The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, has intensified its scrutiny of major U.S. asset managers, accusing them of forming a so-called “woke ESG cartel.”

Sixty firms, including financial heavyweights BlackRock, State Street, and JPMorgan Asset Management, received letters demanding information about their involvement in the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative, which advocates for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This move follows a December 13 committee report alleging collusion among fund managers to cut emissions in ways that might breach U.S. antitrust laws.

Republicans argue that these environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategies distract from the primary goal of maximizing shareholder returns while imposing undue restrictions on businesses, reported the New York Post. Such claims have been met with resistance from Democrats and fund managers, who have consistently denied any wrongdoing.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DALLAS EXPRESS APP

Jordan’s demands for detailed disclosures from asset managers reflect growing GOP criticism of ESG initiatives, which they claim prioritize political agendas over financial performance. The letters request information on how NZAM membership has influenced the firms’ stewardship strategies, implying that these efforts could potentially undermine market competition. This latest salvo aligns with broader Republican efforts to push back against what they perceive as corporate overreach in addressing climate change.

This isn’t the first instance of Republican-led scrutiny forcing a shift in ESG strategies.

Earlier this year, BlackRock, State Street, and JPMorgan Asset Management scaled back their participation in Climate Action 100+, another investor coalition focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Critics on the right view these retreats as victories for shareholder capitalism, while advocates of ESG policies see them as setbacks in addressing climate risks, per the Post.

Despite the pushback, Republicans continue to frame their actions as a defense of free-market principles. Their claims highlight a growing ideological divide over the role of corporate governance in addressing societal challenges.