Business

President Donald Trump likely won’t do away with a process that allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, even as he erases Joe Biden’s other policy accomplishments. 
But Trump will likely make some changes to those price talks, and it may not require help from Congress. 
Trump could either weaken the negotiations in a way that bodes well for the pharmaceutical industry, or try to achieve even deeper savings for patients and the federal government to outdo his predecessor. 

President Donald Trump arrives in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on Jan. 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Oliver Contreras | Afp | Getty Images

President Donald Trump likely won’t do away with a landmark process that allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, even as he moves to erase Joe Biden’s other historic policy accomplishments. 
But Trump will likely make some changes to those price talks, and it may not require help from Congress. 

“Trump is looking to nibble around the edges of the law,” said Matthew Kupferberg, a partner in Frier Levitt’s Life Sciences Group, adding that the president is “not looking to completely abandon the drug negotiation process at this point.”
It’s still unclear which way Trump will lean, however. While some lawmakers and health policy experts said Trump could weaken the negotiations in a way that helps the pharmaceutical industry, other experts said he could double down and try to save patients and the federal government even more money to outdo his predecessor. 
The path he takes could have huge stakes for the prices 68 million Medicare beneficiaries in the U.S. pay for their medications. It will also have big implications for companies like Novo Nordisk, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Merck, among others whose drugs were included in the first two rounds of talks.
The negotiations are a key provision of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, that aims to lower prescription medicine costs for seniors and save the government nearly $100 billion in Medicare spending over the next decade. The pharmaceutical industry fiercely opposes the price talks, arguing in a flurry of lawsuits that they threaten profits and discourage drug innovation.
The Trump administration has offered few specifics on its approach to the negotiations, apart from saying in January that it will aim for “greater transparency” in the ongoing second cycle of the process and hear any ideas for improving it from external stakeholders.

Making significant changes to the law or repealing it altogether would be an uphill battle because it requires help from Congress, where Republicans hold slim majorities. Reining in high health-care costs has strong bipartisan support in a nation where patients pay two-to-three times more for prescription drugs than people in other developed countries, making it a potentially unpopular move for Trump.
So the Trump administration could move to implement the provision differently than Biden did, including by changing how the government interprets the law’s selection criteria for drugs, among other potential changes.
“I think it is a question of how they interpret some of the statutory language,” said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the program on Medicare policy at KFF, a health policy organization. 
Cubanski said we can expect a first glimpse at any changes in the coming months.
The Trump administration will start the months-long negotiation process for a second cycle of 15 drugs, which will have new prices go into effect in 2027. The Biden administration selected those medicines in January before Trump took office. Drugmakers have until the end of February to decide whether to participate in the talks, which they likely will because they otherwise face stiff financial penalties.

What Trump could do on his own

Trump has so far only indicated the need for more transparency in Medicare drug price negotiations. Kupferberg said that could mean disclosing more information about the government’s rationale for selecting drugs or settling on prices.
During the first round of the talks, Medicare provided opportunities for public input from patients, caregivers and consumer groups. But Kupferberg said the Trump administration could move to bring in other stakeholders beyond manufacturers and patients, like insurers or even middlemen called pharmacy benefit managers. 
“It could be a much broader type of negotiation process,” he said. 

EHStock | iStock | Getty Images

The administration could also reinterpret the guidelines of the law, which could change what products get selected and how much prices fall, according to Amy Campbell, associate dean for law and health sciences at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law.
For example, the IRA says the drugs selected for negotiations must have been on the market for at least seven years without generic competitors, or 11 years in the case of biologic products such as vaccines. But the Trump administration, when selecting another round of drugs, may have “looser standards” for determining whether a drug has competition in the market and should be exempt from negotiated prices, Campbell said. 
Trump could also revise what Medicare considers one drug for the purpose of negotiations, KFF’s Cubanski said. Currently, different products that share the same active ingredient can be selected as a single product, which the pharmaceutical industry opposes. 
The Biden administration, for example, included three of Novo Nordisk’s branded medications with the same active ingredient – semaglutide – as one product in the second cycle of price talks. That includes the weight loss drug Wegovy, diabetes pill Rybelsus and the obesity injection Ozempic. Of the three, Ozempic makes up the lion’s share of Medicare spending.
Either of those changes to how Medicare selects drugs could benefit drugmakers and lessen the revenue they lose from lower prices. 
The bigger question is how aggressively Medicare will negotiate prices under Trump, Cubanski said. Currently, the final negotiated price for a drug cannot exceed an upper limit, or “ceiling” price, established by the IRA.
Trump could influence whether Medicare’s initial price offer for a drug is closer to the ceiling price, which could weaken the program’s ability to secure a deeper discount. 

