McDonald's on Monday said it is rolling back some of its diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Why it matters: Backlash against corporate DEI efforts appears to be intensifying ahead of Donald Trump's inauguration.

• The president-elect has been an outspoken opponent of corporate diversity efforts.

Where it stands: In a letter to franchise owners, suppliers and current employees, McDonald's proclaimed its commitment to diversity and inclusion but said it would modify some practices after conducting a "civil rights audit."

• The fast food company cited the Supreme Court's ruling in 2023 that ended affirmative action in universities, and the shifting legal landscape.

Zoom in: The company said it would end "aspirational representation goals." That could include specific hiring targets that have come up for criticism in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision.

• It will pause "external surveys," which could include participation in the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index.

Between the lines: The announcement came just days after anti-DEI activist Robby Starbuck first reached out to the fast food giant, he said in a post on X.

• Starbuck said the company made its decision just three days after he'd told them he'd be doing a story on their "woke policies," per his post.
• "As our first corporate flip of 2025 I just want to say, HAPPY NEW YEAR!," he posted to X.
• "Things move faster now because so many companies have hired consultants to pre-plan how to respond to me," Starbuck told Axios in a text, taking credit for the changes.
• His campaigns have led to similar retreats at Walmart, Tractor Supply Company, and John Deere.

Context: This update has been "considered over recent months," the company told Axios in an email from its press account.

• "Our plan has been to communicate our updated approach at the start of the year."
• The message on Monday noted the "evolving landscape around DEI policies and programs in the U.S."

Flashback: McDonald's has repeatedly hailed DEI as essential in the past.

• "We believe everyone deserves a safe, inclusive and accepting workplace where they can thrive," McDonald's global chief diversity officer Suheily Natal Davis said last year on LinkedIn.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with comment from McDonald's.

President Biden blocked Japan's Nippon Steel from buying U.S. Steel last week, earning the approval of the United Steelworkers union, which desperately wanted the deal crushed.

• But steel workers themselves may be less than enthused.

Why it matters: It's not at all clear that the president's pro-union move will actually wind up benefiting rank-and-file members of U.S. Steel or other workers in the Pennsylvania region where the storied company is based.

Catch up quick: U.S. Steel has warned that without a deal it would be forced to close some operations in Pennsylvania, where it employs close to 4,000 people.

• Most threatened, as Axios' Dan Primack has reported, is believed to be Mon Valley Works, a steel processing plant with more than 3,000 workers. U.S. Steel also said it might relocate its Pittsburgh headquarters.
• Industry observers have said the company's future is rocky without outside investment. That would deliver a huge blow to the Pennsylvania economy, hurting the voters that Biden had been wooing in blocking the deal.
• President-elect Trump was opposed to the deal and has an evolving relationship with organized labor himself, raising questions around if or how he might step in to help the workers. (He's also changed his mind on deals with national security complications before, like TikTok.)

Zoom in: While the union's top brass vehemently fought Nippon, it's not totally clear rank-and-file members lined up behind them.

• Many said they supported the deal, seeing it as a "lifeline" for a dying industry, as the Washington Post recently reported.
• Hundreds of workers staged a protest last month demanding the government let the deal go through.

Between the lines: Ostensibly, the deal was blocked due to national security concerns.

• Almost no observers or experts buy that argument, and some of Biden's closest advisers reportedly wanted the deal to happen.
• "President Biden claiming Japan's investment in an American steel company is a threat to national security is a pathetic and craven cave to special interests that will make America less prosperous and safe," Jason Furman, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration, posted on X last week. "I'm sorry to see him betraying our allies while abusing the law."

Japan is typically seen as a very low-risk investor country, says Alexis Early, a partner at Jenner & Block who specializes in CFIUS cases.

• If there were national security concerns over, say, the availability of steel for U.S. defense needs, CFIUS would typically try to mitigate that risk by requiring the foreign buyer to enter into a "supply assurance agreement," she says.
• The decision in this case leaves us "scratching our heads," she says, calling it a "brouhaha car-wreck" that's spooking low-risk foreign investors. The risk is some may decide to pull back. "That could hurt workers beyond the steel industry," she says.

Reality check: There are many unknowns ahead for U.S. Steel, amid lawsuits and the possibility that another buyer could jump in.

• So it's too soon to definitively say this will or won't hurt workers.
• The company's been steadily shedding workers for years from nearly 50,000 in 2008 to around 23,000 last year. At the height of its power, in the 20th century, U.S. Steel employed hundreds of thousands of workers.

