A coalition of 23 Republican state attorneys general has written to Moody’s, S&P Global Ratings and Fitch, demanding detailed explanations of alleged ESG driven credit downgrades and warning of potential enforcement action if their demands are not met. The letter, dated 22 April 2026, gives the agencies 90 days to respond and was also sent to the SEC’s leadership.

The move matters less for the substance of the claims, which largely reprise earlier Republican critiques of ESG, than for the target. Credit rating agencies sit at the centre of capital allocation. Pressuring them is a way of challenging how financial risk itself is defined, not just how companies behave.

What has changed

Unlike earlier interventions aimed at asset managers or proxy advisers, this letter questions whether ESG considerations can legitimately form part of credit analysis. The attorneys general argue that climate related assumptions are speculative, inconsistently applied, and insufficiently disclosed relative to published methodologies. They raise the prospect of action under state unfair competition laws, antitrust statutes and federal securities rules.

This matters because it lands amid a broader re engineering of US market governance. Rather than pursuing new federal legislation, Republican led states are increasingly relying on state level enforcement powers, investigatory demands and litigation risk to influence market behaviour.

‍

‍

A familiar playbook, a different target

For market participants, the approach will feel familiar. Over the past three years, coalitions of Republican attorneys general have sent warning letters, subpoenas and investigatory demands to asset managers, banks and insurers over proxy voting, participation in net zero alliances and collaborative climate initiatives. In 2025, similar letters warned companies that compliance with EU sustainability laws could expose them to US state enforcement.

What distinguishes the current intervention is that credit ratings are not expressions of stewardship preferences or voluntary commitments. They are embedded in bond covenants, regulatory capital frameworks and investment mandates. Challenging how ratings agencies define and disclose risk is an attempt to redraw the boundary between financial analysis and public policy.

Why credit ratings, and why now

The attorneys general contend that climate transition risk, policy risk and long term emissions scenarios are either irrelevant or too uncertain to justify rating actions. Ratings agencies, by contrast, have consistently argued that forward looking assessment of material risk is inherent to credit analysis.

The shift lies in the willingness of state officials to frame methodological disagreement as potentially unlawful conduct, and to threaten enforcement as a means of forcing methodological change. As seen in recent actions targeting proxy advisers and shareholder proposals, disagreement with outcomes is increasingly pursued through legal and investigatory pressure rather than market debate.

Implications for investors

For institutional investors, the immediate risk is not that ratings agencies will abandon climate risk analysis wholesale. It is that sustained regulatory and litigation pressure may discourage transparency, narrow analytical horizons, or lead to jurisdiction specific approaches that reduce comparability across markets.

More broadly, the letter reinforces three trends investors should be tracking closely.

1. First, state level fragmentation. Investors operating across US jurisdictions face growing divergence in what is considered permissible analysis or disclosure.
2. Second, chilling effects. Even where enforcement threats do not succeed, the cost, uncertainty and reputational risk of investigations can shape behaviour.
3. Third, precedent setting. Each successful use of state power against a market intermediary lowers the barrier for similar action against others, including data providers, proxy advisers and potentially investors themselves.

The Atlantic divide

For Minerva’s clients, this trajectory increasingly diverges from developments in Europe and the UK.

In the EU, sustainability related risk is being formalised through regulation, supervisory guidance and disclosure frameworks. In the UK, regulators continue to emphasise that climate and nature risks are financially material where they affect cash flows, asset values or cost of capital. Disputes tend to focus on calibration and implementation, not on whether such risks can be considered at all.

In the US, by contrast, a growing bloc of states is seeking to constrain the definition of permissible financial analysis where it intersects with climate or social outcomes. As Minerva CEO Sarah Wilson argued in her analysis of ExxonMobil’s redomicile and retail voting programme, this reflects a structural shift rather than a series of isolated skirmishes. The legal environment itself is becoming an instrument of market governance.

What to watch next

The ratings agencies are unlikely to respond substantively in the near term. Any methodological changes would need to balance state level pressure against federal oversight, international credibility and litigation risk from investors.

More revealing will be whether state officials follow through with formal investigations or litigation, and whether federal regulators are drawn into the dispute. As with earlier actions against proxy advisers, the process may matter as much as the outcome.

For investors and intermediaries, the issue is no longer whether climate risk can be financially material, but who gets to decide that question. The more immediate tasks are to stress‑test reliance on credit ratings within mandates and risk models, and engage intermediaries on transparency and methodological governance.