Bigger changes in Congress are a challenge

Major changes to the price negotiations are much less likely to occur, as they would require help from Congress. For example, one of the pharmaceutical industry’s biggest issues with the process is what drugmakers calls the “pill penalty.” 
The law essentially spares biologics like vaccines from new negotiated prices for 13 years after they receive U.S. approval, compared to just nine years for small-molecule drugs that come in a pill or tablet form. The industry argues that the discrepancy discourages companies from investing in the development of small-molecule drugs, which are more convenient for patients.

Images By Tang Ming Tung | Digitalvision | Getty Images

Cubanski said bipartisan legislation was introduced last year that proposes eliminating the pill penalty. If that bill makes it through Congress and to Trump’s desk, “I don’t see why he wouldn’t sign it,” Cubanski said. 
She added that there appears to be growing interest in legislative changes to the negotiation program, but “whether you get enough support in Congress is still really an open question.” 
There isn’t the same level of bipartisan support for changes to the IRA as there is for efforts like pharmacy benefit manager reform, said Jesse Dresser, partner in Frier Levitt’s Life Sciences Department. 
“I could see something like [PBM reform] happening a lot sooner than I could see trying to open up the IRA and tweak it, even if it’s something that the administration might ultimately get behind,” Dresser said. 

Legal fight is still pending

It’s unclear how Trump will approach the ongoing legal fight between manufacturers and the federal government over the Medicare program.
The pharmaceutical industry’s legal challenges, which argue that the talks are unconstitutional and should be stopped, have so far been unsuccessful in court. Nine lawsuits were ongoing as of January.
“Will the Trump administration continue to defend the program? Or maybe not as aggressively defend the program?” Cubanski said. “I think those are some key questions.” 
If the Trump administration stops defending the program in court, judges could then make decisions on the matter without any opposition, Kupferberg said. But he said he doesn’t believe the administration will want that outcome. 
The Trump administration would likely “want to take control of that process, where the parties work out an agreement or revise and change the interpretation of the law,” Kupferberg said. 
He added that it doesn’t seem like Trump would want the entire negotiation program to disappear based on the lawsuits. That’s because it would leave Trump in the position to come up with a replacement for Medicare drug price negotiations, and we “just haven’t seen one yet” from him, Kupferberg said.  More

ON A DRIVE around the vast production site of SKW Stickstoffwerke Piesteritz, Germany’s largest producer of ammonia, near Wittenberg, a spokesman for the firm points at a giant yellow valve. “Normally around 2% of Germany’s industrial consumption of natural gas comes out of this thing,” he says. Last month, however, SKW shut one of the two ammonia plants at the site and slashed its production of fertiliser. More

Skinny jeans are cropping up on runways and Google search trends, and analysts expect they could be back at mass retailers by the end of the year.
One of the most divisive garments in fashion is expected to look a bit different this time around, and will be more tailored than its skintight predecessor.
If skinny jeans do make an official comeback, it’s good news for apparel and footwear retailers, because it’s likely to trigger a whole closet refresh.

Models walk the runway in skinny jeans.
Getty Images

The vilified linchpin of millennial and Y2K fashion – the skinny jean – might be on its way to a comeback.
Over the last few months, a range of skinny styles, including pants and jeans, have cropped up on fashion runways, influencer videos and Google search trends, indicating the divisive garment could soon be a closet staple again. 

