Top US toolmaker quietly removes DEI and LGBTQ campaigns from its website after boycott

HRC Corporate Equality Index Shows Record Policy Adoption Despite Survey Participation Decline

Final NIH Report on Multi-Million Dollar Olson-Kennedy Study Shows Puberty Blockers Don’t Help Kids

WASHINGTON, 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, …

The Cost of “Choice”: Corporate Funding Behind Assisted-Suicide Advocacy

Six Fortune 500 companies, through their affiliated charitable vehicles, have facilitated significant donations to Compassion & Choices, a U.S. nonprofit advocating for expanded access to physician-assisted suicide and other end-of-life practices. Compassion & Choices promotes medical aid in dying (MAID) through voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED), palliative sedation that “advances the time of death,” and dementia directives that allow patients to refuse food and fluids.  Companies may consider support for “choice,” “autonomy,” and “death with dignity” consistent with socially progressive philanthropic programs. However, physician-assisted suicide is a violation of the patient-doctor trust and a red line that is being crossed by providers. This represents yet another example of corporations using company resources to support and fund social causes that bear no connection to their core business operations or fiduciary interests. The American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics states that physician-assisted suicide is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer” and warns that it could pose serious societal risks.  Corporate involvement raises another uncomfortable question: What happens when death becomes the least expensive healthcare option?  Healthcare systems respond to financial incentives. This is particularly relevant to large corporations operating self-funded employee health plans. Unlike employers purchasing traditional insurance, self-insured employers generally pay covered medical expenses directly as claims occur. The Department of Labor confirms that these employers therefore bear the financial cost of covered healthcare themselves.  For a terminally ill patient, …

Benevity’s Open Use of the SPLC’s “Hate List”

Benevity uses the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) discredited “Hate List” and “Hate Map” as a filter to determine which nonprofits are eligible for employee donations and corporate matching funds. This effectively blacklists mainstream conservative, religious, pro-family, and parental-rights organizations while allowing partisan groups like the SPLC itself to remain eligible. Below are two publications released by Benevity pointing to their reliance on the SPLC for vetting nonprofits. Presentation from Benevity’s CEO Kelly Schmitt: Benevity Global Cause Vetting Document:

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 …