There’s a leadership change in Washington that will have a massive impact on business. As President Donald Trump enters the Oval Office, he signals a changing of the guard at the Federal Trade Commission, which has made a flurry of moves in the final weeks of the Biden administration.
The tactic is used in many modern games and is often compared to gambling. Ferguson voted in favor of the action but did dissent on a few specific points.
The regulator also cleared the way for ExxonMobil’s $60 billion merger with Pioneer Natural Resources and Chevron’s $53 billion deal for Hess. The FTC did prohibit the CEOs of Pioneer and Hess from serving on their respective boards.
Ferguson voted against the decision, joining Commissioner Melissa Holyoak in her dissent of the ruling, which she called a “pre-inauguration swan song.”
“When firms like Pepsi give massive retailers a leg up, it tilts the playing field against small firms and ultimately inflates prices for American consumers,” Khan said in a statement.
Ferguson was not in favor of action against PepsiCo.
“On the eve of its eviction from power at the hands of the American voters, the Commission’s Democratic majority offers one final insult to the Commission, its staff, and the rule of law,” he wrote in his dissent. “In a cynical attempt to tie the hands of the incoming Trump Administration, the Democratic majority launches a major lawsuit on little more than a hunch.”
The FTC, along with Illinois and Minnesota, also filed a lawsuit against tractor giant John Deere, claiming it prevents farmers from being able to repair their own equipment or use independent shops, which the regulator said boosted the company’s profits.
Ferguson was against the lawsuit, saying it “appears to be the result of brazen partisanship,” “lends to the suit the stench of partisan motivation,” and appears to be “taken in haste to beat President Trump into office.”
Khan’s FTC ordered H&R Block to overhaul its advertising and customer service practices, claiming it made “deceptive claims about ‘free’ tax filing.” H&R Block will also need to pay $7 million to compensate customers harmed by those practices.
While it didn’t take any action on this, the regulator issued its second big report claiming the “Big 3” Pharmacy Benefit Managers raised prices on generic drugs at their affiliated pharmacies, generating $7.3 billion in added revenue from 2017 to 2022.
“After having already issued one rare interim report, what’s one more,” he asked in his concurring statement. “Were it up to me, I would have preferred the Commission take the time needed to complete its work and issue a final report when it is ready to do so.”
It also blocked a $24.6 billion merger between Kroger and Albertsons while attempting to stop others, like Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
Moving forward, Ferguson is expected to take a different direction with the regulating agency when it comes to mergers, which Wall Street welcomes. Still, he has previously promised to be tough on Big Tech.
“At the FTC, we will end Big Tech’s vendetta against competition and free speech,” he said in an X post after Trump announced he would be the FTC’s next chair. “We will make sure that America is the world’s technological leader and the best place for innovators to bring new ideas to life.”
“He will clearly roll back Khan’s head-scratching anti-tech agenda, including ending efforts to regulate AI and abandoning a brutal standard for any merger of any size for the tech world,” Wedbush Securities Analyst Dan Ives wrote in a December note.
Maine becomes latest state to sue oil companies over climate change
During the week of Nov. 25, Maine became the latest state to sue major fossil fuel companies over climate change. The Pine Tree State alleged the companies deceived the public about the effects fossil fuels had on the environment.
The state wants damages dating back to the 1960s. That’s when the state said the companies first learned about what fossil fuels could do to the climate. The state is also seeking money for climate adaptation.
“For over half a century, these companies chose to fuel profits instead of following their science to prevent what are now likely irreversible, catastrophic climate effects,” Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey, a Democrat, said.
Maine is particularly dependent on oil for home heating. Over half of the state’s houses rely on oil over electricity or alternative fuels.
“These baseless claims ignore the state’s historic dependence on oil and natural gas, do nothing to address the risks of climate change and waste taxpayer dollars,” a spokesperson said.
Maine joins eight other states, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia, who have pending climate lawsuits against oil companies.
However, many government-related climate lawsuits have struggled. New York tried a different legal approach with its suit against ExxonMobil in 2019. They said the company misled investors about climate-related costs and brought securities fraud charges. A judge threw that suit out.