What to watch: If layoffs do happen, then clearly this wasn't good for the rank and file, says Lee Adler, a lecturer at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

• Or for the Democratic Party, since Biden and union leadership will catch the blame, he says. "This is a cauldron."

McDonald's on Monday said it is rolling back some of its diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Why it matters: Backlash against corporate DEI efforts appears to be intensifying ahead of Donald Trump's inauguration.

• The president-elect has been an outspoken opponent of corporate diversity efforts.

Where it stands: In a letter to franchise owners, suppliers and current employees, McDonald's proclaimed its commitment to diversity and inclusion but said it would modify some practices after conducting a "civil rights audit."

• The fast food company cited the Supreme Court's ruling in 2023 that ended affirmative action in universities, and the shifting legal landscape.

Zoom in: The company said it would end "aspirational representation goals." That could include specific hiring targets that have come up for criticism in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision.

• It will pause "external surveys," which could include participation in the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index.

Between the lines: The announcement came just days after anti-DEI activist Robby Starbuck first reached out to the fast food giant, he said in a post on X.

• Starbuck said the company made its decision just three days after he'd told them he'd be doing a story on their "woke policies," per his post.
• "As our first corporate flip of 2025 I just want to say, HAPPY NEW YEAR!," he posted to X.
• "Things move faster now because so many companies have hired consultants to pre-plan how to respond to me," Starbuck told Axios in a text, taking credit for the changes.
• His campaigns have led to similar retreats at Walmart, Tractor Supply Company, and John Deere.

Context: This update has been "considered over recent months," the company told Axios in an email from its press account.

• "Our plan has been to communicate our updated approach at the start of the year."
• The message on Monday noted the "evolving landscape around DEI policies and programs in the U.S."

Flashback: McDonald's has repeatedly hailed DEI as essential in the past.

• "We believe everyone deserves a safe, inclusive and accepting workplace where they can thrive," McDonald's global chief diversity officer Suheily Natal Davis said last year on LinkedIn.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with comment from McDonald's.

There is a broad-based desire to wrest Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from federal control once Donald Trump takes office.

Why it matters: These two companies are the backbone of the U.S. housing market — together they support around 70% of U.S. mortgages.

• Messing with their structure poses risk to the economy, and at the very least could raise mortgage rates even further.

State of play: Last week, the Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees the two companies, released a roadmap for how privatization could work.

• In a sign that investors believe there's a real chance privatization could happen during Trump 2.0, stocks of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) jumped on the news.
• Mortgage Bankers Association chief lobbyist Bill Killmer told Axios it's highly likely that the issue will at least be examined during the new administration, following several other reports.
• Trump did not address the GSEs during the campaign or since his election. "No policy should be deemed official unless it comes directly from President Trump," Karoline Leavitt, spokeswoman for the transition, said in an email.

Reality check: This roadmap is a memo from a lame-duck administration, and the incoming Trump team could simply reverse it.

• But the idea was to put up some guardrails up so the incoming administration doesn't act too recklessly in getting rid of federal oversight, said Jim Parrott, who was a housing adviser in the Obama administration.
• He describes it as "a good governance move just to make sure that the new guys don't f--k things up too badly."

Zoom in: The roadmap lays out a process for privatization. It requires that the federal government gather public comment before making any moves and that Treasury be involved.

• But it doesn't go into the nitty-gritty details of how the process would work.

The big picture: Any such process would be pretty gnarly.

• Various policymakers and politicians have been trying to do it for years, without success. An effort during the first Trump administration fell short.

Flashback: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lost over $200 billion after the financial crisis hit in 2008 — vastly more than they had in cash.

• They were the epitome of "too big to fail," so the government bailed them out by lending them billions of dollars they found themselves unable to repay.
• Those debts were eventually restructured in a series of events that ended with the government owning 80% of the companies and having full rights to their profits, whether retained or paid out.
• Common shareholders are left with nothing.

Between the lines: Fannie and Freddie are now very profitable, which means they would be very valuable were they fully public companies where profits flowed to shareholders.

• However, such an action would involve Treasury giving up a valuable asset, while it's still owed an enormous amount of money.
• Its "liquidation preference" — money owed to Treasury after earnings were retained to beef up capital — is $212 billion from Fannie Mae alone.

What's next: Fannie and Freddie both exist to borrow money on the capital markets at a risk-free rate. They can do that at the moment because they are part of the government.

