Business
Backlash To Woke Corporations
Kid Rock blasts case of bud light
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
It was a warning shot that went unheeded, and now it is costing major corporations dearly. Following a last year’s Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in higher education, 13 Republican state attorneys general fired off a letter to Fortune 100 companies questioning their similar corporate policies. Now, many companies wish they had paid closer attention.
In the past few months, conservative activist Robby Starbuck’s social media campaign has swept through major corporations wreaking so much havoc that companies have begun folding to his demands before they are even targeted. The result? Damaged market capitalizations, tarnished reputations, and ire and frustration from consumers and activists on both the Left and Right. Welcome to the latest manifestation of our post-Bud Light era in which every company remains a Target.
Starbucks’ campaign and the attorneys general’s scrutiny that preceded it are part of the growing right-wing backlash to corporate America’s post-George Floyd embrace of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices. It is just one area in which companies are finding it hard to avoid political pressures in today’s stakeholder economy. Here’s what public affairs professionals need to know to help their companies navigate the increasingly heated culture wars of our tribal era.
The Summer DEI Turned Ugly
Leading this charge is conservative activist Robby Starbuck, whose campaigns against corporate DEI efforts have forced several major companies to quietly retreat. He led a full-blown digital assault against Harley-Davidson, leveraging his social media reach to accuse the company of straying from its core, blue-collar values. Harley-Davidson caved, dialing back its diversity programs. Next in line was John Deere, the agricultural giant known for embodying rural America. Starbuck’s campaign amassed millions of views, and the company retreated on its DEI initiatives. Seeing the wreckage, Molson Coors, Ford, and Lowe’s preemptively reduced their diversity efforts to avoid Starbuck’s crosshairs.
These aren’t isolated incidents. What started as a weak signal—the occasional conservative critique—has now turned into a full-fledged backlash. Tractor Supply, for instance, initially embraced DEI as part of a broader modernization strategy, but scaled back its efforts after being targeted by one of Starbuck’s campaigns. The retreat wasn’t driven by internal concerns over DEI’s effectiveness but by external pressures. Starbuck’s use of social media, dripping out just enough content over time to keep the pressure rising, has been a devastatingly effective strategy leaving companies from every sector fearing that staying the DEI course could cost them dearly.
Companies’ Complicated Embrace of DEI
Companies first leaned into DEI as a response to a profound cultural shift. The killing of George Floyd galvanized a movement for racial justice, and businesses, driven by both moral imperatives and strategic necessity, integrated DEI into their operations. Companies like Harley-Davidson, Nike, and John Deere were among the most visible in championing these efforts, aligning their brands with social progress and gaining public praise in the process.
What many of these organizations failed to foresee was the emergence of a powerful counter-narrative. On the surface, DEI seemed apolitical — focused on long-overdue fairness, inclusion, and representation. However, to conservative critics like Robby Starbuck, these initiatives represented a broader ideological shift that encroached on corporate neutrality. Companies that embraced DEI became vulnerable to accusations of wading too far into progressive politics, opening themselves to opposing pressure campaigns that can significantly damage their reputations and business models.
As we’ve pointed out before, DEI efforts are too often shaped and driven by a broader progressive agenda that itself is not always that inclusive. Plus, for many companies, the embrace of DEI has been more rhetoric than results, with little real progress towards stated goals of elevating under-represented populations in company ranks – particularly at higher levels. That’s left companies stuck between unsatisfied progressives and angry conservatives.
In Politics, Every Action Has An Unequal And Opposite Reaction
Starbuck’s playbook reveals a deeper truth about today’s political dynamics. DEI, which quickly became viewed as a corporate best practice, is now seen by many on the right as synonymous with “wokeness” — a label that carries significant risks in today’s polarized environment. What some companies initially saw as distant concerns have turned into high-pressure reputational crises and many prominent libertarian and conservative voices in the business world are now pushing companies to embrace an alternative: Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (MEI).
This new reality brings significant legal implications, with lawsuits alleging reverse discrimination on the rise and politicians pushing legislative and enforcement actions. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis spearheaded efforts to dismantle DEI with the “Stop WOKE Act” in 2022, which restricted how race and gender topics are taught in schools and workplaces. In 2023, he expanded these efforts by defunding DEI programs in higher education, labeling them as political indoctrination. His actions set a precedent for other Republican governors, with states like Texas, North Dakota, and North Carolina advancing similar policies.