The city of Baltimore also filed a lawsuit similar to what many states have filed. In July 2024, a state judge dismissed that suit. The judge ruled that state courts were not the place to settle the case. In addition, she concluded that Maryland’s laws didn’t have power over emissions that occurred outside the state.
Supreme Court strips federal agencies of widely used power, kicks it to courts
The Supreme Court overturned 40 years of legal precedent, nullifying the most cited Supreme Court administrative law decision of all time. The Chevron doctrine has been in place since 1984, and this week’s ruling confirms critics’ view that Chevron gave government agencies too much power in interpreting laws passed by Congress.
The Chevron doctrine said that when a law is open to interpretation; when the intent of Congress in passing that law is unclear; when the statute is ambiguous; courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation of that law, as long as it’s sensible.
“Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote on overruling Chevron. “Courts do.”
The case that led the Supreme Court to overturn Chevron is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — as in Commerce Department Secretary Gina Raimondo. Loper Bright Enterprises is a commercial fishing company.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976 says the National Marine Fisheries Service can require fishing companies to allow federal agents on board as observers. But the agency also interpreted that statute to mean it could require the fishing companies to pay for the salaries of those federal observers. Loper fought that assumption all the way to the Supreme Court.
Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.”
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “Given Chevron’s pervasiveness, the decision to do so is likely to produce large-scale disruption. All that backs today’s decision is the majority’s belief that Chevron was wrong — that it gave agencies too much power and courts not enough.”
Chief Justice Roberts said the decision does not affect any previous rulings decided under the Chevron deference. However, it will have significant impact on future statutory interpretations.
Immediately following the ruling, Straight Arrow News Business Correspondent Simone Del Rosario interviewed Caroline Cecot, an associate professor of law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
The following has been edited for clarity. You can watch the interview in the video at the top of this page.
Simone Del Rosario: What is your initial reaction to the impact of this decision?
Caroline Cecot: My first reaction was, ‘Wow, they actually did this.’ This could turn out to be a big deal, especially in its practical implementation. Another small reaction I had is how little the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, really thought about the practical implications of this or seemed to downplay them.
Simone Del Rosario: What do you mean by that?
Caroline Cecot: One thing that I do a lot of research in is in the environmental space and in the energy space. And a lot of those statutes are very complex. They deal with a lot of issues of expertise, issues of trade-offs between competing interests.
When we look in those cases, you look at these statutory interpretation questions, they’re really fraught with intersecting expertise and political policy preferences that can change in different administrations, et cetera.
The Chevron case is a perfect example of this, actually. In the Chevron case, this was the EPA under President Reagan adopting a more flexible interpretation of when a source would trigger more stringent standards. And the court had to sort out whether this interpretation was authorized by the statute.
But the statute just wasn’t clear about how to answer that question. It talked broadly, obviously, about the importance of environmental protection, pollution reduction, but then it also talked about economic growth and how it’s important to think about those issues.
So how should the court figure this out? Its options basically were: Make some decision on the question despite not having any expertise on the subject matter, the statute, or the appropriate balancing of these competing interests or any political accountability for its decision; or allow the agency to make this choice as long as it’s within these reasonable bounds. And the court went with option two, and that’s essentially the Chevron decision on what to do in these kinds of cases.
Meanwhile, in the Loper Bright case, Chief Justice Roberts talked about statutory interpretation much more abstractly or simplistically and didn’t really grapple with these kinds of issues. The dissent, which was authored by Justice Kagan, offers numerous examples about how statutes implicate these kinds of expertise and policy choices.
Simone Del Rosario: The majority explicitly stated that any interpretations made to this point under Chevron stand. So we’re not going to see this huge 40-year unraveling of law. But what do you envision happens next when agencies and businesses are navigating through largely vague statutes that they operate under?
Caroline Cecot: So the majority’s answer, essentially, is that without Chevron, we go back to a time where the background rule on how a court deals with this is something referred to as Skidmore, the Skidmore deference or Skidmore respect. The Skidmore deference basically says that you kind of give the agency’s interpretation the respect it deserves based on how thoroughly reasoned it was.