Part of the buzz around skinny jeans undoubtedly came when TikTok star and Gen Z influencer Alix Earle debuted a pair of exclusive skinnies with denim brand Frame at the end of January, but the hype was already building before that. 
“For like the last six months, we started to hear rumblings of skinny jeans making a comeback,” said Janine Stichter, a retail analyst and managing director at BTIG. “If you look at Google Trends data for skinny jeans … it actually [spiked] the week of January 12 and it’s been picking up steam ever since.”
The week after Earle debuted her skinny jean partnership with Frame, searches for skinny jeans were up 50% year over year, she added, but still well off their 2009 peak.
That likely led to a spike in interest across retailers. Reformation told CNBC this week its customers have been searching for skinny jeans on its website more frequently lately.
American Eagle has also seen interest grow. 

“Certainly, there’s a lot of activity on skinny. I would like to say there’s a styling thing that’s happening, the high boot situation, and high boots and skinny jeans work, so that’s definitely taking hold,” Jen Foyle, American Eagle’s president and executive creative officer, told CNBC in an interview.
“You’re starting to see some of that movement but right now, it’s still relatively small, but we’re prepared to roll with it as we test it and scale,” she continued. “Our job is to be nimble, right?”
But like any fashion trend, the skinny jean resurgence was first spotted on the runways. Based on how the major designers are interpreting the look, it’ll appear different this time around. 
“On the runways, Prada, Isabel Morant, Tod’s, they all did very slim silhouette pants. They’re calling them skinny pants. The difference is that they’re doing them in plaid, not just solids. They’re doing them in these very tailored fabrics,” said Shawn Grain Carter, a fashion professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York. “We’re seeing some of the celebrities wear these skinny jeans, but they’re not nearly as conforming … it’s different from the jeggings that you saw [between 2009 and 2011]… It conforms to the leg, but it doesn’t have to necessarily hug it so tightly that all you see is an outline of a woman’s leg.”
The unofficial queen of denim – Levi Strauss CEO Michelle Gass – spotted the same trend on the runways and told CNBC she expects the controversial jeans to officially come back “sometime in the future.”
“While we don’t have a crystal ball, don’t get rid of your skinny jeans,” said Gass. “I do think when we see a bigger trend re-emerge, it’s going to look and feel different.” 
Grain Carter said skinny styles could start appearing in stores more widely by this summer, but Stitchter said they could start returning to shelves closer to the fall when more consumers are out shopping for pants and jeans. That’ll be welcome news for apparel and footwear retailers because whenever trends shift, it tends to trigger a surge in demand for new clothes, she said. 
“If we are to get a full fledged restocking in any of these styles, it tends to be a big positive for the sector,” said Stichter. “Anytime you have a big silhouette shift, it’s positive for restocking cycles. It’s also positive for footwear because you need different footwear to go with the bottoms, and then you don’t just buy the bottoms, you tend to need different tops to go with the bottom so it can kind of catalyze a whole closet refresh … That’s kind of what we’re looking out for.” 
For those who’ve only just stocked up their closet on baggy and loose fits, the current jean du jour, rest assured that there’s room for both. If there’s one thing that’s started to define fashion, it’s the lack of consensus among consumers of all age groups and styles, said Stichter.
Many shoppers never stopped wearing skinny jeans, and with the breakneck pace that trends move in the age of social media, fashion cycles can be resurrected before they’re even dead. 
“The denim closet really should have all varieties of denim. It really is about what you’re wearing, what your mood is, and people still wear skinny today,” said Gass. “So keep your loose, keep your baggie. Everything right now goes.”  More

Beauty stocks fell this week as E.l.f. Beauty and Estee Lauder issued disappointing guidance.
Estee Lauder also announced it would cut as many as 7,000 jobs by fiscal 2026.
Shares of Ulta Beauty and Coty also were under pressure this week as the broader sector grappled with the potential fallout from tariffs.