• As private companies, however, without a government guarantee, they would almost certainly lose their triple-A credit rating — and their debt would be considered risky for the purposes of calculating bank capital.
• Both things would make their borrowing costs rise substantially, cutting into their profits. Those higher borrowing costs would then flow through into higher mortgage rates for the general population.

Between the lines: Most housing experts, both liberals and conservatives, say the key to privatization is giving these entities an explicit guarantee of a federal backstop in case things go badly.

• In theory, a procedure called credit risk transfer can achieve this without leaving the government with a multitrillion-dollar contingent liability. In practice, that only increases the costs of GSEs even further.

The bottom line: No one has yet come up with a plan that extracts the GSEs from government control, repays Treasury what it's owed, makes sure the GSEs pose no systemic risk to the financial system, and prevents mortgage rates from rising.

• Probably because such a plan is all but impossible.

Read more: Bill Ackman gets back into activism

The rate on the 30-year mortgage is hovering close to 7%, a nearly 6-month high, per data from Freddie Mac out Thursday.

Why it matters: Higher rates are putting home buying out of reach for many Americans and simply turning others off from the market.

• Though home sales picked up in the third quarter, even with rising rates, they're still hovering at historic lows.

The big picture: Mortgage rates move in tandem with the rate on 10-year Treasury bonds.

• That's been rising over the past few months, as bond investors fret over whether or not the Fed will continue to cut rates, and what exactly will happen once Trump takes office.

What's next: Most forecasts see mortgage rates declining a smidge in 2025 to around 6 - 6.5% — probably not enough to jolt the moribund real estate market out of its slump.

The union representing East and Gulf Coast dockworkers is set to resume contract talks with employers early next week, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.

Why it matters: The prospect of an economy-crippling strike looms, with a deadline to reach a deal by Jan. 15, just days before President-elect Trump's inauguration.

The big picture: The ports are responsible for about half of all the containers coming into and out of the U.S.

• Any work stoppage that goes on for more than a few days would be big economic hit, raising the prospect of higher prices and shortages of everything from bananas to car parts, just as the second Trump administration is getting underway.
• The news about contract talks resuming was first reported by the Journal of Commerce.

Catch up quick: The dockworkers briefly went on strike last year before reaching a deal on pay that was pushed along by the Biden administration's behind-the-scenes machinations.

• The pro-labor White House pressured the group that represents the port employers to raise their offer on pay. They ultimately agreed to a 62% wage increase over six years.
• Trump also appears to be siding with the union, the International Longshoremen's Association.

Friction point: The big sticking point holding up a deal is automation. The union wants to hold it back and stop the installation of more semi-automated cranes at the ports. (Two ports, in Norfolk, Virginia, and Bayonne, New Jersey, already use the technology.)

• The group representing port employers, the United States Maritime Alliance, wants to advance its use of technology.

Zoom in: The Alliance says automation is the only way for East and Gulf Coast ports to handle more shipping volume, per a one-pager viewed by Axios.

• One terminal doubled its capacity after implementing semi-automated equipment. The increase in productivity led to an increase in hiring, the group says.
• "Moving more containers through the same terminal means more union jobs," per the document. The union, meanwhile, says automation kills jobs.

Between the lines: The politics might be murkier than at first glance.

• Trump came out against automation in a Truth Social post last month: "The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt, and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen."
• But later in the month, Trump ally Elon Musk reposted a video on X that was highly critical of the union's stance against automation.

What to watch: It's unclear if the Biden White House will involve itself as closely as it did last fall to push the parties to a deal.

• A strike averted and a deal reached before the deadline would be a huge win for the incoming Trump administration.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with details on the port employers' position.

Millions of workers are getting a raise on Jan. 1, when the minimum wage is set to rise across 21 states, and 48 cities and counties.

Why it matters: The increases lift the pay of more than 9.2 million people, per the Economic Policy Institute's tally.

• Millions more will benefit. When the wage floor rises, that means pay goes up for other workers at the bottom of the income ladder, too.

The big picture: Congress last raised the federal minimum wage in 2009 to its current $7.25 an hour.

• Since then, many states and localities took matters into their own hands. Now only 20 states adhere to the federal minimum wage.

Between the lines: 19 of those states voted for President-elect Trump, as NBC's Kristen Welker recently pointed out.

• Trump said that although $7.25 an hour was "a very low number," he didn't know what the appropriate minimum wage would be because the cost of living varies so much by region.
• That's how the issue has effectively sorted itself out in the U.S. The areas with a higher cost of living now do have higher minimum wages.

