Top Brass At America’s Biggest Entertainment Firms Have Shelled Out Three Times More To Dems Than Republicans
Originally published April 2, 2024
Latest Content
Final NIH Report on Multi-Million Dollar Olson-Kennedy Study Shows Puberty Blockers Don’t Help Kids
August 28, 2026WASHINGTON, D.C. — The final report for the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded “Trans Youth Care” study led by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles was finally made public this month, after the government watchdog organization Oversight Project was forced to sue the agency for its release. The multi-year, multi-million-dollar observational study examining physiological and psychological effects of puberty blockers and sex-denying hormones on youth with gender dysphoria has concluded, and the final report was submitted January 6, 2026. This taxpayer-funded research was intended to evaluate longer-term impacts of these interventions. Its conclusions reinforce a growing body of evidence that puberty blockers lack reliable proof of benefit for children and carry long-known risks to bone density, fertility, sexual function, and development. “The mass medical experiments on children need to stop,” said Doug Napier, Executive Chairman and CEO of 1792 Exchange. “These findings align with the emerging consensus that there is no benefit, but significant risks of harm to children, including impacts on bone density, fertility, sexual function, and cognitive development.” “The Cass Review in the United Kingdom, the Finland study, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ own 2025 peer-reviewed report on pediatric gender dysphoria all underscore the serious concerns about the impacts of these experiments. And this study is yet another nail in the coffin for transgender ideology,” Napier continued. The data on puberty blockers for children continue to show no significant positive mental or emotional health gains. Earlier peer-reviewed and preprint analyses from the same “Trans Youth Care” cohort—tracking depression symptoms, emotional health, …
1792 Exchange Applauds Apple for Improving Responsible Mineral Sourcing in East Africa
August 10, 2026WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Eagle Freedom Alliance released a shareholder engagement letter recognizing Apple for advancing more transparent and accountable mineral sourcing in East Africa. The letter was signed by investors and advisors connected to Apple shareholdings and highlighted Apple’s support for traceable tantalum supply chains. Signatories included 1792 Exchange, Innovest, GuideStone, Praxis, and the Eagle Freedom Fund. The letter notes: “As leading innovators in fighting human trafficking and committed shareholders in Apple Inc., we are writing to express our deep appreciation and admiration for Apple’s exemplary work in forging an ethical and forward-thinking path in the sourcing of key minerals from East Africa. In particular, we commend Apple’s leadership in the Responsible Mineral Initiative and its efforts to bring transparency to the supply chain. We applaud your efforts to ensure that Apple’s supply chain reflects the highest standards of human rights and recognize your work with Africa’s only tantalum refinery, PowerX Ltd., and its vertically integrated mining operation, PowerM Ltd., in Rwanda.” Apple’s leadership deserves recognition. Its approach demonstrates how a company can use its purchasing power to improve supply-chain transparency, reduce exploitation risks, strengthen resilience, and protect long-term shareholder value. Many companies still fail to adequately account for labor abuses deep within their supply chains, which exposes them to significant legal, reputational, operational, and financial …
Red Flag Case Studies Highlight Corporations Putting Shareholder Value at Risk
July 18, 2026What are some of the red flags we focus on? Certainly, stock price performance matters a great deal because, among other things, it can alert shareholders and others to a corporation that is in the process of embodying “go woke, go broke.” For example, as of July 9, 2026, has apparently underperformed the S&P 500 the past five years, three years, year, and year-to-date, to the tune of roughly 115 percentage points combined. (On the other hand, it is important to note that outperforming an index like the S&P 500 doesn’t necessarily guarantee all is well because a corporation could still be leaving profit on the table pursuing non-pecuniary and politicized agendas.) Another source of “red flag” information we rely on is the 1792 Exchange’s Corporate Bias Ratings and Board Bias Report. In the case of Disney, we get a “high risk” rating, including for concerns related to the promotion of radical gender ideology as well as wasteful and destructive climate commitments. The full article can be found in Daily Signal.
ESG Rating Inconsistencies and Their Ideological Ends
July 7, 2026Allen Mendenhall’s recent piece on MSCI ranking SpaceX in the same ESG tier as Russia asks a fair question: how does a rocket company advancing American innovation get scored the same as a state waging war? Unbeknownst to many, inconsistencies are common when it comes to ESG portfolios and ratings. In 2022, S&P dropped Tesla from its S&P 500 ESG Index while ExxonMobil landed in the top ten. The EV maker scored worse on an “Environmental, Social, Governance” rating than a major oil company. In fact, according to MIT Sloan’s Aggregate Confusion Project, ESG ratings from major agencies correlate at only about 0.61. Compare that to credit ratings from Moody’s and S&P, which agree 99% of the time. Companies often receive vastly different ESG rating scores from ratings providers, even ones that share a pro-ESG bias. These are the kinds of inconsistencies that led Elon Musk, CEO of the second-largest electric vehicle manufacturer in the world, to declare that ESG is a scam. Mendenhall concludes himself: the SpaceX rating shows ESG functioning less as “socially conscious investing” and more as “a mechanism for advancing ideological ends.”