An Estee Lauder counter is seen on the floor of a department store in Brooklyn on Feb. 5, 2025 in New York City.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images

Several beauty stocks posted major losses this week, as companies such as E.l.f. Beauty and Estee Lauder reported disappointing earnings and cut guidance.
E.l.f. closed out its worst week since August 2018, with shares cratering nearly 29% over the five-day period. The cosmetics brand on Thursday posted a revenue beat for its fiscal third quarter, but missed on adjusted earnings per share and cut its full-year guidance to between $1.3 billion and $1.31 billion in sales, down from a prior range of between $1.32 billion and $1.34 billion.

CEO Tarang Amin told CNBC in an interview on the results that the cosmetics sector broadly declined 5% in January, which he attributed to a hangover from holiday discounting and a decrease in online attention to beauty products.
Analysts from Morgan Stanley, D.A. Davidson and UBS all downgraded the stock to neutral or equal weight following the report, citing the cut guidance.
Estee Lauder shares fell 22% on the week, marking that stock’s worst week since November. The company on Tuesday said it would cut between 5,800 and 7,000 jobs by the end of fiscal 2026 and that softening travel retail demand in Asia would damage its net sales in the third quarter.
The news sent shares tumbling despite a beat on second-quarter revenue and earnings per share.
“Simply said, we lost our agility. We did not capitalize on the higher-growth opportunities,” CEO Stéphane de La Faverie, who began in the position on Jan. 1, said on the earnings call.

Shares of Ulta Beauty and Coty also were under pressure this week, trimming 9% and nearly 8%, respectively, on the week. It was Ulta’s worst week since April, and Coty’s worst week since October.
On E.l.f. Beauty’s earnings call Thursday, Amin said the company saw “a little bit of softness” at Ulta, one of the brand’s retailers, in January.
The beauty sector, like others in the U.S., faces the threat of tariffs eating into its profits. China announced tariffs on select U.S. imports Tuesday in response to President Donald Trump’s additional 10% tariffs on Chinese goods.
E.l.f., for example, manufactures about 80% of its products in China, but Amin told CNBC that the company was “relieved” to see Trump impose tariffs of just 10%, when he had previously floated levies as high as 60%.
— CNBC’s Gabrielle Fonrouge and Adrian van Hauwermeiren contributed to this report. More

All Elite Wrestling CEO Tony Khan spoke with CNBC Sport on Radio Row in New Orleans.
Khan said he had no interest in going public because he wants to pass the league down to his kids — who haven’t been born yet.

All Elite Wrestling, the upstart professional wrestling league, will remain a privately held family business instead of pursuing an initial public offering, according to founder and co-owner Tony Khan.
Khan told CNBC Sport he had no interest in going public because he wants to pass the league down to his kids — who haven’t been born yet.

“I want to build,” said the 42-year-old Khan. “I’m still a relatively young executive and someday, I’d like to have a family, and hopefully they can work in the business. It’s a family business.”
AEW has grown in recent years, buoyed by a new TV and streaming deal with Warner Bros. Discovery. The league competes with TKO Group’s WWE for talent. More

Some brands spent up to $8 million for a commercial during the Super Bowl, which will be broadcast by Fox this year.
The price tag, which has been rising to record rates in recent years, is still considered worth it by industry experts.
Live sports, especially the NFL’s championship game, beckon the largest audiences on traditional TV. Advertisers still want a piece of the action, no matter the cost.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA – FEBRUARY 03: A detailed view of drink koozies seen during an event ahead of Super Bowl LIX at Caesars Superdome on February 03, 2025 in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo by Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images)
Jonathan Bachman | Getty Images Sport | Getty Images

Advertisers shelled out up to $8 million for a spot during Super Bowl 59. Ad industry executives still consider the price tag worth it, and argue it’s even a bang for their buck.
The NFL’s championship game between the Philadelphia Eagles and Kansas City Chiefs will air this year on Fox Corp.’s broadcast network, as well as on Fox’s free streamer Tubi. It’ll likely be the biggest audience watching live television at the same time this year.

