Dive Brief:

• American Express is urging shareholders to vote down two shareholder proposals, one involving diversity incentives and another involving advertising, saying both are unnecessary, according to a proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14.
• The conservative National Legal and Policy Center is pushing a proposal to have Amex reconsider financial incentives for executives who meet certain diversity, inclusion and equity goals, the proxy filing proposal said. A spokesperson for the credit card giant says it no longer offers such compensation.
• The consulting firm Bowyer Research proposed a measure to compel New York City-based American Express to produce a report over the next year on how it spends advertising dollars and how it assesses the risks associated with outlets vis-a-vis their religious or political opinions. However, the card network says it does not discriminate against ad buyers based on their views.

Dive Insight:

The company’s annual shareholder meeting, when votes will be held on both proposals, is scheduled for April 29.

Diversity programs have been in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump since he was inaugurated in January. Executive orders from the White House have targeted so-called diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. Courts have blocked some of those orders, but institutions ranging from elite universities to government contractors are feeling the pressure of the administration’s diversity initiatives.

“Many corporations dramatically reduced or eliminated their DEI programs, and companies face retribution for their discrimination,” the National Legal and Policy Center wrote in its proposal.

The NLPC proposal requested that the Amex board’s compensation and benefits committee “revisit its incentive guidelines for executive pay, to identify and consider eliminating discriminatory DEI goals from compensation inducements.”

The card network disputed the legal center’s characterization of executive pay packages.

“The Company’s executive compensation program no longer uses diversity performance goals,” Amex wrote in its 2025 proxy statement opposing the policy center’s proposal. “Our Compensation and Benefits Committee annually reviews the Company’s executive compensation practices in accordance with our governance framework.”

The credit card network listed “diversity representation” as one of many key metrics it considers for incentives in executive pay packages in its 2023 and 2024 proxy statements, but that language was not included in the 2025 proxy statement.

“American Express no longer uses diversity performance goals in our executive compensation program,” a spokesperson for the company said by email. “Our executive compensation program was updated early last year and is designed to drive strong business performance and align executive compensation with long-term shareholder interests.”

American Express should stop using advertising dollars to discourage political views, according to the Bowyer Research shareholder proposal. 

The proposal, however, doesn’t cite any specific instances of Amex withholding advertising dollars to companies or individuals. 

“American Express is a global brand with immense influence and ad-buying power,” Bowyer Research’s proposal says. “It should be advertising in ways that support its competitive interests and build its reputation for serving its diverse customers.”

Amex again disputed the description of its policies.

“The Company does not have a policy or practice to discriminate against advertising buyers and sellers based on their political or religious affiliation or views,” the card network said in opposing the research firm’s proposal. “The Company does not tolerate discrimination, including on the basis of political or religious affiliation or views.”

Amex supports “fair competition,” the proxy statement reads. 

Spokespeople for Bowyer Research and the National Legal and Policy Center did not respond to requests for additional comment.

The credit card network urged shareholders to vote against both proposals on the grounds that the proposals are superfluous.