Taiwan Tech Rally Defies AI Bubble Fears as Local Investors Bet on Structural Edge

Economic

Summary:

Despite rising global anxiety over inflated AI valuations, Taiwan’s equity markets continue to climb, supported by strong local investor confidence, resilient earnings...

Local Confidence Anchors Taiwan's Market Amid Global Skepticism

As global markets begin to exhibit caution toward artificial intelligence stocks, Taiwan’s domestic investors are charging ahead, undeterred by the fear of an AI valuation bubble. The island’s benchmark stock index is on track to breach the symbolic 30,000-point mark in early 2026, having nearly doubled over the past three years. This optimism is rooted not just in speculation, but in Taiwan’s strategic position as the nucleus of the global semiconductor ecosystem powering the AI revolution.

Despite net foreign outflows exceeding NT$533.8 billion (approximately $17 billion) in 2025 alone, the market remains resilient. Local investors appear more focused on long-term structural fundamentals than on short-term volatility or macroeconomic noise. This divergence in sentiment reflects a deeper belief that Taiwan’s supply-side advantages give it a unique buffer against AI market volatility.

Semiconductors Secure Taiwan’s Central Role in AI Evolution

Concerns about Nvidia’s future market dominance have surfaced globally as Google’s custom TPUs threaten to undercut GPU pricing. However, Taiwan benefits either way. As the foundational base for both Nvidia’s GPUs and Google’s TPUs, Taiwan stands to gain from rising demand regardless of who leads the AI hardware race.

TSMC, the world’s largest contract chip manufacturer, sits at the heart of this hardware production cycle, along with AI-aligned firms like Foxconn, Elite Material, and other upstream suppliers. Analysts argue that the strength of Taiwan’s order books and the pace of innovation in high-end chips will keep revenue momentum intact well into 2027.

Goldman Sachs projects that hyperscaler investment globally will grow to $552 billion in 2026 and $644 billion in 2027, which further reinforces the long-term outlook for hardware demand. Gina Kim of Nordea Asset Management also emphasizes that Taiwan’s role in AI and advanced semiconductors remains “structurally intact,” suggesting persistent upside potential.

No Bubble in Sight, Say Analysts and Fund Managers

Unlike the speculative fervor that marked the dot-com boom, Taiwan’s AI-linked stocks are supported by real earnings and competitive business models. The market’s current price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio stands at a relatively moderate 21, lower than both the Nasdaq and Japan’s Nikkei, indicating that despite soaring valuations, Taiwan’s market isn’t detached from corporate fundamentals.

Li Fang-kuo, head of Uni-President’s securities investment division, dismisses bubble fears, arguing that companies like Nvidia and other “magnificent seven” names enjoy gross margins of 70% or more figures that are not remotely comparable to the revenue-less companies of the early 2000s.

This sentiment is echoed by Goldman Sachs, whose strategists maintain an overweight position on tech and AI shares, stating that the current cycle, while frothy in appearance, does not yet meet the criteria of a speculative bubble.

Foreign Sell-Off Contrasts With Strong Domestic Accumulation

While foreign investors have continued to reduce their exposure driven by concerns about trade tensions, AI profit sustainability, and a desire to lock in gains domestic capital has filled the vacuum. Analysts attribute this divergence not to opposing market views, but to different time horizons and risk tolerances.

Foreign investors, often guided by macro-hedging strategies, have been more reactive to rising tensions with Beijing and broader geopolitical instability. Yet these same issues appear to have less influence on local institutions and retail investors, who instead focus on Taiwan’s entrenched role in global tech supply chains.

HSBC strategists recently noted that the average Asian portfolio contains a 10% allocation to a single stock TSMC highlighting both concentration risk and the confidence investors place in Taiwan’s leading position.

Taiwan’s Strategic Position Shields It From AI Volatility

While the rest of the world debates whether the AI boom has morphed into a bubble, Taiwan's domestic investors are doubling down. They are buoyed by a clear structural advantage: the island's indispensable role in manufacturing the core hardware powering the global AI transition.

The market’s upward trajectory, backed by robust earnings and manageable valuations, presents a contrast to the overheated conditions that typically precede a bubble burst. As long as capital expenditure in AI infrastructure continues to rise, and Taiwan maintains its dominance in advanced semiconductors, the rally appears far from over regardless of who leads the AI race.