This is a very difficult concept to wrap one’s mind around. I teach administrative law and this is something we talk a lot about, our students and I. What are the differences? How would this be decided under Skidmore?
Just a few years ago, when the court was deciding a case, Kisor v. Wilkie, which was about a related concept about whether to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation, so different, not a statute.
At oral argument, the Chief Justice had this funny remark that I actually play for students, which is, ‘Counsel, to get back to the stare decisis questions. I think the issue depends, at least in part, on how much of a change you’re asking. And one of the things I have trouble getting my arms around is if you start with Auer and recognizing the limitations on Auer that have accumulated over the years and you’re changing that to Skidmore, which I find hard to get my hands around too. I think I know more about what a moiety is than I know what Skidmore deference is.’
And so if the Chief Justice made this joke during oral arguments about how difficult it would be to apply Skidmore, I’m glad we’re not looking back, but looking at the future, I think this is going to lead to a lot of inconsistency and a lot of litigation.
And probably, and I hate to say this, but this is based on some research by Ken Barnett, Christopher Walker and Christina Boyd, we’re going to see more decisions that are influenced by the makeup of the panel, whether it’s a more liberal panel or more conservative panel.
Simone Del Rosario: How much of this is on Congress for writing these ambiguous laws to begin with? Do you think that Chevron has allowed them to put too much legislative authority on agencies?
Caroline Cecot: Some research has shown that Congress is aware of Chevron. So it is possible that in some ways they leave some ambiguities purposely because they want agencies to fill in these gaps using their expertise, which I would find perfectly appropriate within the bounds of constitutionally-correct delegations.
That said, now that there is no Chevron and Congress has to write statutes. I guess I’m in the camp where — and I don’t say this to degrade Congress in any way — I think it’s just impossible to write a perfect statute that includes everything at the outset. I think there’s something that happens with experience under a statute where agencies realize that something’s not working or the facts on the ground change. That’s something I care a lot about. And the agency has to respond to these changing facts on the ground.
The whole scheme of administrative implementation of statutes is partly because we get some efficiency benefits from this. If we revert back to Congress having to do everything at the outset, we’re gonna see a lot of increases in inefficient regulatory actions across the board.
Simone Del Rosario: But in the same vein, critics of Chevron have said that this precedent, to this point, has allowed these agencies far too much authority and deference to say, ‘This is how they interpret it so that must be the way that it is.’ It takes the issue away from courts and away from Congress when the majority opinion in Loper clearly believes that that subject does belong in the courts.
Caroline Cecot: It doesn’t take the issue away from the people, though, because at least as compared to courts, agencies are more politically responsible and we see changing presidential administrations all the time.
I say this because the doctrine of Chevron itself to give deference to agency interpretations, it’s neutral. And then the Chevron case itself, as I recounted, this was an agency that wanted to take a deregulatory action. But of course, Chevron could also allow an agency to take more aggressive agency action.
Over time, the doctrine became associated with judicial acquiescence to these ever-increasing grabs of power by the agency, or that’s how it’s sort of thought about, which started this anti-Chevron movement that even led to this question of whether to overrule it.
But I think at its core, Chevron is just saying, look, here we have a statute that the agency has that Congress wants the agency to implement given what’s happening on the ground. And here’s the way that the agency has decided to do this. Is it reasonable? If it’s not, then no.
And obviously, I almost forgot the first step. If it goes against Congress’s language, that’s out. Congress is supreme. The agency has to do what Congress allows it to. But at the point that there’s not a clear answer and it’s a reasonable interpretation, I think it should go to the agency. And if the people disagree with this, you have an election, you have a new presidency, you have a new administration and then you have new ways of interpreting the statute.
I don’t mean to also defend this process too much because I think it’s important to have predictability. So I say this as someone who knows that there’s another backstop, which is this other doctrine, State Farm, which ensures that agency decision-making is fact-based, that there’s logical connections.
