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.

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.”

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

“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.

“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.”

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.”

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.”

President-elect Donald Trump suggested on Wednesday that the U.S. could take control of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal—an unexpected Christmas Day message that has sparked concerns among world leaders in recent days as they scramble to prepare for Trump’s second White House term.

In a Wednesday post on the platform Truth Social, Trump wished a “Merry Christmas to all,” including to the “wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal,” before moving on to take aim at Canada and Greenland as well, which he suggested again could be better off under U.S. governance.

Trump reiterated his claim that U.S. shippers are being forced to pay “ridiculous” and “exorbitant” prices to navigate the Panama Canal—an artificial, 51-mile waterway that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. He has suggested, without evidence, that Chinese interests are gaining outsize influence over the waterway, something Panamanian leaders have steadfastly denied.

TRUMP FLOATS IDEA OF US RECLAIMING PANAMA CANAL: ‘FOOLISHLY GAVE IT AWAY’

In his Truth Social post Wednesday, Trump also mockingly referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor” reiterating his recent suggestion that Canada should be turned into a U.S. state. 

“If Canada was to become our 51st state, their taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size, and they would be militarily protected like no other country anywhere in the world,” Trump said.

Finally, the president-elect turned his attention to Greenland; an autonomous, geographically important Arctic location rife with natural resources, including rare earth minerals.

The U.S., Trump said on Wednesday, “feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for reasons of national security and “global freedom.’

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is seen on Nov. 29, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Bigger picture

Trump’s lengthy Truth Social post did little to assuage the concerns of some world leaders, who have carefully watched Trump’s actions and his statements in recent weeks for clues as to how he might govern in a second term.

The remarks also appear to be at odds with the “America First” policies long espoused by Trump, which seek to prioritize domestic policy rather than expansion or U.S. presence abroad.

Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., echoed Trump’s concerns in an interview Thursday, describing China’s influence in the Panama Canal, and the higher prices incurred by shippers, as a “shot across the bow.” 

“Remember, we have China and Cuba,” Zinke said on “Mornings with Maria.“ “We have Maduro in Venezuela. We have had Russian ships there. And the Panama Canal is critical to our national security. And at present, it is being run by the Chinese Communist Party. So it’s a concern—absolutely.” 

‘AMERICA FIRST’ VS. ‘AMERICA LAST’: WHAT DOES TRUMP’S RETURN MEAN FOR US FOREIGN POLICY?

Homes are illuminated after the sunset in Tasiilaq, Greenland. (AP Photo/Felipe Dana,)

To be sure, it is not the first time Trump has indicated interest in Greenland, a mineral-rich, geographically important territory.

In 2019, then-President Trump told reporters he was “interested” in purchasing Greenland, which he described at the time as “essentially” a “large real estate deal.” The 2019 effort never gained traction, however; and this week, Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede immediately poured cold water on the idea that their territory could be sold to the U.S.

“Greenland is ours,”  Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede said this week, in response to Trump’s suggestion. 

“We are not for sale and will never be for sale,” he said. “We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”

Meanwhile, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino also disputed the notion that U.S. vessels have been singled out or paid higher fees to traverse the Panama Canal—as well as the notion that the U.S., which phased out its ownership beginning in the 1970s, has any right to reassert control over the shipping waypoint. 

In a video posted to social media earlier this week, Mulino reassured his country’s people that the “sovereignty and independence of our country is non-negotiable.”

The Panama Canal is one of the largest and most strategically important commodity shipping waterways in the world. It handles roughly 5% of all global maritime trade and roughly 40% of U.S. container ship traffic. 

Picturesque Lake Gatun, Panama Canal. (Danuta Hamlin)

Recent higher prices are primarily the result of drought and more competition, which sent water levels plummeting last year to their lowest point on record. Though water levels have since rebounded, operators of the canal were forced to temporarily limit vessel traffic and increase costs for ships using the waypoint.

Other factors have also played a role in higher maritime shipping prices.

A series of attacks on vessels in the Red Sea late last year prompted many major commodities shippers, including BP and Equinor, to pause or reroute their shipments away from the Suez Canal. Some opted to reroute supplies via the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks of additional time to their trips.

The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, incorrectly claimed on social media last week that the Panama Canal cost U.S. taxpayers $15.7 billion. In fact, the higher costs are shouldered by the ships that pass through the waterway, in the form of tolls.  The U.S. government does not subsidize the canal.