Even with foreign capital fleeing and geopolitical risks looming, Taiwan's market narrative remains internally driven, structurally resilient, and fundamentally optimistic. The island’s near-future market prospects will likely be shaped less by fears of overvaluation and more by the durable demand for the silicon foundation of tomorrow’s intelligent machines.

Source: Reuters

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Glendon

Forex

Economic

The U.K. economy unexpectedly remained in contraction in October, with uncertainty ahead of the Autumn budget by Chancellor Rachel Reeves likely curtailing growth.

Data released earlier Friday by the Office for National Statistics showed that U.K. gross domestic product fell by 0.1% on a monthly basis in October, matching the drop seen during the prior month and below the 0.1% growth expected.

On an annual basis, the U.K. economy expanded by 1.1% in October, matching the growth seen the previous month and below the 1.4% growth expected

The manufacturing sector reported growth of 0.5% in October, rebounding from the hefty 1.7% drop the previous month, boosted by the restart of operations at Jaguar Land Rover's factories early in the month, after a cyber attack.

For more discussion surrounding economic data releases from top Wall Street analysts, subscribe to InvestingPro - get 55% off today

The uncertainty surrounding the Autumn budget, delivered by U.K. finance minister Rachel Reeves in November, likely deterred businesses and consumers alike from making investment decisions.

In the end, Reeves did raise taxes to give her greater room to meet her deficit-reduction targets as well as fund higher welfare spending, but not by as much as had been feared.

As a result, the Confederation of British Industry earlier Friday lifted up its economic growth forecast for next year, citing a temporary boost to government spending following the budget.

The business association predicted the U.K. economy will grow 1.3% next year, up from its previous forecast of 1.0% in June, and also lifted its forecast for this year to 1.4% from 1.2%, reflecting upward revisions to recent official data.

"While it's welcome to see our growth forecast upgraded for next year, the mood music reads more 'cautious optimism' than 'cause for celebration'," CBI chief economist Louise Hellem said.

The Bank of England holds its final policy-setting meeting of the year next week, and is widely expected to cut interest rates by a quarter point to 3.75% as recent data has shown inflation drifting lower.

British inflation fell in October for the first time since May, to 3.6% from 3.8%, in line with the central bank's expectations, and November data due next week could show a further drift downwards.

The BOE held interest rates unchanged at 4.0% in November, but this was a close call with four out of the nine policymakers voting for a rate reduction.

Source: Investing

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

A High-Priced Path to Citizenship for the Global Elite

President Donald Trump has launched the “Trump Gold Card,” a controversial new immigration initiative offering wealthy individuals and corporations expedited U.S. permanent residency and eventually citizenship through large, nonrefundable contributions. For individuals, a $1 million donation and a $15,000 processing fee grant access to EB-1 or EB-2 visa tracks. Corporations may sponsor employees for $2 million under the “Corporate Gold Card,” with additional fees and optional transfer rights.

Applications for both programs opened December 10, following a September executive order. Trump claims the program will raise “billions” for the U.S. Treasury, helping fund government initiatives and strengthening the economy. The Trump administration has framed the move as a way to “bring in the best,” emphasizing elite talent and global capital over broader immigration access.

Legal Ambiguities Undermine Policy Certainty

Despite its high-profile rollout, legal experts argue that the program’s foundation remains shaky. Unlike the EB-5 investor visa program, which is grounded in federal statute and requires job creation, the Gold Card relies entirely on an executive order without congressional approval. This raises key concerns about its legality and long-term enforceability.

Immigration attorney Natalia Polukhtin notes that the program circumvents legislative processes by carving out space within existing visa categories EB-1A for individuals with “extraordinary ability” and EB-2-NIW for those who benefit the national interest without formally amending immigration law. The lack of statutory basis could expose the program to future legal challenges or rollback under a different administration.

Additionally, unlike EB-5, which mandates targeted investments and job creation, the Gold Card requires no specific business placement or employment contribution. The $1 million “donation” is not a capital investment; rather, it is an unstructured payment to the federal government, raising further doubts about whether it aligns with established immigration frameworks.

Dubious Economic Returns Raise Cost-Efficiency Questions

Trump has promoted the Gold Card program as a tool to “build the greatest economy on earth,” but economists remain unconvinced that this visa model will deliver measurable benefits to the U.S. economy. While capital inflows may increase federal revenue, research suggests such schemes typically have only marginal effects especially in large economies like the United States.