Even though there might be some policy reversals in the presidencies, it always requires some explanation. To me, to this point, this felt like a nice balance, making sure that courts aren’t making decisions that are actually politically motivated but unaccountable, that leave Congress in an impossible position and leave us in an inefficiency spiral, but also cabined because of this reasonableness inquiry.
Simone Del Rosario: Do you think that the National Marine Fisheries Service overstepped its bounds by saying that fishing companies had to pay for these federal observers?
Caroline Cecot: You know, that’s a tough one for me to answer because I think most folks that I’ve talked to seem to think that even if there were not a world of Chevron, that the answer is that the Marine Fisheries overstepped in some way.
When I looked at the history behind the statute itself, this is the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that amendment that created this situation where these councils are allowed to require observers on domestic vessels. But then also there’s a separate provision for one of the Pacific fisheries to be able to spread some of these costs in specific ways with some limits.
That amendment happened because that council was the first pre-amendment to want to impose these costs. During the deliberations on this, the industry protested bearing the costs and wanted taxpayers to bear the costs. And the council had said, ‘Go to Congress with that, beg them for it, but we’re going to impose this on you because we need to save the fishery.’
So to me, the more clear answer here is that the default is that the industry pays and if they don’t want to pay, they can lobby Congress and get their own provision, which is what happened with the Pacific fisheries where they got a provision that talked a little bit more about capping these fees.
Simone Del Rosario: As Gorsuch said, the court today placed a tombstone on Chevron. So regardless of how helpful you found it to be as far as keeping things more stable in this system between agencies and courts and businesses, it’s effectively gone. Who’s the big winner today?
Caroline Cecot: The big winner is definitely lawyers. What I said about Skidmore deference being hard to wrap yourself around, I think this is going to trigger more litigation over agency action now, on robust litigation, on both the fact-based front with State Farm and the legal interpretation front with the Skidmore deference.
Other than that, because I have a different view of Chevron, I didn’t see it as anti-regulatory or pro-regulatory, I think a loser in this in some ways is each presidential term. They’re going to have to grapple with a lot less flexibility in their statutes and a lot less ability to respond to emerging issues on the ground without having to go to Congress.
And then Congress is going to have to change some things because as pessimistic as I was in my first recount, they do have to step up at this point in some ways. And at least, responding to big emergencies that come up, they will need to.
And that’s already been true in some ways with the major questions doctrine, but they will need to do a lot more and schedule a lot more time for legislation.
First fatalities reported in Houthi shipping attacks in Red Sea
Yemen’s Houthi rebels launched a missile attack on a commercial ship in the Gulf of Aden, resulting in the death of two crew members. The attack on the Barbados-flagged bulk carrier, True Confidence, marked the first fatal Houthi strike amid Israel’s conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
The attack exacerbated the conflict along a vital maritime route linking Asia, the Middle East and Europe, causing disruptions in global shipping. Despite ongoing U.S. airstrikes initiated in January, the Houthis have persisted in their assaults since November.
Iran also announced its intent to seize a $50 million cargo of Kuwaiti crude oil belonging to American energy firm Chevron Corp. This announcement follows the seizure of a tanker by Iran nearly a year ago.
Reports suggest that the attack on the True Confidence occurred after the vessel was hailed over the radio by individuals claiming to be the Yemeni military. This tactic, consistent with the Houthis’ previous actions in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, raises suspicions of their intentions to commandeer vessels.
According to two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity, the anti-ship ballistic missile attack resulted in the deaths of two crew members and left six others injured. The State Department condemned the attack, highlighting the disregard for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.
The full extent of damage to the Liberian-owned ship remains unclear, as the crew was forced to abandon the vessel and deploy lifeboats. Both U.S. and Indian naval forces assisted in rescue efforts.
In a prerecorded message, Houthi military spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree claimed responsibility for the attack, stating that their missile fire engulfed the vessel in flames. The rebels assert that their attacks will persist until the “siege on the Palestinian people in Gaza is lifted.”
The motive behind the Houthis’ targeting of the True Confidence remains uncertain. The vessel was previously owned by Oaktree Capital Management, a Los Angeles-based fund.
