Connect with us

Politics

'Politics is bad for business.' Why Disney's Bob Iger is trying to avoid hot buttons

Published

on

'Politics is bad for business.' Why Disney's Bob Iger is trying to avoid hot buttons

Bob Iger wants out of the culture wars.

Walt Disney Co. and its chief executive have made a sharp pivot since doubling down on diversity and inclusion efforts in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis four and a half years ago. At the time, Disney’s top executives, including then-Chairman Iger, vowed in a message to employees: “We intend to keep the conversation going … for as long as it takes to bring about real change.”

The Magic Kingdom dropped its pomp greeting to fans for its nightly fireworks display. “Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” became a gender-neutral salutation to “dreamers of all ages.” Pixar’s animated movie, “Lightyear,” included a brief kiss between two women characters; and Disney’s animated film, “Strange World,” featured the company’s first biracial queer teen hero.

But in the past week, Disney acknowledged that a transgender athlete storyline had been removed from an upcoming Pixar animated series, “Win or Lose,” about a middle-school softball team. In a statement, Disney said it recognized “many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timeline.”

And Iger signed off on the settlement of a high-profile defamation lawsuit brought last spring by President-elect Donald Trump, amid howls from journalists that the owner of ABC News had caved to political pressure.

Advertisement

Disney agreed to pay $1 million for Trump’s legal fees and donate another $15 million for Trump’s future presidential library.

Trump sued ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos last spring after the journalist asserted during an on-air interview that a civil court jury had found Trump “liable for rape” in a case brought by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. Instead, New York jurors determined Trump was liable for “sexual abuse.”

Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger.

(Jay L. Clendenin/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Some First Amendment experts believed ABC had a winning case, in part, because of a high hurdle for public officials to prove defamation.

The network “might well have prevailed if they had hung in there,” prominent journalist Margaret Sullivan wrote in a Substack opinion piece. “Instead, this outcome encourages Trump in his attacks on the press — and he needs no encouragement.”

Disney declined to comment for this story or make Iger available for an interview.

People close to the company, who were not authorized to comment, said Disney’s general counsel had recommended the settlement with Trump and that the decision to remove the transgender storyline from “Win or Lose” had been made months earlier.

A bruising fight with DeSantis

Disney’s retrenchment comes nearly three years after it found itself sinking in political quicksand.

Advertisement

In early 2022, Disney became a target for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis after then-Chief Executive Bob Chapek waffled on a response to a Florida law aimed at preventing classroom discussions about sexual identity. Chapek’s instinct was to stay out of the fray and he initially defended the company’s initial silence, saying in a letter to Disney employees that corporate statements “do very little to change outcomes or minds.”

Such proclamations are “often weaponized by one side or the other to further divide and inflame,” Chapek wrote.

But after loud protests from employees and activists — and a Twitter post from then-retired Iger, who warned the Florida legislation “will put vulnerable, young LGBTQ people in jeopardy” — Chapek reversed course.

DeSantis seized on Disney’s shifting stance and branded the company as “woke.”

In conservative circles, the pejorative label stuck.

Advertisement

“When you assign a private entity to a political team, then very quickly people will begin to view things in that light,” said Michael Binder, a University of North Florida political science professor who studied the Disney-DeSantis dispute.

Iger, who returned as chief executive two years ago to replace Chapek, recognized the existential threat.

“Our primary mission needs to be to entertain,” Iger said during the company’s 2023 investor meeting. “It should not be agenda-driven.”

Iger increasingly has stressed the importance of steering the company away from overt political messaging.

“The stories you tell have to really reflect the audience that you’re trying to reach but that audience, because they are so diverse … can be turned off by certain things,” Iger said during an April appearance on CNBC. “We just have to be more sensitive to the interests of a broad audience. It’s not easy.”

Advertisement

Disney’s nearly two-year fight with DeSantis was bruising.

