Business
Trump gains ground in war against DEI
From The Center Square
By Casey Harper
A major shift is underway in the way large companies talk about and fund Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs.
President Donald Trump began the transition when he signed an executive order last month eliminating DEI policies and staff at the federal government and extending the anti-DEI policy to federal contractors.
Private companies, some of which had already begun the transition before Trump took office, remarkably began backing off their DEI policies, even if only symbolically with little internal change.
Costco resisted, pushing back on the Trump administration, but other major brands like Amazon Wal-Mart, Target, and Meta announced a pullback from DEI. Media reports indicated DEI discussions on earnings calls has plummeted.
Others, such as Wisconsin-based financial services company Fiserv, have not yet made a change, at least not publicly.
A murky legal future awaits companies willing to take the risk to stick with DEI policies, particularly in hiring.
Fiserv receives hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts.
According to Fiserv’s website’s Diversity & Inclusion page, the company is “committed to promoting diversity and inclusion (D&I) across all levels of the organization, in our communities and throughout our industry.”
Fiserv says that it “partner[s] with people and organizations around the world to advance our D&I efforts and create opportunities for our employees, entrepreneurs around the world and the next generation of innovators.”
The company’s diversity and inclusion page includes a careers section that discusses “engaging diverse talent” and events to connect with “diverse candidates.”
Critics of DEI initiatives and policies say they discriminate against white men and Asians and lead to hiring and promotion decisions based on factors such as race and sexual orientation rather than merit.
In its 2023 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, the company boasted that “60% of director nominees for the 2024 annual meeting reflect gender or racial/ethnic diversity.”
According to an April 2024 report from Payments Dive, Fiserv was “buoyed by sales to government entities” in Q1 of 2024 and reported $500 million in revenue from those contracts. The U.S. Coast Guard contracted with Fiserv in 2024 to help with payroll, according to HigherGov, among other government contracts.
Fiserv did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
A watershed moment against DEI came when during the Biden administration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against longstanding affirmative action policies at American universities, one key example of white and Asian Americans being discriminated against.
Trump’s election has only solidified the new legal framework for what is permissible when considering race and gender in hiring, promotion, and workplace etiquette.
From Trump’s order:
In the private sector, many corporations and universities use DEI as an excuse for biased and unlawful employment practices and illegal admissions preferences, ignoring the fact that DEI’s foundational rhetoric and ideas foster intergroup hostility and authoritarianism.
Billions of dollars are spent annually on DEI, but rather than reducing bias and promoting inclusion, DEI creates and then amplifies prejudicial hostility and exacerbates interpersonal conflict.
DEI has become increasingly controversial as activists use the moniker to advance every liberal policy on race and gender, often at taxpayer expense. In the federal government, DEI had become widespread and infiltrated into every part of governance, from racial quotas for promotions at the Pentagon to driving healthcare research at the National Institutes of Health.
At private companies, DEI policies guided investment decisions via ESG (Environmental, Social Governance) as well as personnel decisions with racial quotas for company board rooms. Those ideas are out of favor with the Trump administration.
Some of the companies resisting the shift from DEI could face legal action.
A coalition of state attorneys general sent a letter to Costco alleging it is violating the law, as The Center Square previously reported.
“Although Costco’s motto is ‘do the right thing,’ it appears that the company is doing the wrong thing – clinging to DEI policies that courts and businesses have rejected as illegal,” the letter said.
This week, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit against Starbucks for similar policies.
“By making employment decisions based on characteristics that have nothing to do with one’s ability to work well, Starbucks, for example, hires people by thumbing the scale based on at least one of Starbucks’ preferred immutable characteristics rather than an evaluation of an applicant’s merit and qualifications,” the lawsuit said. “Making hiring decision on non-merit considerations will skew the hiring pool towards people who are less qualified to perform their work, increasing costs for Missouri’s consumers.”
A 2022 Starbucks document touts a DEI goal: “By 2025, our goal is to achieve BIPOC representation of at least 30% at all corporate levels and at least 40% at all retail and manufacturing roles.”
Bailey called the Starbucks policies discriminatory and illegal.
“With Starbucks’ discriminatory patterns, practices, and policies, Missouri’s consumers are required to pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services that could be provided for less had Starbucks employed the most qualified workers, regardless of their race, color, sex, or national origin,” Bailey said. “As Attorney General, I have a moral and legal obligation to protect Missourians from a company that actively engages in systemic race and sex discrimination. Racism has no place in Missouri. We’re filing suit to halt this blatant violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act in its tracks.”