Where it stands: California's minimum wage is rising to $16.50, with several cities going higher, including in pricey Silicon Valley spots like Mountain View ($19.20) and Cupertino ($18.20).

• In New York, the wage floor is rising to $16.50 in NYC and Long Island, and $15.50 upstate.
• Washington State rises to $16.66, but large employers in Seattle's King County pay at least $20.29.
• In some places, the minimum wage is linked to inflation, which is why the wage isn't a nice round number.

Higher wages aren't just a blue state phenomenon. Pay is rising to $14.70 in Arizona, $10.55 in Montana, $13.50 in Nebraska and $10.70 in Ohio.

• A few states are raising pay later in the year. Florida's minimum wage will go up to $14 an hour on September 30.

What to watch: By 2027, nearly half of U.S. workers will live in states with at least a $15 minimum wage, left-leaning EPI recently reported.

• That number was once considered impossibly high, but now thanks to a mix of intense worker activism (remember Fight for $15?) and sky high inflation it doesn't seem so wild.

Go deeper: The National Employment Law Project has a list of all the changes.

The union that represents more than 11,000 Starbucks workers said it plans on launching a five-day strike beginning Friday morning.

Why it matters: The holiday season is one of the company's busiest times of year, and the stoppages will hit three big markets — Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle.

• Their planned strike follows a work stoppage launched by Amazon warehouse workers Thursday morning.

State of play: The union said Thursday night the walkouts will continue across the country, ultimately reaching "hundreds of stores from coast to coast by Christmas Eve."

• More than 500 Starbucks stores are now unionized — a relatively small fraction of the company's approximately 10,000 U.S. stores.

The big picture: Neither the Starbucks nor Amazon unions have reached a first contract, years after unionizing.

• But contracts are why unions organize. It's where employers and workers hammer out deals on pay and benefits.
• Unlike in Amazon's case where the company hasn't yet come to the negotiating table, Starbucks union members have been bargaining with the coffee giant all year.

The union may feel some urgency to make progress before President-elect Trump takes office next year and appoints a Republican majority to the National Labor Relations Board, which is expected to be less friendly to workers, says John Logan, a labor historian at San Francisco State University.

• "This might be their last best chance."

Where it stands: The union says the company hasn't offered up a workable proposal. In a release, they say the company hasn't offered any wage increases and "a guarantee of only 1.5% in future years."

• "We were ready to bring the foundational framework home this year, but Starbucks wasn't," says Lynne Fox, President of Workers United.

For the record: In a statement, Starbucks said the union "prematurely ended bargaining this week," adding that they've already reached meaningful agreements on hundreds of topics.

• "We are ready to continue negotiations to reach agreements. We need the union to return to the table."

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to comments from a labor expert.

One reason CEOs are so keen on becoming Donald Trump's new besties: The incoming president could make their profits go poof.

Why it matters: The president-elect's proposed tariffs are so high they could entirely wipe out the annual profits of some large companies, per an analysis from consulting firm PWC.

• Of course, companies won't sit idly by and let that happen — those costs will likely be passed along to American consumers.

Catch up fast: Trump said last month on Truth Social he'd put 25% tariffs on all goods coming from Canada and Mexico — the two largest U.S. trading partners — as soon as he takes office.

• That's on top of tariffs of 60% or more on goods from China, and 10-20% tariffs on imports from the rest of the world.

Zoom out: These measures could increase the amount of money businesses pay in tariffs by more than 400%, per a data analysis that PWC conducts for clients using company-specific data from U.S. Customs.

Zoom in: The modeling looks at worst-case scenarios. When Trump says all goods will be tariffed, companies take that seriously, says Chris Desmond, a PWC principal for customs and international trade.

• But some issues could be hammered out before tariffs take effect, like whether they apply to the country of origin or not. (For example: If you import avocados from Mexico that were grown in South America, would the importer have to pay higher Mexico tariff?)
• "That's messy," Desmond says. "There's a need for guidance."

Behind the scenes, the Trump team is telling corporate consultants that there's no budging the president-elect on his tariff stance, the Wall Street Journal reported.

• Still, many executives are huffing "hope-ium," believing Trump wouldn't want to hurt U.S. businesses, as the New York Times reported.

PWC's model finds tariff increases are often larger than an importer's annual profits across a range of industries including autos, retailers, communications equipment-makers, and companies that import fruits and vegetables.

• That's leading companies to question if they can change their supply chain strategies to adjust or pass costs to consumers, Desmond says.