Amidst these developments, a separate Houthi assault targeted the USS Carney, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer involved in the American campaign against the rebels. The Carney successfully intercepted bomb-carrying drones and an anti-ship ballistic missile.
ExxonMobil and other major companies are making big investments in EVs
ExxonMobil has announced plans to become a leading supplier of lithium for electric vehicle (EV) batteries by the end of the decade. Dubbed “white gold” for its increasing value and silver-white color, the oil company’s investment in this critical mineral comes as demand for it is expected to grow exponentially, nearly doubling over the next five years according to some estimates.
“Everyone’s focused on lithium, it’s white gold is the next rush,” said Keith Phillips, CEO of Piedmont Lithium. “I think we’re in a transitional environment right now where lithium demand will exceed supply most of the time for the next decade or so.”
Earlier this year, ExxonMobil acquired the rights to 120,000 gross acres of land in southern Arkansas’s Smackover formation. The region is considered “one of the most prolific lithium resources of its type in North America.” In total, about 4 million tons of this highly valued metal are estimated to be the area, enough to power about 50 million EVs.
“Arkansas sits on one of the world’s largest lithium resources,” said Robert Mintak, CEO of Standard Lithium. “There’s no better place to build a lithium business than south Arkansas.”
ExxonMobil plans to begin producing battery grade versions of the metal from this site by 2027. Ultimately, its aim is to supply enough lithium to support the production of more than 1 million electric vehicles annually by 2030. Currently, less than one percent of lithium is produced in the United States, leaving American automakers in need of an increased domestic supply of the mineral.
“Lithium is essential to the energy transition, and ExxonMobil has a leading role to play in paving the way for electrification,” said Dan Ammann, president of ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions. “This landmark project applies decades of ExxonMobil expertise to unlock vast supplies of North American lithium.”
“If battery electric vehicles do prove to be the major means of light passenger vehicle transportation moving forward, the core business model for the oil majors of providing gasoline to these vehicles is going to struggle,” said Graham Evans, director of auto supply chain and technology at S&P Global Mobility. “It’s not necessarily just hedging their bets, but perhaps starting to add some meat on the bone of the narrative around decarbonizing what they do, and meeting some kind of net-zero target for the future, as difficult as that will be to achieve.”
Meanwhile, oil refining giant Koch Industries put at least $750 million towards EVs and the U.S. battery supply chain in 2022. That spending made them one of the biggest investors in the sector outside of automakers at the time, according to The Wall Street Journal.
A projected surge in the demand for EVs has prompted this shift in strategy from Big Oil companies. With some analysts protecting that electric vehicles could surpass as much as two thirds of global car sales by 2030, the oil industry is looking at ways to be a part of the anticipated widespread adoption of these vehicles in the coming years.
California sues Chevron, other oil giants, alleges climate change deception
California sued five of the world’s largest oil companies, alleging they deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels and the impact on climate change. The lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court targeted BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, and ConocoPhillips, along with the companies’ trade group, the American Petroleum Institute.
In the 135-page filing, the state alleged that all five oil companies have known about the negative impacts of burning fossil fuels on the climate since the 1960s yet the companies downplayed this information and lied about it to the public.
State officials said climate-related storms, fires and droughts have cost billions of dollars in damage. Part of the lawsuit seeks to create a fund to assist with recovery after future disasters that the oil companies would finance.
California is one of several states to file a complaint against the oil companies.
According to the Straight Arrow News Media Miss™ tool, this story is a Media Miss for the right. The Media Landscape indicates that while left-leaning and center-oriented outlets are covering this story, fewer right-leaning outlets are reporting on the topic.
The American Petroleum Institute called the lawsuit meritless and politicized, adding climate change should be debated in Congress, not a courtroom. In a similar statement, Shell agreed that immediate action to combat climate change is needed but a courtroom is not the right place to debate that.
“This ongoing, coordinated campaign to wage meritless, politicized lawsuits against a foundational American industry and its workers is nothing more than a distraction from important national conversations and an enormous waste of California taxpayer resources. Climate policy is for Congress to debate and decide, not the court system,” said Ryan Meyers, American Petroleum Institute senior vice president and general counsel.
