for the exit in a Jan. 7 statement. Paxton alleged that the climate pact aims to undermine the vital oil and gas industries and that membership in the alliance could potentially bar banks from entering into contracts with Texas government entities.

The Judicial strike against neo-racism

(Natural News)—In a landmark decision that sent shockwaves through corporate America, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit delivered a resounding rebuke to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Nasdaq over their controversial “Board Diversity Rules.” The court ruled that the SEC had overstepped its statutory authority by approving Nasdaq’s mandate, which required companies to meet race, gender, and sexual orientation quotas or face de-listing.

The case, National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC, centered on the argument that the SEC’s approval of these rules had no connection to the purposes of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Judge Andrew S. Oldham, writing for the court, emphasized that the SEC had ventured far beyond its mandate, intruding into the realm of social engineering. The court found no empirical evidence linking board diversity to improved corporate governance, a key justification often cited by DEI advocates.

This ruling is not an isolated incident but part of a growing backlash against policies that discriminate against white individuals under the banner of “antiracism” and “equity.” Americans are increasingly rejecting the Orwellian notion that discrimination can be used to combat discrimination. The court’s decision reflects a broader cultural shift: people are tired of divisive identity politics and are demanding accountability from corporations and government agencies alike.

The corporate double standard

While the Fifth Circuit’s decision marks a significant victory for those opposing neo-racist policies, the battle is far from over. Major corporations and financial institutions continue to enforce race and gender-based quotas, often under the guise of promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Take Goldman Sachs, for example. The investment giant has made headlines for its policy of denying IPO services to companies that fail to meet its diversity requirements. In 2021, Goldman upped the ante, mandating that companies have at least two “diverse” board members, including one woman, to qualify for its services. This policy effectively excludes companies with all-white, all-male boards, regardless of their qualifications or merit.

Similarly, the so-called “Big 5” asset managers—BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, ISS, and Glass Lewis—continue to pressure corporations to allocate resources based on race and gender. These firms wield immense influence over corporate governance, often using their power to advance a neo-racist agenda.

But the tide is turning. As public awareness grows, so does the backlash. Consumers, employees, and shareholders are increasingly holding corporations accountable for their discriminatory practices. Boycotts, lawsuits, and public shaming campaigns are becoming powerful tools in the fight against neo-racism.

True equality cannot be achieved by pitting one group against another or by sorting people into racial buckets. Instead, progress must be rooted in principles that unite rather than divide. Addressing inequality does not require neo-racism. By focusing on socio-economic status, geographic diversity, and viewpoint diversity, corporations can create opportunities for all without resorting to discriminatory practices. The goal should be to foster environments where individuals are judged by their character, skills, and contributions—not by the color of their skin or their gender.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision is a wake-up call for corporations and policymakers alike. It’s time to abandon the divisive rhetoric of DEI and embrace a vision of equality that uplifts everyone. The American people have spoken: they will not tolerate discrimination, no matter how noble the intentions behind it may seem.

Sources include:

• RealClearMarkets.com
• NationalCenter.org
• NCLA.legal.org