Nuri Katz, founder of Apex Capital Partners, points out that the EB-5 program already draws around 4,000 applications annually at a lower cost threshold of $800,000. Even if that number were to migrate to the Gold Card’s $1 million price tag, the Treasury’s gain would hover around $4 billion per year barely registering in the context of the federal budget or national debt.

An IMF study on global citizenship-by-investment programs further suggests that while they may temporarily boost revenue in small countries, they are often associated with real estate price inflation and fail to generate long-term economic gains. In such countries, property markets inflated by investor inflows saw prices rise by up to 3% within a year raising concerns about speculative pressures on urban housing if the Gold Card were widely adopted.

Moreover, the lack of any job creation or economic multiplier requirement limits the program’s capacity to generate productivity or industrial benefits. From an economic standpoint, the Trump Gold Card functions more like a fundraising tool than an investment visa.

Corporate Gold Cards and Transferable Access Raise Ethical Flags

The program’s corporate version adds another layer of complexity. For $2 million, a company can sponsor an employee’s permanent residency with the option to transfer the benefit to another employee for a 5% fee. This raises ethical concerns about the commodification of immigration status and the potential for large firms to use visas as strategic leverage within global talent markets.

Additionally, the 1% annual maintenance fee for approved corporate cardholders introduces an ongoing cost that might be bearable for multinationals but could skew competition by pricing out smaller firms or startups. The ability to transfer immigration sponsorship for a fee, critics argue, turns visa access into a marketable asset rather than a merit-based selection.

High-Profile Rollout, Unclear Impact

The Trump Gold Card offers a flashy new avenue for elite immigration but faces serious scrutiny on legal, ethical, and economic grounds. The lack of congressional authorization, absence of job-creation obligations, and reliance on nonrefundable donations rather than investments all distinguish it from established immigration models like the EB-5.

While the program may succeed in raising capital from a narrow group of global elites, its broader utility for the U.S. economy remains questionable. It risks undermining the coherence of immigration policy by privileging wealth without guaranteeing public benefit, potentially triggering legal resistance and further polarization of immigration reform debates.

In short, the Trump Gold Card symbolizes a policy pivot toward transactional citizenship but without robust legal grounding or economic returns, its legacy may be more political than practical.

Source: Reuters

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Westpac

Political

Central Bank

Economic

The RBA's decision to leave the cash rate unchanged came as no surprise to the market, but the focus was always going to be on the RBA's take on the recent dataflow.

In the event, the Monetary Policy Board conceded that part of the recent lift in underlying inflation "may be persistent", but also that some was due to "temporary factors". On activity, "private demand has strengthened, driven by both consumption and investment", and, if it were to persist, would "likely add to capacity pressures". Though the "risks to inflation have tilted to the upside" in the RBA's view, they do not appear to be in any rush to pre-emptively react to these risks, noting that "it will take a little longer to assess the persistence of inflationary pressures."

Underlying the RBA's assessment on the balance of risks is a somewhat more pessimistic view on supply capacity which, in the context of an economic upswing, begets a more hawkish tone around the inflation outlook. Our view on productivity, population and participation is more constructive, implying that the economy can handle a higher rate of growth without sparking excessive inflation. As temporary factors wash out, inflation should resume its trajectory toward the mid-point of the target range, providing scope to deliver two more rate cuts next year. If inflation dynamics take longer to normalise, the risk is that the cash rate could remain on hold for longer than our current base case.

Developments around the labour market will also be key for policy hence. The data continues to speak to a gradual softening as jobs growth across broad industry segments normalises. The November update revealed a decline in employment (–21.3k) which was 'cushioned' by an unexpected fall in the participation rate, resulting in the unemployment rate holding steady at 4.3%. We expect a bit more slack to open up over the next year, putting a lid on any upside risks to inflation stemming from the labour market.

Before moving offshore, a final note on business. The latest NAB business survey indicated that business conditions remained positive and generally steady around long-run average levels in November, notwithstanding a small decline. Business confidence was a little shakier in the month, but a more constructive picture around forward orders has allowed businesses to remain cautiously optimistic. As evidence of a sustained recovery continues to build, businesses will be able to expand capacity with a greater degree of confidence.

