CFACT asked JPMorgan Chase a pointed question at its May 26 annual shareholder meeting. Melanie Collette, Senior Policy Analyst at CFACT, asked CEO Jamie Dimon how the bank can publicly oppose ESG mandates while operating under Carbon Compass. This framework restricts financing for the carbon-intensive industries America actually depends on.
Collette’s question: “We have a question about our carbon compass targets. Mr. Dimon has said ESG obstacles harm American competitive interests. How does that square with JP Morgan’s carbon compass targets, which are tied to the IEA net of both and on energy? The world needs more energy, all kinds of energy. It needs cleaner energy, and it needs energy that meets the needs of people across the globe.”
Dimon’s response: “The world needs more energy of all kinds, needs cleaner energy. We finance because the economy requires both. We are targeting one trillion dollars in climate and sustainable development initiatives by 2030, and we’re also financing the reliable baseload power that keeps the lights on and the economy growing.”
So the answer was basically, “We finance both.” Dimon did not deny that there is tension between JPMorgan’s energy-financing commitments and its Carbon Compass targets. He simply acknowledged that both exist and moved on. What he did not explain is what happens inside the bank when those commitments collide. If a major energy client needs financing, but the Carbon Compass limits point in the other direction, which standard actually governs the decision?
The meeting opened with Dimon’s remarks on national security and the state of the world. He cited “the terrible ongoing war in Ukraine, the current war in Iran, and the foreign hostilities in the Middle East, terrorist activity, and growing geopolitical tensions, importantly with China.” On the business side, JPMorgan posted record 2025 numbers: $185.6 billion in earned revenue, $57 billion in net income, and 20 percent return on common equity. The firm has added 60,000 employees in five years and opened 900 new branches across the country.
Dimon also unveiled the Security and Resilience Initiative, a $1.5 trillion, ten-year plan to finance defense, aerospace, advanced manufacturing, energy independence, frontier technology, and pharmaceuticals. He framed it as central to keeping America’s economy and military strong.
All of which makes Collette’s question more relevant. Carbon Compass commits the bank to steep emissions cuts across eight carbon-intensive sectors by 2030. The targets are tied to International Energy Agency net-zero scenarios that assume no new oil and gas development after 2021 and a coal phase-out by 2040. But defense capacity, manufacturing, and energy independence all require more steel, more cement, more energy production, and more mining. You cannot build out the industries Dimon says America needs while restricting financing for those same industries.
Dimon’s answer didn’t really resolve the issue. He said JPMorgan finances both green energy and fossil fuels because the economy needs both. That’s fine as a general statement. But Carbon Compass is supposed to place limits on high-carbon lending. So if those limits are real, they have to affect which projects get funded and which do not. What Dimon never explained is how JPMorgan’s loan committees make that call when a project falls under both frameworks at the same time.
Shareholders voted on four shareholder proposals that day. All four failed. The National Legal and Policy Center asked for a report on how the Security and Resilience Initiative and Carbon Compass fit together. It got 1.2 percent support. The National Center for Public Policy Research asked whether sustainability initiatives produce any real return on investment. That got 1.7 percent. A proposal for an independent board chairman from John Spedden received 35.1 percent. A lobbying alignment proposal from the Missionary of Mary Immaculate got 13.2 percent.
Compare that to the management proposals: all 11 directors were re-elected with at least 92.4 percent approval, executive compensation passed at 92.3 percent, and PricewaterhouseCoopers was ratified as independent auditor at 92.84 percent.
The picture is clear enough. Shareholders back JPMorgan’s core business overwhelmingly. They are not interested in the ESG agenda. Less than 2 percent voted for either climate-related shareholder proposal.
Collette got her answer on the record. Dimon claimed JPMorgan can do both. Now shareholders can judge for themselves whether that’s true, and CFACT will be watching.