What they're saying: "This is one of the biggest events in my career to impact so many U.S. multinational companies that deal with property imports," he says.

Reality check: It's certainly possible some firms that import goods may absorb these costs and accept lower profit margins, but many have already said they will pass the increased costs through.

Flashback: Not only do companies pass through tariff costs to consumers, sometimes they take the opportunity to raise prices on other goods, too.

• After the 2018 tariffs on washing machines hit, the price of dryers — which weren't tariffed — went up too, per research published in the American Economic Review in 2020.

Even if companies can preserve their margins by raising prices, there are other issues weighing on executives.

• Firms with China exposure saw their stock market valuation cut by $1.7 trillion when Trump announced new Chinese tariffs in 2018, per a study from the New York Fed.

The bottom line: There's a lot of uncertainty out there, but it's a safe bet that companies won't just sit by and let their profits disappear.

Renters in the U.S. spent an extra $3.8 billion last year because of pricing algorithms used by landlords, according to an analysis from the White House Council of Economic Advisers first shared with Axios.

Why it matters: The report puts some hard numbers to accusations that have piled up against RealPage, a company that makes software that helps big landlords and property managers set prices.

• In August, the Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit against the company, alleging its pricing algorithm allows landlords to collectively push rents higher.

What they're saying: "We are disappointed The White House CEA never contacted RealPage about their report, which is riddled with flawed assumptions," company spokeswoman Jennifer Bowcock said in a detailed statement Wednesday.

• "Their conclusions are based on the erroneous assumption that all property managers are setting coordinated rents, but that is not how RealPage's revenue management software (RMS) works."
• Earlier this month, the company filed a motion seeking to dismiss the DOJs claims in the antitrust suit, arguing that the agency hasn't shown any real anticompetitive effects of its product.

The big picture: The U.S. is in the grips of a housing affordability crisis — creating huge financial headaches for many Americans.

Reality check: Even if these algorithms were pushing up rents, as the CEA suggests, they wouldn't be the driving force behind rising housing prices.

• Instead a long-term shortage of affordable housing is the main culprit, as the CEA itself notes.

Between the lines: It's unclear whether the incoming Trump administration will want to pursue the suit against RealPage. The analysis looks like the White House's last push to draw attention to the issue.

Zoom in: For their analysis, the researchers modeled the price difference between two scenarios using a range of publicly available data.

• In one scenario landlords used RealPage software to set prices. In another they set prices individually.
• They found that those living in algorithm-utilizing buildings spent an average of $70 more per month. That number goes up in metro areas where RealPage use is more common.
• For example, in Atlanta, 68% of landlords of multifamily buildings use this software — and renters in those buildings paid an additional $181, on average, per month, per the CEA's analysis.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with a detailed response from RealPage.

Your company's holiday party is probably pretty chill this year — maybe it's at a dive bar or a restaurant or even virtual —  if you're having one at all.

Why it matters: The traditional corporate holiday bash is falling out of fashion as younger workers opt for more meaningful and activity-filled, less alcohol-saturated festivities.

By the numbers: The share of companies hosting any kind of holiday party has been declining for ages. In 2007, 90% of firms said they were hosting one, according to data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

• This year 64% of 173 companies surveyed told Challenger they're having one, a share that's flat from 2023.
• Ask the workers directly and the number looks even lower. A new Harris Poll of 1,238 employed adults, out Saturday, finds only 48% of workplaces now hold regular, annual, in-person holiday parties.

Zoom in: Virtual parties, unheard-of before COVID, are a growing fixture of work life.

• The share of companies hosting one rose slightly to 4.5% this year, up from 3.9% in 2023, per Challenger.
• In the Harris poll, 9% of respondents said they have an annual virtual party.

The big picture: Work culture has evolved considerably over the past decade.

• The impact of the MeToo movement put behavior at alcohol-soaked bashes under a microscope. (Employers generally want to avoid providing the ingredients for a sexual harassment lawsuit.)
• Meanwhile, COVID and the rise of remote work shook up workplace norms.
• Companies that have gone remote since 2020 have had to rethink their approach — from one big event, to smaller local gatherings or virtual meet-ups.

Where it stands: Generationally, tastes have changed. 42% of Gen Z workers surveyed by Harris would prefer no alcohol or a moderate amount at the party — compared to 37% of all workers.

• More than half of Gen Z and Millennial workers say they'd prefer a themed party with interactive elements (escape rooms, games, etc.) — compared to 44% for Gen X and 25% of Boomers.
• Cash is king though: 79% of workers surveyed said they'd prefer a bonus over a party.

