Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

Congress rejects ESG in retirement plans (2023)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 16:38, 1 March 2026 by Samuel Wonacott (contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
ESG - Teal - D2.jpg
Environmental, social, and corporate governance
ESG Icon 200x200.png

What is ESG?
Enacted ESG legislation
Arguments for and against ESG
Opposition to ESG
Federal ESG rules
ESG legislation tracker
Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's weekly ESG newsletter
See also: Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)

March 7, 2023

The House of Representatives voted on February 28 to pass a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to rescind the Biden Labor Department rule permitting the use of ESG investing in ERISA-governed retirement plans. Republicans then used their temporary majority and the support of two Democrats to pass the bill in the Senate on March 1:

A Republican bill to prevent pension fund managers from basing investment decisions on factors like climate change cleared Congress on Wednesday, setting up a confrontation with President Joe Biden, who is expected to veto the measure.

The U.S. Senate voted 50-46 to adopt a resolution to overturn a Labor Department rule making it easier for fund managers to consider environmental, social and corporate governance, or ESG, issues for investments and shareholder rights decisions, such as through proxy voting.

The outcome highlighted Republicans' willingness to oppose their traditional allies in Wall Street and corporate America that adopt what party lawmakers characterize as "woke", liberal practices.

Two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin and Jon Tester, voted with Republicans. Both face reelection in Republican-leaning states in 2024. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the bill on Tuesday. …

Republicans claim the rule, which covers plans that collectively invest $12 trillion on behalf of 150 million Americans, would politicize investing by allowing plan managers to pursue liberal causes, which they say would hurt performance.[1]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.