In many ways, DEI has become a proxy for larger ideological battles, and companies are increasingly caught in the crossfire. As Starbuck’s campaigns continue to gain traction, businesses that once felt pressure to do more on a range of social issues from the left are now feeling the same sort or pressure from the right — and not all of them understand how they got here or what it means as our cultural warfare continues.
Navigating The Tribal Divide
As the stories of Harley-Davidson, John Deere, and Tractor Supply illustrate, the decision to step back from DEI initiatives isn’t always about rejecting diversity itself but about managing the complex realities of political and reputational risk. Even firms like Nike, a well-known and ardent supporter of progressive social causes, has tempered its public messaging in recent months.
The DEI blowback we’re witnessing today is a reflection of deeper societal divisions, ones that are now playing out across corporate America. Public affairs professionals need to understand this battle isn’t just about DEI—it’s about the role activists and politicians on both sides of the divide expect businesses to play in shaping cultural narratives.
In this new era, companies must navigate an ever-shifting landscape where political and cultural allegiances can determine success or failure. For those in government relations and public affairs, staying attuned to these tribal dynamics will be critical in helping organizations anticipate and manage the next wave of blowback—or hopefully avoid it all together.
Jeff Berkowitz is the founder and CEO of Delve, a competitive intelligence and risk advisory firm.
From LifeSiteNews
Elon Musk said that ‘the sheer amount of waste and fraud’ in federal agencies, is ‘astonishing’ and that DOGE is cutting ‘$4 billion a day’ in misused taxpayer funds.
In a remarkable Fox News interview, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) founder Elon Musk and top officials of the DOGE team offered stunning, often infuriating, insights into how the federal government functions.
The interview, which has garnered well over 10 million online views on X in less than 24 hours, provided one extreme example after another of government mismanagement, excess, waste, and fraud while simultaneously promising a future where the D.C. Leviathan is tamed and restored to its proper, efficient role.
The new Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), former U.S. House Rep. Dan Bishop, averred that the DOGE A-Team interview was the “most amazing and significant half-hour in TV history.”
Musk was joined by DOGE team members Steve Davis, Joe Gebbia, Aram Moghaddassi, Brad Smith, Anthony Armstrong, Tom Krause, and Tyler Hassen – all successful businessmen and entrepreneurs in their own rights – to describe the widespread systemic weaknesses and failures at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and more.
Fox host Bret Baier described the group as “Silicon Valley colliding with government.”
“This is a revolution. And I think it might be the biggest revolution in government since the original revolution,” said Musk during the discussion.
“But at the end of the day, America’s going to be in much better shape,” he promised.
“America will be solvent. The critical programs that people depend upon will work, and it’s going to be a fantastic future.”
My interview with the @elonmusk and the @DOGE team tonight on #SpecialReport pic.twitter.com/KKpxEPtu1Z
— Bret Baier (@BretBaier) March 27, 2025
“The government is not efficient, and there’s a lot of waste and fraud. So we feel confident that a 15% reduction can be done without affecting any of the critical government services,” began Musk, founder and CEO of both Tesla and SpaceX and owner of X.
Musk said that the most stunning thing he’s discovered during the early phases of DOGE is “the sheer amount of waste and fraud in government. It is astonishing. It’s mind-blowing.”
Musk cited the example of a simple 10-question National Park online survey for which the government was charged nearly $1 billion and which in the end served no purpose.
“I think we will accomplish most of the work required to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars within [130 days],” he predicted. “Our goal is to reduce the waste and fraud by $4 billion a day, every day, seven days a week. And so far, we are succeeding.”
Billionaire Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia, is working to digitize the retirement process for government employees, which is currently stuck using 1950s technology, housed in a Pennsylvania cave.
“It’s an injustice to civil servants who are subjected to these processes that are older than the age of half the people watching the show tonight,” said Gebbia. “We really believe that the government can have an Apple store-like experience, beautifully designed, great user experience, modern systems.”
“The retirement process is all by paper, literally, with people carrying paper and manila envelopes into this gigantic mine,” added Musk, limiting the number of federal employees who can retire to no more than 8,000 per month.
Gebbia expects to have the antiquated system updated and overhauled in a matter of months.
“The two improvements that we’re trying to make to Social Security are helping people that legitimately get benefits protect them from fraud that they experience every day on a routine basis and also make the experience better,” said DOGE software engineer Aram Moghaddassi.