What they're saying: "What is the goal of the holiday party? Is it to let off steam and have too much to drink? Or is it to really get to know each other better and bond and have these more meaningful interactions with colleagues — that's more what you see with Gen Z," says Libby Rodney, chief strategy officer at The Harris Poll.

The bottom line: Once upon a time, a the notion of a raucous office holiday party evoked jokes about drunkenly photocopying someone's butt on the Xerox machine — today your butt is more likely to be in an office chair as you Zoom with colleagues.

Editor's note: This story has been corrected to show that 37% (not 35%) of all workers said they'd prefer little to no alcohol at a holiday party, per the Harris survey.

The boardrooms of most major companies are no longer completely male-dominated — globally nearly all large public firms now have at least one woman director.

Why it matters: It's a reflection of a big push for diversity in the boardroom that's now stalled out.

• Amid the DEI backlash, and on the cusp of an administration openly hostile to diversity efforts, progress could even move backwards.

Driving the news: This week a federal court struck down a rule that required firms listed on the Nasdaq to include at least one woman, person of color or LGBTQ director on their boards — or explain why they don't.

• The rule, approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, was established in 2020 — and companies had just started sending Nasdaq information last year.
• Even though it wasn't in effect very long, the provision, along with another diversity law passed in California but later overturned in court, seems to have driven some progress.
• Boards are more diverse now than in 2020 in terms of gender and race.

The big picture: For years, advocates argued that a variety of perspectives is good for business — not just in terms of demographics but also expertise and experience.

• Now opponents are aggressively pushing back on that argument in court, with more anti-diversity efforts expected after President-elect Trump takes office.
• After a surge in 2020 and 2021, companies are actually now appointing fewer women and people of color to their boards.

By the numbers: Data on the board composition of the more than 3,000 Nasdaq firms is hard to come by. But we can clearly see the trends from other reports on public companies.

• In 2024, women made up 34% of directors on the S&P 500, up from 27% in 2020, according to an analysis from the Conference Board.
• Gender diversity also jumped on the broader Russell 3000 to 29% from 21% over that time period.
• Racial diversity increased too. In 2024, 26% of S&P 500 directors were people of color, up from 20% in 2020.
• Globally, the boards of most large firms now have at least one female director, per a 2024 analysis of 1,792 major companies across 44 countries conducted by Egon Zehnder.

Yes, but: After a surge in 2020 and 2021, companies are actually now appointing fewer women and people of color to their boards.

• The share of new directors who were women, appointed globally in 2024, fell to 14% from 16% in 2022 and 17% in 2020, per Egon Zehnder.
• The proportion of new directors who were Black at S&P 500 companies fell to 10% in 2024 from 26% in 2022, per the Conference Board.
• "There are some indications that the shift to defending DEI rather than promoting it has created a chilling effect," write the authors from Egon Zehnder.

Between the lines: For a long time, shame was a powerful motivator for bigger companies when it came to board diversity.

• In October 2013, critics called out Twitter for having an all-male board. There were three directors named Peter, but no women — a data point that caught people's attention.
• By December of that year, the social media company appointed its first female board member, Marjorie Scardino.
• Now, with Elon Musk at the helm, the renamed X has no directors at all. And Musk is hardly one to be shamed into action on this front.

The bottom line: These days companies announcing that they want more women or people of color in leadership positions are actively being criticized, and sometimes sued for these efforts.

• The forces of shame might be working in the opposite direction.

President-elect Trump appeared to indicate his support for the dockworkers union in its contract dispute with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) that led to a major strike at East Coast and Gulf ports earlier this year.

Why it matters: Though port workers are back on the docks after a three-day work stoppage in October, they haven't yet finalized a new contract with the shipping companies — the prospect of an economy-crushing strike still looms. The deadline is just five days before Trump's inauguration.

Driving the news: "I've studied automation, and know just about everything there is to know about it," Trump said on Truth Social after meeting with International Longshoremen's Association president Harold Daggett and executive vice president Dennis Daggett.

• "The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt, and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen."
• Trump said foreign companies had "made a fortune in the U.S." and he'd rather they spend it on dock workers than expensive machinery that will constantly have to be replaced.
• "For the great privilege of accessing our markets, these foreign companies should hire our incredible American Workers, instead of laying them off, and sending those profits back to foreign countries," Trump added.

Context: The United States Maritime Alliance and International Longshoremen's Association agreed to a 62% pay rise over six years to end the strike, but negotiations have reached an impasse over semi-automated cranes.