Chevron said that climate change requires a coordinated international response while accusing California of being a leading promoter of fossil fuel development.
Still, the lawsuit alleged that these companies launched a disinformation campaign as early as 1970 to discredit scientific research regarding climate change.
Rhode Island, Baltimore and Honolulu are among the other states and cities that have filed similar complaints against oil companies.
Straight Arrow News strives to provide unbiased, fact-based news in addition to offering a comprehensive look at how the media is covering stories that matter most. Learn more about the Media Miss™ tool and decide for yourself.
S&P drops ratings after Musk complains. Here are 5 recent blows to ESG.
ESG, the practice of rating companies based on environmental, social and corporate governance, has become a hot-button issue in recent years. With political pressure building, the movement is losing steam. Here are five of the latest blows to ESG in this week’s Five For Friday.
5: Don’t say ESG
The term ESG alone is enough to draw the ire of a whole section of the political spectrum and companies are paying attention. Forty-eight percent of firms that have faced backlash say they have adjusted their terminology, according to research from the Conference Board.
The term has most often been replaced by sustainable, which appears to be more palatable. The term has become such a problem ESG pioneer BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink said he won’t use it because it’s been “weaponized” and “misused” by the far left and far right.
4: BlackRock’s board
BlackRock has become somewhat of the poster child for ESG-minded investment firms, which makes naming Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser to its board even more shocking.
Generally July is a time for family vacation and celebrating Independence Day. But this July, Republicans in Congress dubbed it “ESG month.” Their agenda to protect investors from progressive activists included proxy voting reform, rating oversight and protecting U.S. companies from regulations in the EU. That said, nothing was accomplished before lawmakers took off for the August recess.
For those less concerned about ESG, July is also hot dog month, ice cream month and picnic month.
2: Activism decline
One of the big criticisms of ESG activism is companies bowing to a few loud shareholders. In fact, one of the biggest ESG wins was when tiny hedge fund Engine No. 1 won a 2021 battle with Exxon over board members and carbon footprint.
ESG scores can be particularly controversial, and S&P Global just dropped them from credit assessments of companies in favor of written analysis. This comes after Elon Musk called ESG “the devil” due to S&P giving Tesla a lower ESG score than cigarette-maker Philip Morris. If you really want to see a numbered ESG score, you can still check out Moody’s.
World’s biggest volcano erupts, Black Friday and Cyber Monday break records
The World’s biggest volcano is erupting; a recall is issued for sippy cups; and this Cyber Monday could break records. These stories and more highlight the midday rundown for Monday, Nov. 28, 2022.
World’s most active volcano erupts
The world’s largest active volcano is erupting in Hawaii for the first time in nearly 40 years. Even though Mauna Loa has been dormant since 1984, officials have noticed an increase in seismic activity over the past few months. The volcano covers half of the island.
Lava is not threatening downhill communities, but there is an ash-fall advisory in place.
U.S. eases sanctions on Venezuela
Over the weekend, the Biden administration eased oil sanctions on Venezuela, and the Treasury Department granted Chevron permission to pump oil in Venezuela and expand its operations.
Venezuela was slapped with the sanctions 15 years ago for human rights abuses, drug trafficking and corruption. A vast portion of migrants entering the U.S. for asylum come from Venezuela to escape persecution. The move was an attempt to curb revenue to a country that holds the world’s largest oil reserves.
The Biden administration is easing sanctions after the Venezuelan government opened the door to its opposition party to discuss humanitarian crises.
Recall issued on stainless steel sippy cups
An important recall alert has been issued for parents of toddlers. Potential lead poisoning has caused thousands of sippy cups to be recalled. The stainless steel bottles from Green Sprouts are sold at popular retailers like Whole Foods and Bed Bath and Beyond.
The danger is that if the bottle breaks, it could potentially expose your toddler to a toxic metal that can cause poisoning if ingested.
Black Friday, Cyber Monday break records
It’s the most wonderful time of the year for retail, after a booming Black Friday set records on spending. Cyber Monday is projected to do the same thing.