He offered an amazing statistic: “When you want to change your (direct deposit) bank account, you can call Social Security. We learned 40% of the phone calls that they get are from fraudsters” who are attempting to commandeer retired seniors’ benefit payments.
“What we’re doing will help their benefits,” assured Musk. “As a result of the work of DOGE, legitimate recipients of social security will receive more money, not less money.”
“There are over 15 million people that are over the age of 120 that are marked as alive in the Social Security system,” said Steve Davis, who has previously worked alongside Musk at SpaceX, the Boring Company, and X
He explained that despite this being discovered by hardworking personnel at the SSA back in 2008, nothing was done. As a result, 15-20 million social security numbers that were clearly fraudulent were just floating around, susceptible to being used for “bad intentions.”
Health care entrepreneur Brad Smith, who has taken charge of auditing HHS and NIH, also cited stunning, troubling statistics displaying the extreme inefficiencies of the nation’s top federal health organizations.
Smith said that at NIH, “Today they have 27 different centers” created by Congress over the years and there are “700 different IT systems,” each using their own IT software.
“They have 27 different CIOs (Chief Information Officers),” added Smith, “so when you think about making great medical discoveries, you have to connect the data.”
Those discoveries are likely severely hampered by NIH’s communications disconnect.
Anthony Armstrong, a Morgan Stanley banker now working for DOGE at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) talked about “duplicative functions” and “overstaffing” at government agencies. He said that money is “sloshing out the door.”
As an example, he cited the IRS, which has 1,400 employees whose only job is to provision laptops and cell phones to IRS workers.
“As an ex-CFO of a big public tech company, really what we’re doing is, we’re applying public company standards to the federal government, and it is alarming how the financial operations and financial management is set up today,” said Tom Krause, CEO of Cloud Software Group.
He explained that there is virtually no accountability or verification protections when it comes to the Treasury Department disbursing funds to various government agencies.
A 94-year-old grandmother is no longer “going to be robbed by forces like she’s getting robbed today, and the solvency of the federal government will ensure that she continues to receive those social security checks,” added Musk.
“The reason we’re doing this is because if we don’t do it, America is going to go insolvent and go bankrupt, and nobody’s going to get anything,” said Musk.
Tyler Hassen, a former oil executive working at the Interior Department for DOGE alleged that there was no departmental oversight at the Interior Department “whatsoever” under the Biden administration.
Steve Davis talked about the out-of-control issuance and use of federal credit cards.
“There are in the federal government around 4.6 million credit cards for around 2.3 to 2.4 million employees. This doesn’t make sense. So, one of the things all of the teams have worked on is we’ve worked for the agencies and said, ‘Do you need all of these credit cards? Are they being used? Can you tell us physically where they are?’” recounted Davis.
“Clearly there should not be more credit cards than there are people,” interjected Musk.
Musk later described how the Small Business Administration (SBA) has given out $300 million in loans to people “under the age of 11.” An additional $300 million in loans has been handed out to people “over the age of 120.”
Musk said that these government loans are clearly “fraudulent.”
“Terrible things are being done,” he exclaimed. “We’re stopping it.”
The Trump administration’s new tariffs are working:
The European Union will delay tariffs on U.S. exports into the trading bloc in response to the imposition of tariffs on European aluminum and steal, a measure announced in February by the White House as a part of an overhaul of the U.S. trade policies.
Instead of taking effect March 12, these tariffs will not apply until “mid-April”, according to a European official interviewed by The Hill.
This is not the first time the EU has responded this way to U.S. tariff measures. It happened already last time Trump was in office. One of the reasons why Brussels is so accommodative is that the European Parliament emphasized negotiations already back in February. Furthermore, as Forbes notes,
The U.S. economy is the largest in the world, and many countries rely on American consumers to buy their goods. By import tariffs, the U.S. can pressure trading partners into more favorable deals and protect domestic industries from unfair competition.
More on unfair competition in a moment. First, it is important to note that Trump did not start this trade skirmish. Please note what IndustryWeek reported back in 2018:
Trump points to U.S. auto exports to Europe, saying they are taxed at a higher rate than European exports to the United States. Here, facts do offer Trump some support: U.S. autos face duties of 10% while European cars are subject to dugies of only 2.5% in the United States.