“The scale and buzz factor still delivers a punch,” said Amy Leifer, DirecTV’s chief advertising sales officer. “Where else can you get 100 million viewers at once, right? Especially in this fragmented landscape … there’s virtually few places you can go to get that type of scale.”
Last year more than 123 million people tuned into the Super Bowl. The 2024 game racked up estimated ad revenue of about $550 million for in-game placements, according to GroupM, WPP’s media investment group.
While advertisers have been spending more on digital, social media and streaming platforms, traditional TV is still considered the most “effective” form of advertising, meaning it has the biggest impact and results for brands due to the large audiences watching at once.
The ad market for traditional TV programming has slowed down as the cable bundle bleeds customers. Still, media companies with rights to live sports — as well as news and other live programming like awards shows — are able to nab a bigger chunk of ad dollars than peers without sports.
While it appears the ad market is stabilizing after a slowdown, networks and streamers with sports are sure to fare better than those without this year.

Sports have taken over the conversation at the advertising industry’s Upfronts presentations each spring, when media companies make their pitch to advertisers. Fox sold most of the ad inventory for this year’s Super Bowl during its Upfront last spring, CNBC previously reported.
The Super Bowl remains about three times as effective as the average primetime programming for advertisers, according to EDO, an advertising data company. The NFL’s big game last year was 224% more effective than average primetime programming, the data firm said.
EDO likened the audience and engagement that comes with a Super Bowl game to an advertiser buying hundreds of spots on primetime. Based on last year’s Super Bowl audience, EDO equated one ad during the big game to roughly 450 spots during primetime programming in terms of viewer engagement.
“It’s a fair and rational price based on our data, which is that this has been one of the most consistent performers over time,” said Kevin Krim, CEO of EDO. “And there’s room for the price to go up based on our data. But the important thing is, it matters a ton how a brand executes on their creative idea.”
For instance, when brands launch a new product during a Super Bowl commercial, consumers continue to engage with the brand via online searches or app visits even after the Super Bowl ad first aired, said Krim. He noted three recent brand launches during Super Bowl commercials — automaker Kia launching the EV6 in 2022, and Reese’s unveiling its Big Caramel Cup and Popeye’s promoting its new wings in 2024 — which led to a lift in engagement for each brand when the ads aired thereafter.

A Popeyes fast food chain restaurant is seen on August 30, 2019 on a street of Washington D.C.
Eric Baradat | AFP | Getty Images

Even localized ads that are sold at a lower cost than national ads and only shown in certain markets experience a Super Bowl lift. Zeam, a hyperlocal streaming platform, aired a spot starring actor John Stamos in select markets last year.
The app had “millions of downloads” following the commercial, said Jack Perry, CEO of Zeam Media.
“It was good enough for us, and it’s not cheap for us to buy those available spots. There’s a very limited number of local spots during the game,” said Perry.
Zeam will run another commercial with Stamos this year.
The placement of a commercial during the game, sometimes as specific as what time during a certain quarter the ad is shown, can make a difference, too, according to Andre Banks, founder and CEO of NewWorld, a marketing and strategy consultancy.
“If a brand wants to drive high-impact results, they must align their spots with when their target audience is most engaged, not the spot that receives higher viewership,” said Banks.
He noted a portion of the Super Bowl audience each year tunes in specifically for the Halftime show, which this year features rapper Kendrick Lamar, and then turns their attentions away once the moment passes.
Banks also noted that social media plays a big role during the Super Bowl, with viewers turning to varying tech platforms during the game. Social media should be key for advertisers during the Super Bowl, too, he said.
“With so many viewers scrolling on social channels during the game, there’s also a massive opportunity for brands to optimize for second-screen engagement,” Banks added.
Ad spending on tech and social media platforms far eclipses traditional TV. GroupM estimates that ad revenue for “pure-play digital,” which excludes digital extensions of media companies like streaming, will grow 10% to $813.3 billion globally in 2025. By comparison, TV ad spend is expected to grow nearly 2% to $169.1 billion. Media companies have even recently come together to launch an ad platform with the aim of taking back share from tech players.
Some say brands’ focus on spending big on the Super Bowl and the idea that traditional TV is the most effective form of advertising may lie in the past.
“I don’t necessarily think when someone says it’s still the most effective, that’s what it is. I think what people are saying is it’s the only place left where there is a really large, captive broadcast audience watching something,” said Shoshana Winter, CEO of Converge, a performance marketing agency. “When it comes to this particular thing, we are holding on hard and fast.” More

San Francisco 49ers executives are using artificial intelligence technology to assess football and soccer players.
The 49ers’ ownership group owns Leeds, the English football club.
49ers President Al Guido spoke to CNBC Sport from Radio Row in New Orleans.

