By Jon Tester

September 15, 2025 - A group of politicians are pushing to force several of the world’s largest asset managers to divest from fossil fuels. It may sound like a familiar story. For years some lawmakers rallied around the divestment movement, even introducing failed legislation just a few short years ago to break up banks that didn’t come to heel.

But here’s the twist: This campaign is spearheaded by a band of Republican attorneys general, with support from the Trump administration — which vowed to reinvigorate “beautiful, clean coal.” And it recently received fresh life after a District judge refused a motion to dismiss the case.

The lawsuit, initiated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and now joined by ten other states, claims three leading Wall Street firms — BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard — conspired to invest in a handful of coal companies, impose Environmental, Social and Government policies on them, and drive down domestic production. It’s a false narrative, and not supported by evidence.

As the banks stated in their motion to dismiss, they controlled no more than small minority stakes in the companies; they did not communicate with one another; and domestic coal production actually increased during the period in question. These alleged anti-coal crusaders were either incredibly inept, or, more likely, the case is merely political chest-thumping meant to make a spectacle of select firms these officials deem got too close to an imaginary ESG do-not-cross line.

This is evidenced in the fact that a comparable argument was made by Consumers’ Research and a similar group of attorneys general regarding these same asset managers, seeking to block their ability to invest in public utilities. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently refuted this argument, finding there was no evidence that they engaged in activities that would have “controlling influence” over policies or companies.

In both cases, the outcome is less investment in domestic energy production. In this current lawsuit, the group’s solution is to require the firms to divest from coal entirely, which flies in the face of President Trump’s pledge to revitalize the industry. We can’t expect producers to invest and grow if they don’t have access to capital. And this lawsuit would likely compel investors writ large to avoid what otherwise could be good investments for fear they may be the next to get tied up in costly court battles.

It's no secret that I am extremely concerned about climate volatility and the impacts of the electricity generated by burning coal has on increasing the climate instability. But sadly, this effort by the attorney generals crosses a line. As a nation, we do not want the federal government dictating investments based on political whims and not the facts.

The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers, which is exactly what this case proposes. It suggests that policymakers should have the authority to litigate ad nauseam any company that runs afoul of the political culture of the moment, even after the fact, no matter how unsupported by facts.

That’s a dangerous precedent that could open the door for future administrations to apply the same logic to whatever their cause du jour might be. What’s to stop Democrats from suing firms for not satisfactorily supporting clean energy because they dared to invest in fossil fuels — or any other industry, for that matter?

Coal is a significant part of our national energy portfolio, accounting for about 15 percent of U.S. electricity generation. With energy demands projected to grow at the highest rates in two decades through at least next year, coal will remain a key piece of our energy mix. There’s no way to flip a switch and turn it off, neither by government dictating nor unilateral market manipulation.

However, it’s also impossible to ignore that coal consumption has been in steady decline over the past nearly 20 years. No courtroom fight can rewrite that history, no matter how the attorneys general leading this case might wish it were so.

While Mr. Paxton and others may claim this lawsuit is intended to “defend American energy interests,” it more likely would have the opposite effect. The attorneys general leading this charge should take a step back and let the markets compete — which is where consumers and investors will get the best results.

Jon Tester is a third-generation farmer and served as a United States Senator from Montana from 2007 to 2025.