In the US, the FOMC cut the fed funds rate by 25bps to 3.625% at their December meeting but maintained its projection of only one further cut in 2026 and another in 2027, reaching a broadly neutral rate of 3.125% by end-2027. This cautious approach reflects expectations of above-trend growth through 2028, supported by real income gains and AI-driven infrastructure investment, seeing the unemployment rate ease back to 4.2%.

Inflation is only forecast to decline gradually from 3.0% in 2025 to 2.0% by 2028, implying moderately restrictive policy will achieve the dual mandate, eventually. We anticipate capacity constraints and persistent inflation risks will limit further easing by the FOMC to just one more cut, which is most likely to be seen in Q1 2026 before inflation proves more persistent than the Committee currently expects. The fed funds rate on hold at 3.375% with persistent inflation risks is likely to bias up long-term yields, particularly amid elevated fiscal uncertainty.

The Bank of Canada subsequently kept rates steady at 2.25%, maintaining an accommodative stance to support the economy as it navigates excess capacity and trade uncertainty. The Governing Council remain confident inflation will remain at target with the inflation rate having held close to their target of 2.0% for over a year and excess capacity and softer wage growth likely to offset any upside risk to consumer prices from trade. The labour market has strengthened in recent months but still remains weak compared to where it was prior to the pandemic.

In China meanwhile, consumer inflation accelerated to 0.7%yr in November as producer prices deflation became more even entrenched, with prices down 2.2%yr. The rise in consumer prices reflects increases in the cost of food and gold jewellery versus demand-led inflation which there is little-to-no evidence of. Further support centred on household consumption should broaden consumer inflation through 2026.

Producer prices are unlikely to sustainably grow until capacity tightens, however. This could be a long way off. 'Anti-involution' policies champion profitability, but this does not preclude new more productive supply being invested in to replace old ineffective capacity or to meet demand for new goods and services. Price declines and profitability can therefore co-exist sustainably.

Source: Westpac Banking Corporation

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Leaders Reconnect as Trade Negotiations Regain Momentum

President Trump and Prime Minister Modi’s call this week was described as “warm and engaging,” reflecting renewed diplomatic synergy at a time when both nations are striving to reset trade relations. Modi emphasized the positive tone and reaffirmed joint commitments to regional peace and global prosperity. Trump’s ambassador to India, Sergio Gor, characterized the exchange as a conversation between “two friends,” underscoring a sense of political chemistry amid strategic calculations.

However, beneath the cordial surface lies a complex agenda. The U.S. and India are navigating months of stalled trade negotiations, largely due to Trump’s imposition of 50% punitive tariffs on Indian imports particularly those linked to retaliatory measures against India’s continued purchase of Russian oil during the Ukraine conflict. These tariffs have placed acute pressure on Indian industries and emerged as the central obstacle to securing a broader trade accord.

Diplomatic Activity Intensifies Ahead of Deal Deadline

In an effort to break the deadlock, two high-profile American delegations traveled to New Delhi this week. State Department official Allison Hooker met with Indian foreign ministry leaders including Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, while Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Rick Switzer held discussions with Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and senior Indian trade officials. These meetings, although confidential, were reportedly productive, and both sides expressed willingness to continue working toward a mutual understanding.

An Indian official familiar with the talks noted that a phased agreement particularly focusing on reducing import tariffs could materialize before the end of the financial year in March 2026. India’s Chief Economic Adviser, V. Anantha Nageswaran, also voiced optimism in a Bloomberg Television interview, stating he would be “surprised” if the deal remained unsigned by March. He acknowledged previous delays but highlighted that most issues had been ironed out and only timing remained uncertain.

Strategic Interests and External Pressures Complicate Progress

The conversation between Trump and Modi took place shortly after Modi welcomed Russian President Vladimir Putin to India, signaling New Delhi’s intention to maintain strategic autonomy despite Washington’s pressure. The timing of this visit just before the U.S. delegations arrived suggests India is leveraging its geopolitical balance to extract more favorable terms from both superpowers.

While India aims to preserve its growing trade relationship with the U.S., including cooperation on critical technologies and defense, it remains unwilling to compromise on energy security, particularly in relation to Russian oil imports. This strategic posture complicates Trump’s approach, as he attempts to balance national security concerns with domestic economic goals.

