UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

100% correct in that both of these are attempts at Marxist takeover of the private sector.

EBSA Addresses Trump Administration's Pension Investing Priorities at OECD Event

September 8, 2025

Remarks delivered by EBSA Senior Policy Advisor Justin Danhof at the OECD Conference Center in Paris.

On behalf of the United States Department of Labor, I want to thank the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for hosting the inaugural roundtable on Global Financial Markets here in Paris. The Department of Labor looks forward to engaging with the OECD's 38 member countries to advocate for policies that promote innovation, freedom, and economic opportunity, both in the United States and globally.

The Department of Labor, and more specifically, the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) assists more than 153 million workers, retirees, and their families covered by employer-sponsored benefits plans. This includes overseeing more than 800,000 private retirement plans, 2.6 million health plans, and 500,000 welfare benefit plans, which collectively hold more than $14 trillion in assets.
It's an honor to join the delegation from the United States – where it's once again morning in America. From sea to shining sea, the sun shines brightly on the American worker. President Trump and the Department of Labor under the leadership of Secretary Chavez-DeRemer and Deputy Secretary Sonderling, are removing regulatory shackles on the American workforce, unleashing economic prosperity, and restoring the proper focus to capital markets – including in the pension space.

In the United States anyone that oversees private pension dollars must act "for the exclusive purpose of . . . providing benefits to participants and beneficiaries."(1) As such, they are duty bound to maximize risk-adjusted financial return to the exclusion of all other pursuits. Our pension system is designed to pursue one social purpose, one normative good—the provision of a secure and prosperous retirement to our workers.

President Trump's Administration considers the well-being of the American worker sacrosanct. And part of their well-being depends on their ability to retire with dignity. To achieve that noble goal, we need a robust pension system that eschews politics and other social purposes. For far too long, special interests and policy organizations have pushed politicized investing, including within pension funds. America is not blameless in this folly. Many American businesses, pensions, and prior Administrations have adopted, and even advocated for these policies. However, because of our clear standards, America's adoption of politically motivated investments has been far less than some other OECD members as evidenced by low rate of such practices in ERISA qualified plans.(2)
In America, the sun is now fully setting on this behavior.

I speak of course of ESG and its companion acronym, DEI. It is appropriate that we discuss ESG at a collaborative international body such as the OECD. That is because, 21 years ago, ESG was born at a different international collaborative body, the United Nations.(3) ESG, like most three-letter acronyms, is meant to obfuscate, not define. In this sense, the UN did a masterful job in construction.

They placed the environment (the "E") up front as it is objectively measurable. Climate change debates are never ending, but there is no doubt that one can measure carbon emissions. Next, they placed the "G" at the end. The governance component gives the framework an aura of credibility. Whether you run a small-town library or a multinational conglomerate, you need good governance structures to succeed. Finally, they stuck the least definable term in the middle, the "S" for social. What is a social good? It's at once everything and nothing since it's in the eye of the beholder. It also happens to be the goal of many ESG proponents – to use the money of others to change society by changing business behavior. To that end, it has been wildly successful and extremely disruptive.
I heard an expression the other day that sounds very simple but has profound implications that helps explain what has been done in the name of ESG: the point of a system is what it does. Let me say that again. The point of a system is what it does. And some systems are meant to corrupt.

And ESG, at its core, looks a lot like a Marxist march through corporate culture. What is the point of Marxism? The complete destruction of capitalism.

Again, the point of a system is what it does.

And when it comes to DEI's implementation through the "S" prong of ESG, diversity and inclusion on their own are treated as normative goods. But they aren't good, they don't produce excellence, and critically, for today's discussion, they are divorced from the social purpose of pension plans, which, again, is to provide all workers with a dignified retirement. It's equity that killed meritocracy leading to corporate mediocracy, which, in turn, sacrifices investment and pension returns, threatening the security of workers' retirement.

And remember Marxism is a slow march through an institution until it isn't. While the United Nations officially coined ESG in 2004, it wasn't until the last five or six years that it has seemed to be everywhere all the time, threatening to fully corrupt capitalism's facilitation of excellence. How many DEI officers existed in large corporations in 2004? About Zero. Now they are legion. How many companies published comprehensive ESG reports in 2004? About Zero. Now almost every large company does and does so annually—to the detriment of risk-adjusted return on investment for everyone, including pension plans.

So, what role has the OECD played in integrating ESG pursuits into the pension systems of our member countries? A massive one. For years, the OECD has been pushing members to politicize their pension systems by integrating ESG factors unmoored from returns. One OECD policy details at length how "to strengthen ESG investing and finance a climate transition."(4) Another one contains extensive "guidelines on the integration of ESG factors in the investment and risk management of pension funds."(5) Even the OECD's "Principles of Corporate Governance" is rife with ESG ideology and integration.(6) It mentions "sustainability" 78 times – more than it references "finance." And far more than the zero times it talks about maximizing risk-adjusted returns.

The United States is no longer going to support these policies, even tacitly.

For human prosperity and flourishing, capital markets need to keep their focus on shareholder primacy – and, correlatively pension funds should be designed with an exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and beneficiaries.(7) That's what we are doing now under the leadership of President Trump, Secretary Chavez-DeRemer and Deputy Secretary Sonderling in the United States.

That's because ESG is not just some side-bar political or policy issue. It's about sovereignty and security as well. Authoritarian leaders love when our member nations embrace ESG. Why? Because it lessens your prosperity and makes you less competitive. If America and other OECD member companies hamstring our nations' capital markets and pension systems with superfluous ESG costs, it only serves to benefit authoritarian regimes that do not engage in such frivolity.

That is a suboptimal outcome.

One of the City of Light's most famous sons once wrote that "[t]he greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults."(8) America faulted with ESG. We are now on the mend.
We invite you to join us.