![]()
Casey Harper
D.C. Bureau Reporter
Automotive
Elon Musk Poised To Become World’s First Trillionaire After Shareholder Vote

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
At Tesla’s Austin headquarters, investors backed Musk’s 12-step plan that ties his potential trillion-dollar payout to a series of aggressive financial and operational milestones, including raising the company’s valuation from roughly $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion and selling one million humanoid robots within a decade. Musk hailed the outcome as a turning point for Tesla’s future.
“What we’re about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla but a whole new book,” Musk said, as The New York Times reported.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The decision cements investor confidence in Musk’s “moonshot” management style and reinforces the belief that Tesla’s success depends heavily on its founder and his leadership.
Tesla Annual meeting starting now
https://t.co/j1KHf3k6ch— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 6, 2025
“Those who claim the plan is ‘too large’ ignore the scale of ambition that has historically defined Tesla’s trajectory,” the Florida State Board of Administration said in a securities filing describing why it voted for Mr. Musk’s pay plan. “A company that went from near bankruptcy to global leadership in E.V.s and clean energy under similar frameworks has earned the right to use incentive models that reward moonshot performance.”
Investors like Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood defended Tesla’s decision, saying the plan aligns shareholder rewards with company performance.
“I do not understand why investors are voting against Elon’s pay package when they and their clients would benefit enormously if he and his incredible team meet such high goals,” Wood wrote on X.
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Norges Bank Investment Management — one of Tesla’s largest shareholders — broke ranks, however, and voted against the pay plan, saying that the package was excessive.
“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk,” the firm said.
The vote comes months after Musk wrapped up his short-lived government role under President Donald Trump. In February, Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team sparked a firestorm when they announced plans to eliminate the U.S. Agency for International Development, drawing backlash from Democrats and prompting protests targeting Musk and his companies, including Tesla.
Back in May, Musk announced that his “scheduled time” leading DOGE had ended.
Business
Carney’s Deficit Numbers Deserve Scrutiny After Trudeau’s Forecasting Failures
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Conrad Eder
Frontier Centre for Public Policy study reveals a decade of inflated Liberal forecasts—a track record that casts a long shadow over Carney’s first budget
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has released a major new study revealing that the Trudeau government’s federal budget forecasts from 2016 to 2025 were consistently inaccurate and biased — a record that casts serious doubt on the projections in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first budget.
Carney’s 2025–26 federal budget forecasts a $78.3-billion deficit — twice the size projected last year and four times what was forecast in Budget 2022. But if recent history is any guide, Canadians have good reason to question whether even this ballooning deficit reflects fiscal reality.
The 4,000-word study, Measuring Federal Budgetary Balance Forecasting Accuracy and Bias, by Frontier Centre policy analyst Conrad Eder, finds that forecast accuracy collapsed after the Trudeau government took office:
- Current-year forecasts were off by an average of $22.9 billion, or one per cent of GDP.
- Four-year forecasts missed the mark by an average of $94.4 billion, or four per cent of GDP.
- Long-term projections consistently overstated Canada’s fiscal health, showing a clear optimism bias.
Eder’s analysis shows that every three- and four-year forecast under Trudeau predicted a stronger financial position than what actually occurred, masking the true scale of deficits and debt accumulation. The study concludes that this reflects a systemic optimism bias, likely rooted in political incentives: short-term optics with no regard to long-term consequences.
“With Prime Minister Carney now setting Canada’s fiscal direction, it’s critical to assess his projections in light of this track record,” said Eder. “The pattern of bias and inaccuracy under previous Liberal governments gives reason to doubt the credibility of claims that deficits will shrink over time. Canadians deserve fiscal forecasts that are credible and transparent — not political messaging disguised as economic planning.”
The study warns that persistent optimism bias erodes fiscal accountability, weakens public trust and limits citizens’ ability to hold government to account — a threat to both economic sustainability and democratic transparency.
-
Justice1 day agoCarney government lets Supreme Court decision stand despite outrage over child porn ruling
-
Daily Caller2 days agoUS Eating Canada’s Lunch While Liberals Stall – Trump Admin Announces Record-Shattering Energy Report
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s budget spares tax status of Canadian churches, pro-life groups after backlash
-
COVID-191 day agoFreedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to appeal her recent conviction
-
Business2 days agoPulling back the curtain on the Carney government’s first budget
-
Energy2 days agoEby should put up, shut up, or pay up
-
Business2 days agoThe Liberal budget is a massive FAILURE: Former Liberal Cabinet Member Dan McTeague
-
Daily Caller1 day agoUN Chief Rages Against Dying Of Climate Alarm Light