The foreign ownership of Indian exports especially rice has also emerged as a flashpoint. Trump recently hinted at additional tariffs on Indian rice imports, citing alleged dumping practices. India, as the world’s top rice exporter and second-largest supplier to the U.S., swiftly rebutted the claim, with the Indian Rice Exporters Federation asserting that exports to the U.S. are demand-driven and do not compete with American basmati rice production. This tension reflects not only trade imbalance concerns but also deeper apprehensions about agricultural competition and market sovereignty.

Trade Accord Within Reach, But Fragility Persists

The renewed diplomatic exchange between Trump and Modi injects cautious optimism into the prolonged trade standoff between the U.S. and India. The engagement of senior officials and alignment on broader security and technology objectives provide a supportive backdrop. However, multiple factors ranging from strategic oil partnerships to sensitive tariff disputes remain unresolved.

The causal relationship between Trump’s tariff regime and India’s slow response to trade normalization is evident. While both sides are motivated to finalize a deal, especially before the March 2026 fiscal deadline, political considerations, domestic pressures, and the broader geopolitical context could still derail the fragile progress.

Should an agreement be reached, it would symbolize a significant shift in U.S.-India economic ties and reinforce their joint strategic trajectory. But as with previous rounds of negotiation, the absence of a clear enforcement roadmap and Trump’s fluctuating rhetoric mean the path forward remains volatile.

Source: Bloomberg

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Justin

Political

Economic

Central Bank

Economists predict the next shift in European Central Bank interest rates will be up, aligning with the views of investors and influential Executive Board member Isabel Schnabel as inflation settles around 2%.

More than 60% of respondents in a Bloomberg survey say officials are more likely to raise borrowing costs than lower them — a meaningful change from October, when only a third shared that outlook.

It's not something they expect to happen anytime soon, however: The deposit rate is seen remaining at 2% on Dec. 18 and throughout the next two years.

Analysts are revising their forecasts after inflation stabilized and the euro zone's economy weathered global trade stress and geopolitical upheaval surprisingly well.

In an interview, Schnabel cited such resilience — and rosier prospects, helped by a glut of government spending — among reasons why she's "rather comfortable" with wagers for rates to rise next. One gauge points to a first increase in the latter half of 2027.

Most Governing Council members say simply that rates are in a "good place" for the time being. For President Christine Lagarde, the task will be to reflect their confidence that dangers to the economy are waning without encouraging the idea that hikes are getting close, according to Jan von Gerich, chief strategist at Nordea. That's an opinion shared by others.

"The biggest challenge is one of communication, particularly against a backdrop of rapidly-evolving market expectations," said Paul Hollingsworth, chief European economist at BNP Paribas.

Hollingsworth and von Gerich both forecast quarter-point hikes in September and December 2027. Were traders to bet on more rapid action, tighter financing conditions would pose a headwind for the economy — just as it's expected to pick up.

Indeed, survey respondents reckon next week's new quarterly projections from the ECB will paint a brighter picture for growth — something Lagarde herself has also suggested.

On inflation, concerns linger about 2027, when a holdup in the European Union's new carbon-pricing system could weigh. Most economists, though, expect a September forecast for prices to rise 1.9% that year to be maintained.

Eyes will then shift to 2028 — the first time it will feature in the outlook. The poll indicates a figure just above the ECB's 2% goal, leaving almost two-thirds of analysts more worried about an overshoot of the medium-term target than an undershoot.

Even those who think price pressures will be materially weaker in three years don't consider them soft enough alone to trigger another decrease in borrowing costs.

"The ECB should feel rates are properly set at present as inflation risks are comparatively balanced," Scope economist Dennis Shen said. "We don't expect any rate reductions in 2026, but the ECB will keep its options open."

One reason to remain flexible, according to Shen, is the potential for more US cuts next year. The Federal Reserve eased for a third straight meeting this week and may lower once more in 2026. Kevin Hassett, the frontrunner to replace Chair Jerome Powell, sees "plenty of room" for more substantial moves, however.

US policy — monetary as well as trade — is still deemed the most acute threat to the euro area, with the war in Ukraine remaining a big concern.

Against that backdrop, Swedbank's Chief Economist Nerijus Maciulis foresees one more cut by the ECB in March, arguing that bullishness on the region's growth prospects "rests on flimsy foundations."

"Unless we are talking about hiking down the well-trodden scenic Alpine paths, Governing Council members are unlikely to hike any time soon," he said.

About 45% of respondents, though, say economic growth is predominantly restrained by structural forces beyond the ECB's control. These include sluggish manufacturing amid stiffer competition from China, costly energy and excessive bureaucracy.