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy, the last pick in the 2022 National Football League draft, has become synonymous with flaws in NFL player evaluation. The team’s president, Al Guido, hopes his organization can lean on artificial intelligence to improve talent assessment, both for football and for soccer.
Purdy, who led the 49ers to the Super Bowl last year, fell to the 262 overall pick, in part because scouting metrics failed to identify some of the traits that have made him a successful quarterback.

Scouting is even more difficult for soccer, Guido told CNBC Sport in an interview from Radio Row in New Orleans ahead of Super Bowl 59. (The 49ers’ ownership group owns Leeds, the English football club.) That’s because soccer is a global sport, played in dozens of leagues with various levels of competition.
“You could grow up anywhere and actually get on an English Premier League team,” Guido said. “So what are you thinking about from an advanced statistics perspective, to your scouting department, to how you us AI for all the different metrics that go into defining what a good player looks like?”
Marrying traditional scouting with “the science,” both for soccer and the NFL, has become a core tenet of the 49ers’ evaluation process, said Guido.
Purdy is up for a contract extension this off-season. Guido declined to offer a timeline for a new deal, though he did say, “I’m sure it’ll get itself worked out.” More

President Donald Trump’s hostility toward DEI has elevated the stakes for corporations already grappling with how to navigate the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion.
DEI professionals told CNBC some companies, fearful of moving too loudly in either direction, may continue to support DEI internally even as they stay silent publicly.
Any approach requires a delicate balance to avoid making political enemies or stirring up controversy among consumers.

President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference at the White House in Washington, D.C., Jan. 30, 2025.
Xinhua News Agency | Xinhua News Agency | Getty Images

There’s a delicate balance playing out at corporations across America.
As the Trump administration targets diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, many prominent companies have publicly scaled back or scrapped their programs and goals for metrics such as employee and leadership representation. Others have insisted they will continue to support DEI, opening themselves up to political pressure — but also financial opportunity.

DEI professionals told CNBC that either strategy comes with tricky pros and cons: Brands seen as advocating for DEI could face legal challenges, but they also stand to benefit from the advantages of DEI and the loyalty of customers who share their values. Brands that publicly pull back may avoid the scrutiny of President Donald Trump and his allies, but risk stirring up controversy in an increasingly polarized environment.
Some companies, fearful of moving too loudly in either direction, may continue to support DEI internally, experts said, even as they stay silent publicly in order to avoid activist campaigns against them.
“I can’t be clear enough: DEI isn’t dying. It’s evolving,” said Daisy Auger-Domínguez, founder and CEO of workplace consulting firm Auger-Domínguez Ventures.
Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office ending all DEI programs across the federal government. He issued another order a day later demanding the Justice Department identify and potentially sue “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners.”
The White House’s hostility toward DEI has elevated the stakes for corporations already grappling with how to navigate the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion amid a growing culture war, experts said.

Several companies, such as Lowe’s and Ford, had begun rolling back DEI programs even before Trump’s election victory in November. In a statement to CNBC, Ford said it was committed to a “respectful and inclusive workplace for all employees.” On Nov. 25, Walmart said it was winding down some DEI-related efforts, though in a statement to CNBC this week, the retailer said it is focused on its values of “respect, integrity, service and excellence.”
In late January, Target issued an internal memo ending several DEI-related goals and partnerships and emphasizing a program centered on “belonging.” On Wednesday, Google said it will retire its aspirational hiring targets in light of the executive orders and recent court decisions. A Google spokesperson told CNBC in a statement this week it’s “committed to creating a workplace where all our employees can succeed and have equal opportunities.”