‘AMERICA FIRST’ VS. ‘AMERICA LAST’: WHAT DOES TRUMP’S RETURN MEAN FOR US FOREIGN POLICY?

The gate locks on the Panama Canal open for ship traffic in Dec. 2023. Drought conditions have limited the number of vessels that can travel through the canal per day, adding more price pressure for shipping companies.  (Danuta Hamlin)

Panamanian authorities have stressed that the prices are not the result of “unfair” treatment, or capitulation to China or any other nation-state influence.

“The canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power,” Mulino said in his remarks. “As a Panamanian, I reject any manifestation that misrepresents this reality.”

Still, Trump does not appear to be backing down on expansion claims.

“The Panama Canal is considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America’s Economy and National Security,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Sunday. “A secure Panama Canal is crucial for U.S. Commerce, and rapid deployment of the Navy, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and drastically cuts shipping times to U.S. ports.”

“We’re not going to stand for it,” he said. “So, to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly.”

WASHINGTON —  If President-elect Donald Trump’s assertion that the United States should have control of Greenland sounds familiar, that’s because he’s said it before — during his first term as president.

Back in 2019, Trump’s call caused a brief diplomatic tiff with Denmark, under whose sovereignty the vast island falls. Then as now, the suggestion was met with derision in some quarters, but it spotlighted serious questions about the icy territory’s strategic significance in an era of accelerating climate change.

Trump’s commentary also pointed up a quandary faced by U.S. allies, which will become more pressing within a few weeks, when the Oval Office changes hands: whether smaller and less powerful states ought to greet startling declarations from Washington with silence, conciliation, throat-clearing obfuscation or clearly stated opposition — especially since the issue in question might simply go away anyway.

Sometimes, Trump ultimately defuses such flaps by saying he was only joking. At other times, he hints that those who defy him might face consequences later. Denmark is a member of the European Union, which is already preparing for a potentially tense relationship with the incoming president.

Here is some background about Greenland, why the president-elect is raising the topic again, and what might come next.

What is this place?

Greenland is an Alaska-sized, self-ruling Danish territory off North America, between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. It is the world’s biggest island that isn’t a continent, about two-thirds of it lying within the Arctic Circle. It is largely ice-covered and sparsely populated: Fewer than 60,000 people live there. With the exception of foreign nationals, those living there are full citizens of Denmark.

How did this idea even come up?

The president-elect’s unexpected comment came Sunday as he was announcing his choice for U.S. envoy to Copenhagen, PayPal co-founder Ken Howery. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump declared that “America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” citing “purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World.”

How did Greenland’s government respond?

Somewhat crisply. On Monday, its elected leader, Prime Minister Mute Egede, said in a statement that Greenland “is not for sale and will never be for sale.” But the prime minister also said Greenland “must continue to be open to cooperation and trade with the whole world, especially our neighbors.”

How did Trump’s 2019 idea play out?

When Trump made his initial real-estate overture, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen dismissed Trump’s offer as “absurd.” The then-president termed that response “nasty” and called off a planned state visit to Denmark.

Still, the idea of such a purchase was not unprecedented. The United States had made several similar forays, dating to the 1860s, all of them short-lived.

This time around, any headaches for Denmark could be longer-lasting. Trump was already 19 months into his first term when he floated the purchase notion. With his swearing-in still four weeks away, there will be a full four years for the issue to simmer.

Is territorial expansion a theme for Trump’s second presidency?

In this postelection, pre-inauguration phase, Trump has already made waves by musing about the status of Canada, suggesting, in an apparent jab at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, that the United States’ sovereign northern neighbor could become a 51st state. Also over the weekend, he hinted that Washington could move to seize control of the Panama Canal, ceded back to Panama a quarter of a century ago, over what Trump termed excessive fees to transit the vital waterway.

There has been no indication the president-elect intends to follow up on any of these territorial propositions, or what would be the mechanism for doing so.

Why is Greenland strategically significant?

The island is home to a large U.S. military base. The melting of Greenland’s ice sheet, documented for years and known to be speeding up, could lead to the opening of previously blocked international shipping passages, spurring great-power competition in the Arctic. In addition, Greenland possesses immense mineral riches — gold, silver, copper and uranium — whose potential extraction would be complicated by harsh weather and lack of road access, as well as environmental concerns.