Nearly half say those hurdles are just as strong as cyclical drags, illustrating why policymakers are expected to show patience before considering more rate cuts — even if growth and inflation disappoint.

"Monetary policy can't solve structural growth problems," said ING's Carsten Brzeski, who sees officials standing pat at least through 2027. "A 25 basis-point rate cut by the ECB won't make the German automotive industry more competitive vis-a-vis China."

Source: Bloomberg Europe

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Heightened Oversight of Proxy Advisory Industry

On December 11, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting the U.S. proxy advisory industry, specifically directing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of Labor, and Department of Justice to investigate whether two dominant firms Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis violated existing regulations or antitrust laws. The focus is on how these firms have allegedly prioritized environmental and social issues that critics argue are driven by political motivations.

The executive order reflects a broader conservative agenda to rein in the perceived power of these firms, which advise institutional investors such as pension funds and asset managers on how to vote in corporate elections. Trump’s directive does not merely suggest tighter oversight; it also opens the door for the formulation of new regulations that could reshape the way proxy voting advice is delivered in the U.S. market.

A Political Campaign Against ESG Influence

The action builds on a series of prior efforts by Republican lawmakers and business leaders, including figures such as JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and Elon Musk, who claim these firms exert excessive influence over corporate decision-making processes particularly with respect to board nominations, executive pay, and ESG disclosures.

Trump’s framing of ISS and Glass Lewis as instruments of “radical politically motivated agendas” reflects mounting pushback against ESG investing, particularly proposals urging firms to disclose carbon emissions, diversity metrics, or implement sustainability targets. By highlighting the firms’ foreign ownership ISS is largely owned by Germany's Deutsche Boerse, while Glass Lewis is backed by Canadian private equity Trump is appealing to nationalist economic sentiment, further amplifying criticism.

Institutional Resistance and Legal Complications

While conservative attacks on proxy advisers have intensified, attempts to curtail their role have faced legal and institutional resistance. Federal courts have already blocked previous efforts to enforce restrictions. In August, a Texas law that aimed to prevent ISS and Glass Lewis from advising on diversity and environmental matters was struck down by a federal judge. Similarly, in July, a U.S. federal appeals court upheld a ruling protecting ISS from regulations that would have forced it to publicly disclose its recommendations a requirement that could have undermined its commercial model.

In response to the executive order, ISS reiterated its status as an SEC-registered investment adviser and emphasized its commitment to acting ethically and independently in its clients’ best interests. Glass Lewis declined to comment immediately.

Despite recent legal victories, state-level probes are gaining traction. Florida's Attorney General has launched a lawsuit alleging consumer protection and antitrust violations, while Texas is conducting a parallel investigation. Trump’s executive order directs the FTC chairman and Attorney General Pam Bondi to assess whether these state-level investigations indicate broader federal violations, signaling that further litigation and regulatory action may follow.

Strategic Shifts Within Proxy Firms

In response to the changing political climate and mounting pressure, both ISS and Glass Lewis have begun dialing back their engagement with ESG proposals. ISS announced it would no longer factor boardroom diversity into its director recommendations, while Glass Lewis stated it may pursue SEC registration as an investment adviser a possible step to comply with evolving regulatory expectations.

These actions suggest that while the firms maintain their central role in helping shareholders navigate complex corporate votes, they are also strategically repositioning themselves to minimize exposure to political and legal risks. Whether these moves will be enough to satisfy critics remains uncertain, particularly given the current administration’s intensified scrutiny.

A Turning Point for Proxy Governance in the U.S.

President Trump’s executive order marks a significant escalation in the politicization of corporate governance in the U.S. While framed as an effort to protect shareholders and reduce foreign influence, the action aligns with a broader campaign against ESG-driven financial practices. Although ISS and Glass Lewis have withstood legal and institutional challenges so far, the latest directive signals continued confrontation.

The causal relationship between the firms’ ESG stances and the regulatory pushback is clear: as these advisory companies amplified support for environmental and social proposals, they invited not just market scrutiny but political retaliation. Whether the outcome will be tighter regulation or merely prolonged litigation depends on the interplay between federal agencies, courts, and future administrations. What remains certain is that the role of proxy advisers in U.S. financial markets will remain a focal point of regulatory and ideological battles well into 2026.