What they're saying: "It's clear President-elect Trump, USMX, and the ILA all share the goal of protecting and adding good-paying American jobs at our ports," USMX said in a statement.

• "We need modern technology that is proven to improve worker safety, boost port efficiency, increase port capacity, and strengthen our supply chains."

Between the lines: The president-elect's post is a sign that Trump 2.0 might be more labor friendly than Trump 1.0.

• Trump's pick for Labor Secretary, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), also has appeared to signal a more pro-union approach.

Go deeper: Striking port workers are trying to fend off the inevitable

Editor's note: This article has been updated with more details from the negotiations.

Melinda French Gates is donating $150 million to a battery of nonprofits to help remove barriers for women in the workplace.

• Nearly a third of the cash is going toward advancing women in AI and the tech industry.

Why it matters: The announcement from Gates' nonprofit advocacy group Pivotal comes at a time when companies are pulling back on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts that typically include gender.

• The incoming Trump administration is expected to accelerate that retreat.
• "Regardless of political party, we remain committed to our issues," Pivotal's vice president of program strategy Renee Wittemyer tells Axios.
• "As it stands, the modern workplace simply wasn't built with women in mind, and it's time for that to change," French Gates says in a video released Wednesday morning.

Zoom in: $45 million will be put toward increasing women's representation in AI and tech, including the Center for Inclusive Computing and Rewriting the Code.

• Some of those funds will go to Break Through Tech AI, which helps women outside of top schools get the training and support they need to land work in the industry.
• Women make up just 22% of AI workers globally, per data from Interface, a European think tank. That's especially worrying, given how fast-growing the sector is. Overall, the industry is closer to 30% women.
• A list of "who's who" in AI published in the New York Times late last year featured no women and got a good amount of blowback from women in the industry. Meanwhile, arguably the most important company of the moment — OpenAI — is losing its female execs.

The rest of the Pivotal money will go toward a variety of nonprofits and advocacy groups, including $75 million — half of the announced funds — to the Aspen Institute to establish a workplace innovation council next year.

• $30 million is going to groups like the National Partnership for Women & Families, Gretchen Carlson's Lift Our Voices, and Harvard Kennedy School's women and public policy program.

The big picture: The money is part of the $1 billion commitment that French Gates made earlier this year to provide funding through 2026 to groups working on women and family issues in the U.S. and globally.

• That was on top of $1 billion over 10 years she committed in 2019.

Flashback: In June, French Gates walked away the foundation she started with her ex-husband, Microsoft founder Bill Gates. They divorced in 2021.

Gas prices haven't been this low since spring 2021.

Why it matters: Displayed prominently on big signs everywhere you drive, prices at the pump are a key economic indicator for the general public.

• The recent lows are a big sign that inflation is increasingly in our rear-view mirror.
• And, of course, the lower prices are happy news for drivers — especially ahead of the holiday driving season.

By the numbers: The average gallon of gas cost $2.98 on Monday, and has been under $3 since Saturday, according to GasBuddy data.

Between the lines: The good news comes too late for the Biden administration, which suffered politically when inflation and the war in Ukraine drove prices above $5 a gallon in 2022.

• Instead, low gas prices are more likely to benefit President-elect Donald Trump, who campaigned on bringing them down.

Stunning stat: The average American worker now needs to put in just 5.44 minutes of work to buy an average gallon of gas, GasBuddy analyst Patrick De Haan writes.

• Outside of the COVID-19 pandemic (when fewer people were driving and prices plummeted), that's the fewest since 2015.

What's next: Gas prices typically drop in autumn and winter, as Americans drive less in cooler weather, reducing demand.

• "We'll likely continue to see additional downward pressure on gas prices, with the national average potentially falling another 10 to 15 cents by Christmas," De Haan writes.

After four years of a pro-labor White House, the pendulum appears to be swinging back in favor of business — by at least one measure, anyway: The extraordinary wealth of the incoming Trump team.

Why it matters: The economic background of political leaders influences how they govern — richer lawmakers generally push for policies that favor business interests and those of the wealthy.

Catch up quick: Politicians in the U.S., and around the world, have always been wealthier than most Americans — yet even so, the wealth of the incoming Trump team is extraordinary.

• It's not hyperbole to call the incoming Trump team a government of billionaires, as Axios' Zachary Basu recently wrote.
• Besides Trump, at least 11 billionaires will be serving in key roles in the administration. (The total net worth of President Biden's Cabinet was an estimated $118 million when he took office, per Forbes.)

