CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.

The 45 Companies on the MAGA Anti-DEI Hit List

Allen Mendenhall raises an important question this week: Whose interest is the RSA voting?

Mendenhall argues that the Retirement Systems of Alabama should commission an independent audit of its proxy votes to confirm they serve beneficiaries’ financial interests. He notes that public pensions often delegate voting to asset managers and proxy advisers such as ISS and Glass Lewis with little public verification of how shares are actually cast. The question is especially timely in Alabama, home to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which was recently indicted by a federal grand jury in the state. Mendenhall asks whether RSA opposed shareholder proposals urging companies to stop using the SPLC’s discredited “hate map” in charitable-matching programs that discriminates against mainstream advocacy organizations, including Focus on the Family and Moms for Liberty. Alabamians have a right to know how their retirement funds voted on those and similar resolutions. RSA is uniquely opaque. It does not publish proxy records, does not use outside investment managers to vote its shares, and, in response to a public-records request, said it does not possess proxy voting data, past or present. 1792 Exchange has identified Alabama as the only state that discloses none of this information. This is not the first time RSA’s voting has drawn scrutiny. In 2023, a 1792 Exchange review of 2022 shareholder resolutions raised questions about how Alabama pension capital was being voted …

High Risk Government Contractors

Companies rated High Risk in the 1792 Exchange Government Contractors database, with total federal dollars committed to each. What “High Risk” means: 1792 Exchange rates a company High Risk when it finds the company yields to DEI activism and/or ESG when shaping its corporate governance, in ways that potentially alienate consumers, divide employees, and harm shareholders. 32 High Risk Companies $239,128,473,433.45 Total Dollars Committed to Them # Company Sector Dollars Committed 1 Lockheed Martin Defense $52,479,365,101.92 2 RTX Defense $25,433,238,417.40 3 Boeing Defense $24,758,962,470.98 4 Northrop Grumman Defense $19,669,506,853.35 5 UnitedHealth Group Healthcare $18,783,399,941.99 6 Leidos Defense $11,789,258,066.34 7 McKesson Healthcare $9,050,183,507.18 8 Booz Allen Hamilton Consulting $8,547,722,731.23 9 BAE Systems Defense $8,333,110,321.96 10 Honeywell International Industrial $7,633,213,844.45 11 Cencora Healthcare $6,091,697,826.62 12 SAIC Defense $5,445,175,403.27 13 Battelle Memorial Institute DBA Battelle Research $4,304,630,074.74 14 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL) Consulting $3,983,960,278.41 15 Dell Technologies Technology $3,428,343,073.05 16 Optum Healthcare $3,309,894,581.24 17 General Electric Industrial $2,997,604,742.81 18 Merck Pharma $2,893,140,940.16 19 Jacobs Solutions Engineering $2,592,607,376.35 20 Parsons Engineering $2,533,637,222.80 21 Sanofi Pharma $1,635,380,052.05 22 United Launch Alliance Aerospace $1,629,701,239.01 23 FedEx Logistics $1,548,586,594.63 24 Oshkosh Corporation Defense $1,467,782,961.82 25 Pfizer Pharma $1,345,771,301.30 26 CGI Technology $1,220,705,109.58 27 GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Pharma …

The EEOC’s mission is opportunity for all, not demographic bean-counting 

In the Superman comics, Bizarro World is a place where everything is exactly backward. It is a cube-shaped planet where ugliness is admired, failure is celebrated, lies are preferred to truth, and the normal rules of logic are turned upside down. What is obviously true on Earth becomes false, and what is plainly false is treated as a self-evident fact.   Donna Brazile recently accused the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of abandoning its purpose by proposing to end mandatory annual race-and-sex workforce reporting. Her argument reads like a dispatch from Bizarro World.  In truth, the commission’s July 21 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to rescind the EEO-1 and related demographic reports is a long-overdue course correction that reorients the agency to the actual text and original intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII forbids discrimination against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It does not authorize the government to compel every covered employer, regardless of whether a single discrimination charge has been filed, to annually sort its workforce into racial and sex categories and submit the tallies to Washington. That regime, in place for decades, imposed nearly $275 million in annual compliance costs on employers and roughly …

What Your Company’s Pride Sponsorship Supports

Many Americans are asking why corporations continue to fund LGBTQ Pride events that include programming or vendors that most can agree are seen as inappropriate for children. At certain events, attendees may encounter nightclubs, alcohol brands, cannabis dispensaries, or drag performances that often contain sexually suggestive elements. Many families would not ordinarily choose to expose their children to these types of environments, leading some to question why such programming is viewed differently when presented under the banner of LGBTQ+ Pride or “inclusion.” Before sponsoring socially contentious events, companies should carefully consider how they want their brands to be perceived by consumers, shareholders, employees, and the broader public. While stakeholders may hold differing opinions on many social issues, protecting the well-being of children remains a widely shared concern. Corporate sponsorships communicate a company’s values and priorities, making it important to evaluate whether those partnerships support its long-term business objectives and appeal to a broad customer base rather than a narrow segment of the market. NYC Pride is sponsored by Target, which publicly committed in 2025 to stop sponsoring nonbusiness causes. The event includes Youth Pride, a program specifically designed for LGBTQIA+ youth, their families, and allies, with the stated goal of  “empower[ing] …

Companies Reviewing GLP-1 Coverage Should Also Review Transgender Healthcare Coverage 

According to reports earlier this month, Starbucks is ending GLP-1 coverage for its employees. Under its new healthcare plan, Starbucks will no longer cover prescription drugs used for weight loss, but it will continue to cover comprehensive transgender healthcare interventions, including reconstructive surgical procedures and puberty blockers, for covered dependents. Employers are pulling back on GLP-1 coverage largely for the same reason they are reconsidering other benefits: to adjust to rising healthcare costs. RxBenefits reports that GLP-1 drugs cost roughly $1,000–$1,500 per month, while SHRM estimates employers often shoulder 70–100% of prescription drug costs.  With GLP-1s now accounting for around 20% of prescription drug spending and the number of users accelerating, employers face a limited set of choices: tighten eligibility requirements, shift more of the cost to employees or customers, or eliminate coverage altogether.  If companies can reasonably reconsider GLP-1 coverage because of cost, uncertain return on investment, and broader questions over what an employer-sponsored health plan should cover, why should other expensive medical benefits, such as transgender medical interventions, be exempt from similar scrutiny?  According to February 2026 data from the Human Rights Campaign, more than 550 major companies, including Starbucks, offer comprehensive transgender healthcare benefits to employees and covered dependents. While …