Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was not shy in expressing his displeasure with President Joe Biden’s veto of a resolution that would have prevented fiduciaries from investing retirement funds through the Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) movement. The Labor Department had issued a final rule reversing the Trump-era ban on these investments. Despite both the House and Senate approving a resolution to end the rule, Biden used his first veto as President to block it.
Manchin is well-known for being a moderate among Democrats and often having to counter Biden’s policies and priorities. He made his opinions known in an anguished statement describing the veto as “absolutely infuriating.” He argued that West Virginians already face intense stress due to recovering from the pandemic, rising inflation, and geopolitical strife in Europe, yet the Administration continually pushes its progressive agenda at their expense.
“This ESG rule will weaken our energy, national, and economic security while jeopardizing the hard-earned retirement savings of 150 million West Virginians and Americans,” Manchin added. “Despite a clear and bipartisan rejection of the rule from Congress, President Biden is choosing to put his Administration’s progressive agenda above the well-being of the American people.”
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) joined Manchin in voting with Republicans to reverse this ESG rule. Both are attempting to keep their seats in conservative states which have largely been skeptical of ESG investments due to wanting their funds allocated without partisan agendas involved. According to a recent survey, 64% believe individuals should decide whether these funds should be utilized according to ESG standards rather than 20% who think Wall Street asset managers should make such decisions.
Manchin firmly believes that this ESG rule weakens national security while also putting retirement savings of 150 million Americans at risk – nevertheless, Biden is choosing to prioritize their progressive ideals over the people’s best interests. This decision has drawn hard criticism from both sides of the aisle despite previously enjoying bipartisan support for its reversal in Congress.