“DeSantis was using Disney as a political foil to make a case for his run for presidency,” said Binder, the director of University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab. “That was not something that we had seen before: Governors and elected officials outwardly attacking private companies, particularly a Republican going after a company.”

University researchers found DeSantis’ “woke” campaign against Disney had gained traction, at least among conservatives — despite the fact that Disney has long been one of Florida’s largest employers and a pillar of its tourism economy.

In a public opinion poll in early 2023 of Florida registered voters, the Public Opinion Research Lab found that only about 27% of Republicans in the state had a “favorable” view of Disney. Meanwhile, 76% of the Democrats polled were fans of the Mouse House.

“There was a huge split, and that’s not great for a company that’s trying to market to everybody,” Binder said.

Advertisement

Republican lawmakers closed ranks with DeSantis and Disney lost its unique land-use authority in Central Florida. Disney filed a First Amendment lawsuit the following year, arguing that DeSantis and state Republicans had waged a concerted campaign to punish Disney for exercising its speech rights to criticize Florida’s anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.

Earlier this year, a federal judge threw out Disney’s First Amendment lawsuit.

Disney settled with Florida, but the DeSantis episode brought into stark relief the hazards of promoting the company’s values to a global audience during polarizing times.

“Disney provides a product: entertainment,” said Charles Elson, a former director at the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. “It shouldn’t be about politics.”

Besides, Elson said, it becomes messy and costly for companies to extricate themselves after taking a political stand.

Advertisement

“When you get into politics, you are making a statement,” Elson said. “And when you get out, that also becomes a statement.”

Iger has long championed Disney’s efforts to diversify its casts and storylines.

The 101-year-old company introduced its first Black princess in 2009. Nearly a decade later, it released the movie “Coco,” which was rich in Latino culture. Its 2018 Marvel film, “Black Panther,” became a juggernaut, earning $1.3 billion in global ticket sales.

The original “Moana,” which was inspired by Polynesian mythology, earned the mantle of most streamed movie on Disney+. The sequel, released over Thanksgiving weekend, has shattered box office records and has already raked in $750 million internationally.

“Our businesses create entertainment, travel and consumer products whose success depends substantially on consumer tastes and preferences that change in often unpredictable ways,” the company said in its most recent annual report.

Advertisement

“Consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brand,” the report added.

A cloudy defamation case

Disney has since joined a growing list of businesses that have opted to stand down rather than antagonize the president-elect — to the dismay of some First Amendment experts who believed Disney could have defeated Trump‘s defamation claims in the ABC News case.

Last year, a federal judge in Florida tossed out a lawsuit Trump filed against CNN, which sought $475 million in punitive damages. Trump claimed his reputation had been sullied by the network’s references to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election as “the Big Lie.”

But defending Stephanopoulos’ statements may have been more fraught, according to people familiar with Disney’s internal deliberations.

Disney’s General Counsel Horacio Gutierrez and other high-level executives grew concerned after the judge in the case last July denied Disney’s motion to dismiss the case, according to one knowledgeable insider. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga wrote that “a reasonable jury could interpret Stephanopoulos’s statements as defamatory.”

Advertisement

Altonaga was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Disney also figured it risky to present the case to a jury in South Florida, where Trump is particularly popular, the knowledgeable people said. Polls also have found a growing lack of trust in the news media.

An ‘entertainment-first’ company

Disney lawyers recognized that some legal conservatives might champion the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where three Trump appointments sit. What’s more, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has expressed a desire to overturn the landmark New York Times vs. Sullivan court decision, which would have been at the heart of the ABC News case.

Disney didn’t want to jeopardize 60 years of press freedoms bestowed through that decision. Not to mention the harm to Disney’s and ABC’s image by trying to withstand Trump broadsides during his second term. CNN, in particular, sustained reputational damage after dueling with Trump, who labeled the cable news channel “fake news.”

“You don’t want to get in a fight with the head of a government that regulates you,” Elson said. “Politics is bad for business.”