Black Friday raked in more than 9 billion dollars in sales and now Cyber Monday is projected to break online purchasing record with $11 billion in sales.
Holiday promotions are tempting consumers even amid high inflation.
Word of the year: Gaslighting
“The word of the year for 2022 from Merriam-Webster is gaslighting. The act or practice of grossly misleading someone, especially for one’s own advantage,” said Merriam-Webster Editor at Large Peter Sokoloski.
Webster’s word of the year is “gaslighting.” Searches of the word on their website increased 1,700% compared to last year. It’s a term frequently heard on the dating scene.
Following OPEC oil production cut, US could be considering Venezuela
As the OPEC decision to cut oil production by 2 million barrels a day leaves America scrambling to find additional sources, Venezuela could be one of them. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday the Biden administration is preparing to scale down sanctions on Venezuela. This would allow Chevron to resume pumping oil in the country. The White House has refuted the report.
“Our sanctions policy on Venezuela remains unchanged. We will continue to implement and enforce our Venezuela sanctions,” National Security Council Spokesperson Adrienne Watson said. “There are no plans to change our sanctions policy without constructive steps from the Maduro regime.”
This reportedly includes Venezuela’s leader Nicolas Maduro resuming talks with the country’s opposition party to discuss conditions needed to hold free and fair presidential elections in 2024 after a controversial dictatorship rule.
In addition to potentially working out a deal with Venezuela, the White House said the Department of Energy is taking out 10 million more barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to send to market next month. President Biden said he was disappointed in OPEC+ cutting oil production.
“We’re looking at what alternatives we may have,” Biden told reporters at the White House. He said no decision has been made yet on how to respond to the OPEC+ move.
How rising anti-ESG crusader Ramaswamy is shaking up corporate America
He’s anti-woke, anti-ESG and he’s hoping to shake up the corporate world. Activist investor Vivek Ramaswamy is putting money behind his mission to counter so-called “woke capitalism” with two new asset management funds backed by some big players.
This year Ramaswamy launched Strive Asset Management, a conservative counter to funds like BlackRock. Backed by billionaires Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman, Strive has two funds to date: DRLL, which invests solely in U.S. energy companies and STRV, a fund that invests broadly in the 500 leading U.S. publicly traded companies.
“I will tell you firsthand, they are hungry for this message,” Ramaswamy said of CEOs on CNBC. “What Strive is doing is delivering a new mandate – what I call the post-ESG mandate – to the U.S. energy sector to drill for more oil, to frack for more natural gas, to do whatever allows them to be the most successful over the long run without regard to political, social, cultural or environmental agendas.”
This is a new direction for the New York Times bestselling author of “Woke, Inc.” and “Nation of Victims.” Before this crusade, Ramaswamy was a biosciences CEO who stormed on the scene in 2015 after pulling off the biggest IPO in U.S. biotech history with Axovant, a company that was trying to develop a new Alzheimer’s drug. He was featured on the cover of Forbes magazine at age 30.
The drug ultimately failed and Ramaswamy eventually left the company he founded, Roivant Sciences, in 2021 to pursue this new cause. The now 37-year-old is using the investments to persuade the likes of Chevron, Apple and Disney to ignore the politics and environmental demands of some of the other, larger shareholders. Strive sent letters to the boards and executives of each of these three companies to deliver its mandate in writing.
“We are concerned that Chevron faces immense pressure from its large institutional ‘shareholders’ including BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard to adopt value-destroying limitations on its business that do not align with Chevron’s best interests,” reads one letter to Chevron.
“I’m putting pressure on a lot of these politicized demands,” he told Fox Business. “Now what do you hear in response from the BlackRocks of the world, is you hear that, ‘No no no, this is just about long run value creation.’ That argument ends up being a farce.”
Of course, those making that argument are at odds with Ramaswamy, insisting environmental, social and governance (ESG) decisions will make companies more profitable and viable in the long run. Ramaswamy, for his part, is happy to be the anti-voice of it all.
“Any company, I hope Chevron included, is going to be better off from actually bringing these debates into the boardroom rather than unquestioningly accepting claims of shareholders at one end of its spectrum,” he said.