Trump Can Rein In BlackRock’s ESG Empire With FERC

One of the most serious threats to both American democracy and the American economy is the concentrated ownership of public company stocks by financial behemoths like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. These firms control vast swaths of the U.S. and global economy by holding enormous stakes in companies across virtually every sector. Their horizontal ownership grants them disproportionate influence over corporate boardrooms and even entire industries. This is not theoretical. It is a structural reality that allows a handful of financial elites to impose their ideological agenda on the economy at large. The potential for abuse is vast, and the risks are obvious. If we want to preserve free markets, we must start unwinding this power. While the ultimate solution will require comprehensive reform, the Trump administration has an immediate tool at its disposal: the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). On April 17, 2025, FERC reauthorized BlackRock to hold up to 20% of the voting securities of U.S.-traded public utilities for another three years, subject to conditions and heightened monitoring noted by Chair Mark Christie. This authorization should not stand. President Trump should act to rescind it and begin the process of curtailing BlackRock’s reach over critical infrastructure.

Utilities occupy a unique role in the American system. These companies deliver the essential goods of electricity, water, and gas, which sustain both our economy and our daily lives. Because of their vital role, utilities are heavily regulated, and for good reason. National security and public welfare demand that no single entity be allowed to consolidate unchecked power over such infrastructure. The fact that BlackRock needs a waiver from FERC to expand its holdings in utilities should set off alarms. The waiver system exists precisely to prevent financial giants from exerting undue control over a sector so foundational to American life. BlackRock’s request to acquire up to 20% of voting securities in utility companies is therefore not a mundane technicality. It is an attempted power grab that FERC has a duty to stop.

State Attorneys General recognized the danger. Earlier this year, a coalition of 19 AGs, joined by the consumer rights organization Consumers First, filed motions urging FERC to reject BlackRock’s request unless the firm could prove it would not use its influence to advance political agendas. Their advice was largely ignored. As a result, 10 AGs led by Texas AG Ken Paxton have now sued BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street on antitrust grounds in ongoing litigation. This is not an abstract fear. BlackRock has repeatedly signaled its intent to use corporate governance to advance Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals, along with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) mandates. Studies show that ESG mandates often reduce profitability and suppress shareholder value. For example, BlackRock has leaned on companies to adopt net-zero carbon targets and DEI-based hiring quotas, policies that may play well with activists but often do little for shareholders or consumers. Because BlackRock owns stakes in all major firms within a given industry, it has little incentive to care if any single company’s performance is weakened. It profits from the industry as a whole, which gives it license to impose its ideological vision without consequence.

Utilities have already shown the results of this dynamic. Companies like Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) have embraced ESG targets and DEI-driven hiring, often at the cost of operational efficiency and affordability. When utilities divert resources to meet political quotas instead of focusing on reliability and service, it is ratepayers who suffer. American families simply want affordable, dependable power. They do not want their utility bills tied to the ideological crusades of Larry Fink and his boardroom allies.

The stakes are high. Allowing BlackRock to gain expanded authority over utilities would mean ceding energy policy to Wall Street executives who openly prioritize ideology over consumer welfare. Larry Fink has been candid in declaring that corporations must “behave as if they have a social purpose.” That rhetoric sounds noble until one asks who defines the social purpose. Under BlackRock’s vision, it is Fink himself who decides what counts as acceptable corporate behavior. That is oligarchy, not capitalism.

This is precisely where FERC can act decisively. By rescinding BlackRock’s authorization, FERC would make a clear statement against the encroachment of financial oligarchy into critical infrastructure. Such a rescission would not eliminate BlackRock from the market. It would simply prevent the firm from amassing enough voting power to dictate utility policies. This is the least we should expect from regulators charged with protecting both competition and the public interest.

The Trump administration has rightly identified ESG and DEI mandates as instruments of centralized control. They operate by bypassing the democratic process, installing ideological rules through the back door of corporate governance. FERC’s ability to rescind BlackRock’s waiver is an opportunity for President Trump to reinforce his administration’s commitment to fighting back. Unlike Congress, which must work through slow legislation, FERC has immediate regulatory authority to stop this overreach. If the Commission revokes BlackRock’s authorization, it will not only safeguard the utility sector but also set a precedent for pushing back against concentrated ownership in other areas of the economy.

The deeper problem is structural. Horizontal ownership by financial giants dulls competition across industries. If BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard each hold large stakes in all major firms within an industry, they have little incentive to foster genuine competition. Price wars and innovation take a back seat to stability and shared profitability. This is harmful in any industry, but in the utility sector it becomes especially dangerous because consumers cannot easily opt out of paying for power or water. When competition breaks down, monopolistic behavior thrives, and ordinary Americans pay the price.

Long-term reform will require Congress and regulators to revisit antitrust law. Horizontal ownership was not fully anticipated when America’s antitrust framework was designed in the early 20th century. The financial giants of today wield a kind of quiet monopoly power not by dominating a single firm, but by holding stakes across all firms in a sector. It is a subtler form of control, but no less damaging. It reduces market discipline and hands decision-making to unelected financiers. This cannot continue indefinitely without corroding both our economy and our democracy.

For now, FERC has the opportunity to correct its prior mistake. President Trump and his administration should make it clear that this waiver must be recinded. Doing so would not be radical. It would be the simplest, most commonsense step in preventing concentrated financial power from dictating energy policy. It would protect consumers, preserve competition, and defend the principle that utilities exist to serve the public, not the political ambitions of asset managers.

This is not just a fight over a single waiver. It is the first battle in a larger war to restore accountability in corporate America. If FERC acts now, it will signal to BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street that their era of unchecked influence is over. That message is long overdue.

If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: [WATCH] Disabled Man’s Clash With Police Nearly Turns Deadly