Opinion: Corporate leaders flee the result of left-wing agendas they supported

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 …

Faith-Aligned Investors, Big Tech, and the Fight Against Child Exploitation

Some advocates say investors shouldn’t underestimate shareholders’ ability to sway a company’s views. Dustin DeVito is the director of research at the nonprofit 1792 Exchange, which encourages corporations to promote free speech, freedom of religion, and free enterprise. He said company executives sometimes aren’t aware of what’s happening down in the trenches of their businesses’ day-to-day operations, and all they may need is for shareholders to bring a concern to their attention. “When issues are being voted on at a company’s annual general meeting, if you have shares in a company, you have a vote,” explained DeVito. “If you have shares, you have the ability to get in touch with investor relations … [and] have those conversations with the executives.” DeVito also said that CSAM is a new part of the social discussion—one that companies don’t have decades of experience dealing with. “People have not really been taking this seriously or talking about it in a comprehensive way until very recently,” DeVito said. “So just based on just where these companies have been over the past few years, I think there really is a chance for people to have direct engagements with the executives.” The full article can be found …

ESG Rating Inconsistencies and Their Ideological Ends

Allen 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.”

250 Major Companies Still Use SPLC to Screen Donations, Despite KKK Funding Scandal

Shareholders to Confront Starbucks on Covering Transition—but Not Detransition

Starbucks wins dismissal of Missouri lawsuit over DEI policies