Politics
DeSantis eyes lawsuit over Bud Light’s deal with trans influencer. Experts are skeptical.
Sources agree company was acting in its best interests
As sales continue to slump after months of conservative backlash against Bud Light’s social media spot with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) announced he will explore a potential lawsuit against the beer brand’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch InBev.
“It appears to me that AB InBev may have breached legal duties owed to its shareholders,” DeSantis said in a letter shared on Twitter Friday outlining possible grounds for legal action on behalf of the shareholders of Florida’s pension funds.
Columbia University Law School Professor John Coffee, however, told the Washington Blade a legal doctrine called the business judgment rule “fully protects the board of Anheuser-Busch InBev from any liability for breach of fiduciary duty that might be asserted by Florida’s pension funds in a derivative suit.”
Caselaw directs courts to uphold decisions by company directors provided they are made in good faith, with the care expected of a reasonably prudent person, and with the reasonable belief that they were acting in the corporation’s best interests.
Multinational drink conglomerate AB InBev suffered financially as a result of Bud Light’s promotion with Mulvaney, with sales for the brand down 25 percent from last year according to market research data reported by CNBC.
“No doubt, Anheuser-Busch lost money because of the populist reaction to the use of a transgender ‘influencer,’ but that is not the standard for liability,” said Coffee, who is recognized as one of the country’s leading experts in securities law, corporate governance, white collar crime, complex litigation, and class actions.
Directors “were seeking to promote their product with a new audience, and it backfired, but that is not a breach of duty,” he said, adding, “Management has the legal right to innovate and try new tactics.”
Andrew Isen, founder and president of WinMark Concepts, agreed, telling the Blade, “Bud Light is an entry beer because of the price point,” so it made sense for the beer maker to target the younger demographics who comprise the influencer’s sizable online following.
“No one foresaw this backlash,” he said.
“They’re making business decisions, they’re making marketing decisions, to grow their business, and that’s what their responsibilities to their shareholders are,” said Isen, whose clients are mostly large publicly traded corporations.
Additionally, he said, partnering with an LGBTQ public figure like Mulvaney makes sense from a market research perspective.
For instance, Isen pointed to data from management consulting firm McKinsey & Co., which found that “for five years, our research has shown a positive, statistically significant correlation between company financial outperformance and diversity, on the dimensions of both gender and ethnicity.”
Coffee, who has repeatedly been listed among The 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America and topped rankings of the most-cited scholars in corporate and business law, told the Blade he is not aware of any previous cases in which a firm’s marketing or advertising decision provided grounds for shareholder litigation for breach of fiduciary duty in a derivative suit.
“I do not know if litigation will be brought,” he said, adding, “this sounds more like a political stunt.”
If DeSantis’s probe leads to an actual complaint on behalf of shareholders, Coffee said, “I would not expect it to survive a motion to dismiss in Delaware,” if AB InBev is headquartered in the state, where most commercial disputes are adjudicated.
“But the suit might be brought [improperly] in Florida,” Coffee said, “and anything might happen there.”
Regardless, Coffee said, “Gov. DeSantis will make no friends in the business community with these over broad attacks.”
DeSantis, addressing shareholders of his state’s pension funds, wrote in his letter on Friday that, “We must prudently manage the funds of Florida’s hardworking law enforcement officers, teachers, firefighters, and first responders in a manner that focuses on growing returns, not subsidizing an ideological agenda through woke virtue signaling.”
AB InBev is just the latest target of the governor’s crusade against “wokeism” in corporate America, a battle that his party is increasingly waging against companies’ environmental and social governance policies, their diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and their criticism of conservative policies or policymakers.
Firms like Blackstone had come to understand concepts like responsible environmental stewardship and diversity in corporate boards of directors as intrinsic values that are good for business and “integral to their shareholders,” Isen said, referring to the investment management juggernaut that boasts more than $991 billion in assets under management.
However, as these moves come under fire from various factions on the right — intimidation by elected leaders, coordinated online attacks, incendiary coverage in partisan media — the business community is taking notice. Isen pointed to “the amount of companies that are getting rid of their diversity officers,” as reported last week in The Wall Street Journal.
This “noise,” Isen said, is “scaring companies to death.”
Other state officials have recently weaponized the power of their governments against companies over their support for the LGBTQ community. On July 5, seven Republican state attorneys general issued a letter to Target Corp. notifying the retailer that certain merchandise in its seasonal Pride collection may violate their obscenity statutes.
The popularity of DeSantis’s attacks on “woke” corporations will soon be tested as the governor heads into Republican primary races in hopes of securing his party’s nomination for the 2024 presidential election.
DeSantis’s office did not respond to written questions or provide comment for this story.
The White House
HRC files class action over federal ban on gender-affirming care coverage
Lawsuit filed Monday challenges White House effort to restrict care
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nonprofit sister organization to the largest LGBTQ human rights lobbying and advocacy organization in the U.S., along with law firms Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed a class action lawsuit against the government as it attempts to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for federal employees.
The suit, filed on Monday, alleges that the Office of Personnel Management, run by Trump appointee Scott Kupor, is discriminating against LGBTQ federal employees (and their families and retired employees) by prohibiting health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans. There are five plaintiffs named in the complaint, but it extends to others who have those healthcare plans.
The document asserts that OPM’s prohibition on coverage for “gender transition” care in the FEHB and PSHB programs violates Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.
The policy, which was implemented on Jan. 1 following the 2025 issuing of Program Carrier Letter, mandated that insurance providers in these programs deny any coverage for gender-affirming care. In February, HRC filed a federal complaint with OPM over the change in healthcare policy, which was ultimately passed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. That complaint is now an officially filed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, indicates that this policy denying gender-affirming care will impact healthcare access for at least 39,400 current and former federal employees and their dependents.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.
“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: we’ll see you in court,” said Robinson. “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us.”
Gender-affirming care has been under constant attack by the Trump-Vance administration since its return to the White House, despite the practice being considered as extensively evidence-based but also supported by nearly every major medical organization. This type of care is provided to all people—not just transgender people—and includes things such as social affirmation, including using correct names and pronouns and wearing clothing that matches a person’s gender identity; mental health support, such as counseling to reduce depression and anxiety; and, in some cases, medical interventions such as reversible puberty blockers or hormone therapy when deemed medically appropriate.
“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” said Cathy Harris, partner at Correia & Puth. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”
“This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health, and the well-being of themselves and their families,” Robinson added. “OPM’s actions will not go unchallenged, and we’ll continue to fight so that federal employees and their families receive the dignity they deserve.”
This is not the first time the White House has directly attacked gender-affirming care.
In January 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
For more information on how to get involved with the lawsuit, visit hrc.org.
Politics
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.
“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”
“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.
Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.
In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.
In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.
In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.
Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.
Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.
He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.
This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.
In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.
The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.
The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication.
Congress
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.
The bipartisan vote was 212-217.
The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.
Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”
“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.
Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.
“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.
According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).
The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.
The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.
The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203.