Zoom in: Trump's Cabinet — plus the influence on the president-elect wielded by the world's richest man — is an escalation of what's been a consistent feature in American politics.

• Those serving in positions of power are "vastly better off than citizens on every economic measure," per a recent review of research on the topic co-authored by Nicholas Carnes, a political science professor at Duke.

The big picture: Wealthier lawmakers, or those who've held high-paying private sector jobs, tend to favor more pro-business policies, according to Carnes' own research.

• Politicians see the world differently depending on their economic background — just like everyone else, he tells Axios.
• "But on average, the wealthier somebody is, the harder it is for them to understand the concerns of people who are working," Carnes says.

What they're saying: When business elites have disproportionate influence on policymaking, it can result "in policies such as tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of industries, and reduced funding for social welfare programs — potentially exacerbating inequality," Darrian Stacy, a political science professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who also studies the topic, tells Axios by email, adding that his views don't reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. government, Defense Department or U.S. Naval Academy.

• He points to the tax cuts in the 2017 tax bill, which brought big benefits to corporations and high-income earners. Extending those cuts is a major Trump 2.0 priority, as is deregulation.

Reality check: The president-elect has signaled support for some working class policies — like eliminating taxes on tips and overtime.

• His pick for Labor secretary, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) is also widely viewed as pro-labor.

Plus: Just being super rich isn't determinative. It doesn't mean you'll favor the elite in governing. We can all point to President Franklin Roosevelt as the most obvious counterpoint — though it's a decades-old example.

• "If anything I view the large net worth of many of President Trump's appointees as a positive indication of their capabilities," Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, tells Axios in an email.
• "But of course we should form views about their likely effectiveness based on a broader set of factors than their net worth."

Firms that provide security to executives are bracing for an influx of calls after the head of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, was shot and killed yesterday in what appeared to be a targeted attack in midtown Manhattan.

Why it matters: It's not uncommon for high-profile executives to hire security guards. Thompson, however, was a relative unknown and had no protection.

• "I'm just shocked the guy didn't have a protective detail," says Michael Julian, CEO of MPS Security & Protection.
• Thompson's wife told NBC News that he had received threats, but it was unclear if they were related to the incident.
• No executives at UnitedHealth received any personal security or protection benefits, per Bloomberg.

By the numbers: Nearly 28% of S&P 500 firms disclosed spending on security for at least one top executive from 2021 to 2023, per Equilar data cited by Bloomberg.

Zoom in: Other experts said it wasn't that surprising Thompson was unguarded. Not all companies want to pay for protection, particularly if the executive isn't a widely recognized person.

• Famous billionaire CEO types, like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, pay millions for security coverage — or, rather, their companies do.
• Top execs are walking around Manhattan all day long unprotected, Glen Kucera, president of Enhanced Protection Services at Allied Universal, tells Axios.
• After an incident like this, he typically gets flooded with requests (and said the calls had already started coming in).
• If a year goes by without incident, companies will typically call off the guards.

How it works: Security can mean 24/7 protection from an armed detail that extends to family members, or a more targeted approach where an executive is accompanied on travel to more dangerous locations or high-profile events.

• About 95% of what these firms do is provide "visual deterrence," says Kucera. Just the sight of armed bodyguards near an executive is enough to scare away potential attackers.
• Although sometimes it doesn't work. When Bill Gates was hit in the face with a pie back in 1998, he was accompanied by security guards.

Threat level: Threats against corporate executives are especially common with consumer-facing companies in areas like travel, transportation and retail, Chris Pierson, CEO of security firm BlackCloak, tells Axios.

• These are areas where people have deep personal connections and grievances. Certainly, health care is in that club. The sector has grown increasingly troubled by violent incidents in recent years — though these episodes typically occur at hospitals or other medical settings.
• Threats are also common in controversial sectors. For example, the CEO of a weapons manufacturer hired Julian's firm during the height of the Afghanistan war.
• "The CEO, who gets the coffee every morning at Starbucks at the exact same time, started seeing the same exact vehicle at the same time, and then he followed her, and she freaked," he says. They covered her 24/7 after that, driving the CEO everywhere she went.

Adding to the challenge of protecting corporate executives is that publicly traded companies are required to disclose certain details about their public events, including investor conferences where leaders will make appearances, Pierson says.

The bottom line: Even the best security isn't foolproof. If someone is intent on causing harm, it's not always possible to stop them.