A Target store in Emeryville, California, on Nov. 18, 2024.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Others, including Caterpillar and 3M, told CNBC they are currently reviewing the executive orders to assess their implications. Citigroup is also analyzing the impact of the orders, a person familiar with the process told CNBC on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal matters.
“What you’re seeing right now is people trying to safeguard internally the work that is necessary, because they understand not just the business but the people value of this work,” Auger-Domínguez told CNBC.
“This is not the time to be experimenting with this. This is the time to be doubling down on what’s important to your organization,” she added.

Defending DEI

Some companies have stood firm on their support for DEI since the executive order. Costco is perhaps the most prominent example: Its board of directors unanimously opposed a proposal by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, for the wholesaler to publish a report on the risks of its DEI policies. Investors defeated the proposal with about 98% voting against it, the company announced at its annual shareholder meeting Jan. 23.
“A welcoming workforce has been integral to the company’s culture and values since its founding,” Costco Chairman Hamilton James said at the meeting.
Apple is similarly resisting the think tank’s proposal for the tech giant to consider abolishing its diversity and inclusion initiatives. The measure will receive a vote at Apple’s annual shareholder meeting Feb. 25.
“We strive to create a culture of belonging where everyone can do their best work,” Apple’s board said in a statement.
Several high-profile CEOs including Bill Ready of Pinterest, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, and David Solomon of Goldman Sachs have recently indicated that their businesses will stick with their current approaches to DEI.
Both JPMorgan and Goldman are also targets of anti-DEI proposals by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
JPMorgan directed a CNBC request for comment to Dimon’s 2024 shareholder letter, where he wrote that the company’s DEI initiatives “lead to more innovation, smarter decisions and better financial results for us and for the economy overall.” Goldman Sachs declined to comment to CNBC.

Tubs of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in a store freezer.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s, which has long been vocal about social activism, said in a statement to CNBC that it remains committed to supporting equity and justice throughout the company, while also calling out companies that have rolled back DEI commitments made in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by police in 2020.
“We believe that companies that timidly bow to the current political climate by attempting to turn back the clock will become increasingly uncompetitive in the marketplace and will ultimately be judged as having been on the wrong side of history,” the company said.

The notion of inclusivity, respect and belonging … has been awesome for the culture, but also for the turnaround of our business from a financial perspective.

Andrew Clarke
CEO of Francesca’s

Outdoor apparel company Patagonia, which likewise has a history of activism for climate action, also said in a statement to CNBC that it wouldn’t be rolling back its DEI policies.
“We stand firm in support of our justice, equity and antiracism policies and practices,” Patagonia said.
Although cosmetics brand E.l.f. Beauty does not have formal DEI programs, it promotes inclusivity in its company culture and has not changed its stance on DEI, CEO Tarang Amin said in written comments to CNBC.
“This isn’t about risks or rewards, it’s about having a diverse set of views to best serve our community with exceptional products they want, at prices they can afford,” Amin wrote.
Andrew Clarke, CEO of clothing retailer Francesca’s, posted a LinkedIn video last week affirming the company’s commitment to respect and inclusion. He told CNBC that he sees DEI as having been key to Francesca’s rebound after the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2020.
“D&I is not an abbreviation or a mandated deliberate strategy in this organization, it’s a human strategy,” Clarke said. “The notion of inclusivity, respect and belonging and treating our fellow associates as we would like to be treated ourselves — that has been awesome for the culture, but also for the turnaround of our business from a financial perspective.”
Clarke cited a senior leadership team composed of 69% women and employee policies such as a flexible dress code as examples of how Francesca’s centers inclusivity. Although he said he is mindful of potential legal limitations from recent White House policy, he said the company will continue the strategies that have made it successful.