Advertisement

Disney is trying to walk — but not cross — the line. During its meeting with shareholders earlier this year, Iger said he believes Disney has “a responsibility to do good in the world.”

“The Disney company can have a positive impact on the world … fostering acceptance and understanding of … people of all different types,” Iger told CNBC last spring. “But we need to be an entertainment-first company.”

Politics

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Published

on

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Our national security correspondent David E. Sanger examines the war of choice that President Trump has initiated with Iran.

By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry

March 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

Published

on

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Some of the top rumored Democratic potential candidates for president in 2028 are showing a united front in opposing U.S. strikes on Iran, with several high-profile figures accusing President Donald Trump of launching an unnecessary and unconstitutional war.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Trump was “dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want.”

“Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice,” Harris said in a statement Saturday following the joint U.S. and Israeli strikes throughout Iran.

“This is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with American lives that also jeopardizes stability in the region and our standing in the world,” she continued. “What we are witnessing is not strength. It is recklessness dressed up as resolve.”

Advertisement

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are leading Democratic 2028 hopefuls who spoke out against U.S. strikes on Iran. (Big Event Media/Getty Images for HumanX Conference; Reuters/Liesa Johannssen; Mario Tama/Getty Images)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered some of his sharpest criticism during a book tour stop Saturday night in San Francisco, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis.

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Newsom said. “He lied to you. So reckless is the only way to describe this.”

“He didn’t describe to the American people what the endgame is here,” Newsom added. “There wasn’t one. He manufactured it.”

Newsom is currently promoting his memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” with recent and upcoming stops in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada — three key early voting states in the Democratic presidential calendar.

Advertisement

Earlier in the day, Newsom said Iran’s “corrupt and repressive” regime must never obtain nuclear weapons and that the “leadership of Iran must go.”

“But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people,” Newsom wrote on X.

California is home to more than half of the roughly 400,000 Iranian immigrants in the United States, including a large community in West Los Angeles often referred to as “Tehrangeles.”

DEMOCRATS BUCK PARTY LEADERS TO DEFEND TRUMP’S ‘DECISIVE ACTION’ ON IRAN

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leading progressive voice and “Squad” member, accused Trump of dragging Americans into a conflict they did not support.

Advertisement

“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead,” she continued.

“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not,” she said, pledging to vote “YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress. (Daniel Boczarski/Getty Images for Vox Media)

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat often mentioned as a potential 2028 contender, also criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress.

Advertisement

“No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective,” Pritzker wrote on X.

“Donald Trump is once again sidestepping the Constitution and once again failing to explain why he’s taking us into another war,” he continued. “Americans asked for affordable housing and health care, not another potentially endless conflict.”

“God protect our troops,” Pritzker added.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails.

“In our democracy, the American people — through our elected representatives — decide when our nation goes to war,” Shapiro said, adding that Trump “acted unilaterally — without Congressional approval.”

Advertisement

JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails. (Rachel Wisniewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Make no mistake, the Iranian regime represses its own people… they must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons,” he said. “But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war.”

Shapiro added that “Congress must use all available power” to prevent further escalation.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also accused Trump of launching a “war of choice.”

Advertisement

“The President has launched our nation and our great military into a war of choice, risking American lives and resources, ignoring American law, and endangering our allies and partners,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “This nation learned the hard way that an unnecessary war, with no plan for what comes next, can lead to years of chaos and put America in still greater danger.”

Buttigieg has been hitting early voting states, stopping in New Hampshire and Nevada in recent weeks to campaign for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who has been floated as a rising national figure within the party, said he lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war and opposed the strikes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people. We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die,” Gallego wrote on X. 

Advertisement

Fox News’ Daniel Scully and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.

Related Article

From hostage crisis to assassination plots: Iran’s near half-century war on Americans
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Published

on

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Advertisement

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Advertisement

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Advertisement

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

Advertisement

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

Advertisement

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending