How Elon and Vivek's DOGE Can Use FERC to Challenge BlackRock's ESG/DEI Agenda

One of the most dangerous threats to our democracy and our economy is the horizontal ownership of public company stocks by financial giants like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. These firms control staggering portions of the U.S. and global economies through their massive stakes in countless public companies. This concentrated ownership grants them disproportionate power over boardrooms and entire industries, effectively allowing a small handful of financial elites to impose their agendas on the American economy. The potential for manipulation is vast, and the risks are evident. While we must work toward broad reforms to address this colossal issue, it makes sense to approach it incrementally, focusing on practical solutions that can achieve results in the near term. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has an opportunity to begin that reform by denying BlackRock's request for blanket authorization to acquire significant voting securities of public utility companies.

Public utilities occupy a unique and critical role in American life. These companies are entrusted with providing essential services like electricity, water, and gas—the lifeblood of our modern economy and everyday lives. The fact that BlackRock requires a waiver from FERC to acquire large stakes in these utilities reveals the degree of control these asset managers seek over critical infrastructure. The waiver process exists for a reason: to prevent any single entity from wielding undue influence over a sector so vital to national security and public welfare. BlackRock's request for blanket authorization to buy up to 20% of the voting securities of public utilities is a dangerous overreach, one that should be resisted by regulatory authorities to prevent potential abuses of power.

Recently, a coalition of 19 state Attorneys General, along with the consumer rights organization Consumers First, filed motions urging FERC to deny BlackRock's blanket authorization request unless the company can definitively demonstrate that it will not use its influence to advance a particular political agenda. This demand is not baseless; it is built on mounting concerns that BlackRock and other similarly positioned asset managers are using their clout to impose Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) objectives on industries that may not naturally align with these goals. Multiple studies have shown that forced compliance with BlackRock's ESG and DEI targets reduces profitability and stunts shareholder value. For instance, BlackRock has made headlines for pressuring companies into complying with ESG targets, including Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives—an approach that has often seemed more about appeasing ideological leanings than ensuring shareholder returns or utility efficiency. Because BlackRock owns stakes across all major utilities, they remain indifferent to the negative financial impacts on individual companies.

The FERC waiver issue thus presents an immediate and necessary opportunity to curtail the expansion of BlackRock’s influence over the energy sector. If BlackRock and other mega-asset managers are allowed to amass such substantial voting power in utility companies, the American people risk being subjected to energy policies and corporate governance directives driven by the ideological whims of these firms’ executives. Larry Fink, BlackRock’s CEO, has been clear about his intentions. In his annual letters to CEOs, he has consistently argued that companies must follow his vision for ESG compliance or risk losing favor with BlackRock. Statements like these reveal the underlying menace of allowing one man—no matter how wealthy or powerful—to have such a unilateral sway over companies that supply critical infrastructure to millions of Americans.

Examples of utilities bending to the will of asset managers like BlackRock abound. Public utilities, including Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and others, have increasingly integrated ESG targets, even at the cost of operational efficiency. Such moves have included ambitious carbon reduction goals and DEI-driven hiring practices—decisions that, while socially popular, may not necessarily align with the best interests of ratepayers who simply want reliable and affordable energy. The push to comply with ESG goals is not always voluntary; it’s the inevitable consequence of massive shareholders using their voting power to influence company policies.

We have to ask ourselves: Is this the America we want? Do we want our energy suppliers—companies that literally keep the lights on—to answer to a handful of Wall Street executives who prioritize ideological compliance over the practical needs of American families? This is not hyperbole. Larry Fink has said that companies "must behave as if they have a social purpose," yet one might wonder if the social purpose he’s envisioning is really just a convenient cloak for the expansion of his influence.

This is precisely where FERC can draw a line in the sand. By denying the waiver that BlackRock seeks, the Commission would make a strong statement against the growing trend of horizontal ownership and financial oligarchy. This move would, importantly, not eliminate BlackRock from the market but would restrict its ability to accumulate enough voting power to dictate corporate agendas. If regulatory authorities are serious about preserving competition and safeguarding sectors crucial to public welfare, denying these waivers should be a no-brainer.

The pushback against BlackRock is just the first bite of the elephant. The deeper problem is horizontal ownership itself—the pattern where a few financial giants own large portions across multiple companies in an industry, thus reducing incentives for competition. When BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard each hold major stakes in all of the top players in a sector, they have little reason to push for competitive pricing or innovation; instead, they benefit from stability and profitability across the board. This problem is particularly dangerous in the utility industry, where the lack of competition directly affects the price and availability of essential services.

To truly address this issue, we need comprehensive reforms. Congress, regulatory agencies, and even state governments have roles to play in breaking up the undue influence of these financial giants. But FERC’s current deliberation over BlackRock’s waiver is a perfect opportunity to make a tangible difference today. This is a moment for Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy—who are now leading the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—to take on this challenge directly. With their influence, they could make it one of DOGE's first reforms: denying blanket authorization for firms like BlackRock to acquire substantial stakes in public utilities. This would push the Department of Justice and other relevant bodies to reassess antitrust regulations, particularly as they apply to horizontal ownership and its ramifications.

Blocking BlackRock from securing blanket authorization over our public utilities is not just about denying a request—it’s about standing up to a system that has put far too much power in the hands of a few and far too little accountability on their actions. This is an easy win, a straightforward, commonsense reform that will at least begin to chip away at the broader threat of concentrated corporate power. FERC has the power to say no, and in doing so, it could take the first meaningful step toward dismantling the financial hegemony that threatens both our democracy and our economy.

If you don't already, please follow me on 𝕏 at https://x.com/amuse