Looking inward

Even if brands are staying silent or rolling back their external goals or messaging, DEI experts told CNBC, they may still be working to promote diversity and inclusion within their companies.
Amira Barger, executive vice president and head of DEI advisory at Edelman, said businesses’ approaches to DEI might look more like they did before 2020, when many companies were quick to issue public statements and launch programs in support of DEI and social justice in the wake of Floyd’s murder and the national demonstrations it sparked.
DEI programs boost talent retention and consumer loyalty, Barger said, adding she doesn’t expect corporations to end them entirely. Researchers have identified relationships between corporate DEI and benefits such as adaptability and financial outperformance.
“I do think we will continue to see companies be less vocal, but I think people should take a pause and really ask more questions, because I do think many of these companies are still quietly doing the work behind the scenes,” Barger said.
Some companies have been rebranding and renaming their diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Eloiza Domingo, CEO and founder of consulting firm FourTen and former chief DEI officer and vice president for human resources at Allstate, said she’s seen an increase in the use of terms such as “belonging,” “cultural competency” and “employee engagement” in place of the typical acronym DEI.

As someone who’s worked with companies on DEI, Domingo said, she’s empathetic toward those companies that are reconsidering their external DEI strategy. She said she’s grappling with that issue for her own business, as she works on attracting more clients.
“I’m known as a diversity keynote. I’m known as a changemaker. Now, that is under not only scrutiny but under attack,” Domingo said. “And so what do I do as an entrepreneur to keep my business going, but also to feed the kids? That’s really, really scary.”

Navigating backlash

In a Jan. 6 statement titled “Our Commitment to Inclusion,” McDonald’s announced it was retiring “aspirational representation goals,” participation in external DEI surveys, and its supply chain DEI pledge. It also changed its diversity team’s name to “Global Inclusion Team.”
The fast food giant faced immediate backlash, leading to McDonald’s Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer Desiree Ralls-Morrison defending the company in a LinkedIn post. Ralls-Morrison asserted that many critics hadn’t fully read the statement, which also said that McDonald’s had met its targets in areas such as gender pay equity and supplier diversity and that the company was “proud of our incredible accomplishments in this space and excited to continue our inclusion journey.”
“McDonald’s was suggested in the headlines as having killed DEI,” Barger said. “It is much more nuanced. I think they strategically rebranded their approach.”
Ralls-Morrison and McDonald’s didn’t respond to requests for comment.

People take pictures of a setup representing a McDonald’s restaurant with a picture of President Donald Trump at the window ahead of the Liberty Ball on Inauguration Day of Trump’s second presidential term in Washington, Jan. 20, 2025.
Elizabeth Frantz | Reuters

Sina Port, a brand strategist and diversity consultant, said businesses that aren’t publicizing their DEI policies can still communicate their support for inclusion to consumers — without being overly performative or making empty commitments.
She cited actions such as promoting the personal brands of diverse employees and creating products that are actually useful to communities, such as sports equipment for people with disabilities.
“In general, I’m not a huge fan of just making announcements to customers. I look more at the action that you’re taking,” Port told CNBC.

Potential benefit

It’s too soon to determine whether companies currently taking stances on DEI will see an impact on their stock or revenue, Barger said, but she expects some consumers will make buying decisions based on the company’s values.
“In these moments we’re going to be tested in terms of consumer loyalty, every brand,” Barger said.
Activist campaigns targeting specific corporations have had a demonstrable impact in recent years.
Backlash against Bud Light’s partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in 2023 contributed to a sales slump for the brand that resulted in Bud Light losing its long-held status as the top-selling U.S. beer.
Target said a boycott of the retailer over its Pride merchandise that same year hurt its sales. The company had offered Pride merchandise for years prior to the boycott.
DEI supporters are hoping to leverage the same influence for their cause.
Civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton, founder of the National Action Network, has organized two “buy-cotts” at Costco, in which the organization mobilized people to shop at the wholesaler to support its pro-DEI stance. The two events collectively brought in more than 400 shoppers, he told CNBC. Sharpton said NAN is planning more shows of support at Costco and other businesses.
The organization is also actively researching companies to boycott for their DEI policy rollbacks, Sharpton said, adding that NAN is specifically looking at corporations that have small profit margins and a significant Black consumer base. The group also plans to buy stock in these companies and submit shareholder proposals.
“We’ll support those that support us.
We believe that corporations have the right to decide their policy, but we have the right to decide who we’re going to patronize,” Sharpton said.
— CNBC’s Melissa Repko and Jennifer Elias contributed to this report. More