They also noted some nuances, e.g., that the United States applies a higher tariff on light trucks, presumably to defend the most profitable vehicles rolling out of U.S. based manufacturing plants. Nevertheless, the story that most media outlets do not tell is that Europe has a history of putting tariffs on U.S. exports to a greater extent than tariffs are applied in the opposite direction.
Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Facts notwithstanding, this trade war has caught media attention and is reaching ridiculous proportions. According to CNBC,
Auto stocks are digesting President Donald Trump’s annoncement that he would place 25% tariffs on “all cars that are not made in the United Sates,” as well as certain automobile parts. … Shares of the “Detroit Three” all fell.
They also explain that GM took a particularly hard beating, and that Ferrari is going to use the tariffs as a reason to raise prices by ten percent. This sounds dramatic, but keep in mind that stocks fly up and down with impressive amplitude; what was lost yesterday can come back with a bonus tomorrow. As for Ferrari, a ten-percent price hike is basically meaningless since these cars are often sold in highly customized, individual negotiations before they are even produced.
Despite the media hype, these tariffs will not last the year. One reason is the retaliatory nature in President Trump’s tariffs, which—again—has already caught the attention of the Europeans and brought them to the negotiation table. We can debate whether or not his tactics are the best in order to create more fair trade terms between the United States and our trading partners, but there is no question that Trump’s methods have caught the attention of the powers that be (which include Mexico and Canada).
There is another reason why I do not see this tariffs tit-for-tat continuing for much longer. The European economy is in bad shape, especially compared to the U.S. economy. With European corporations already signaling increased direct investment in the U.S. economy, Europe is holding the short end of this stick.
But the bad news for the Europeans does not stop there. They are at an intrinsic disadvantage going into a tariffs-based trade war. The EU has a “tariff” of sorts that we do not have, namely the value-added tax, VAT. Shiphub.co has a succinct summary of how the VAT affects trade:
When importing (into the European Union), VAT should be taken into account. … VAT is calculated based on the customs value (the good’s value and transport costs … ) plus the due duty amount.
The term “duty” here, of course, refers to trade tariffs. This means that when tariffs go up, the VAT surcharge goes up as well. Aside from creating a tax-on-tax problem, this also means that the inflationary effect from U.S. imports is significantly stronger than it is on EU imports to the United States—even when tariffs are equal.
If the U.S. government wanted to, they could include the tax-on-tax effect of the VAT when assessing the effective EU tariffs on imports from the United States. This would quickly expand the tit-for-tat tariff war, with Europe at an escalating disadvantage.
For these reasons, I do not see how this “trade war” will continue beyond the summer, but even that is a pessimistic outlook.
Before I close this tariff topic and declare it a weekend, let me also mention that the use of tariffs in trade war is neither a new nor an unusual tactic. Check out this little brochure from the Directorate-General for Trade under the European Commission’:
Trade defence instruments, such as anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties, are ways of protecting European production against international trade distortions.
What they refer to as “defence instruments” are primarily tariffs on imports. In a separate report the Directorate lists no fewer than 63 trade-war cases where the EU imposes tariffs to punish a country for unfair trade tactics.
Trade what, and what countries, you wonder? Sweet corn from Thailand, fused alumina from China, biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, malleable tube fittings from China and Thailand, epoxy resins from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand… and lots and lots of tableware from China.
Like most people, I would prefer a world without taxes and tariffs, and the closer we can get to zero on either of those, the better. But until we get there, we should take a deep breath in the face of the media hype and trust our president on this one.
Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
28 energy leaders call for eliminating ALL energy subsidies—even ones they benefit from
SPARC Caring Adult Nominations now open!
Carney’s Cap on Alberta Energy Costing Canada Billions
Manufacturers Endorse Pierre Poilievre for Prime Minister
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta Institute urging Premier Smith to follow Saskatchewan and drop Industrial Carbon Tax
-
Addictions1 day agoShould fentanyl dealers face manslaughter charges for fatal overdoses?
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoFool Me Once: The Cost of Carney–Trudeau Tax Games
-
Alberta1 day agoAlbertans have contributed $53.6 billion to the retirement of Canadians in other provinces
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoChinese Gangs Dominate Canada: Why Will Voters Give Liberals Another Term?
-
Automotive2 days agoTrump announces 25% tariff on foreign automobiles as reciprocal tariffs loom
-
Energy1 day agoEnergy, climate, and economics — A smarter path for Canada
-
Also Interesting23 hours agoThe bizarre story of Taro Tsujimoto