Supporting Statement: Corporations routinely use their platforms to voice support for humanitarian causes and human rights. Unfortunately, many companies provide funds, data, or other resources to advocacy groups leading highly controversial social campaigns — particularly on gender and sexuality— often backing only one side of the debate. Such one-sided giving alienates significant portions of their customers, employees, and shareholders and exposes companies to reputational, market, and legal risk. One notable example is that of Lockheed Martin, which has a perfect score1 on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. The Human Rights Campaign is a leading driver in getting companies to promote transgender activism. To get 100 points on its Corporate Equality Index,2 a company ostensibly must agree to cover radical adolescent transgender treatments recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH),3 a group widely criticized for ideological bias and lack of scientific rigor.4 These treatments include gender transition surgery, cross-sex hormone therapy, menstruation suppression, and puberty blockers. HRC also pressures companies to take sides in political engagement. It rewards companies that support legislation like the Equality Act, which would pose serious threats to religious freedom, free speech, and women’s rights.5 Furthermore, a perfect score on the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index implies6 that the company covers highly controversial healthcare practices, including the coverage of "hormone replacement therapies.” This would be a serious concern for any company — but given Lockheed’s status as a federal contractor, and the Trump administration’s clear stance7 regarding such practices, particularly regarding children, this point is doubly concerning for Lockheed investors. This isn’t merely a political or social point but a matter of brand value. Lockheed Martin has a FactSet-estimated brand value exceeding $10 billion, approximately 10 percent of its more than $100 billion market cap.8 The 1https://www.hrc.org/resources/corporations/lockheed-martin-corp. 2 https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index-2025#scoring-criteria 3 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644 4 https://adflegal.org/article/leaked-files-reveal-ethical-concerns-pseudoscience-wpath-standards-care/ 5 https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/commentary/misguided-fairness-all-act-wouldundermine-religious-liberty 6 https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index-2025#scoring-criteria 7 https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-children-from-chemical-andsurgical-mutilation/ 8 https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/LMT/ negative effects of brand politicization on company performance are of serious shareholder concern. Supporting this activism may also alienate Lockheed employees who have religious or other moral objections to supporting these kinds of radical treatments with their healthcare premiums. Given Lockheed’s stated commitment to9 “recognize... unique perspectives and experiences to drive innovation,” and particularly the company’s laudable recent steps10 toward political neutrality in eschewing DEI policies and suspending identity-based business resource groups, shareholders are right to ask about whether the company’s commitments to political neutrality extend to such partnerships. Many companies, including John Deere, Jack Daniels, Harley Davidson, and Boeing, have already refocused their charitable support in a manner that acknowledges the diverse views held by their customers and employees.11 Many have explicitly cut ties with groups such as the Human Rights Campaign as a part of this effort. Lockheed Martin should do the same. Resolved: Shareholders request that Lockheed Martin conduct an evaluation and issue a report within the next year, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary and confidential information, analyzing the benefits, costs, and legal, reputational, competitive, and other relevant risks of the company’s charitable support.