Our Demands
Burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change. The Oregon Treasury continues to invest in these fossil fuels, therefore Divest Oregon demands of the Oregon Treasurer and the Oregon Investment Council:
Invest in a just, climate-safe future
End investments in fossil fuels
Address climate risk transparently
How We Make Progress
What's New
A question from Divest Oregon, a coalition of a hundred organizations with strong PERS representation, remains unanswered: What screening process does the Oregon State Treasury (OST) use, if any, when investing PERS funds or choosing investment managers? Is the Treasury screening investments in fossil fuel companies? Andrew Bogrand, Divest Oregon’s Communications Director, spoke at the Oregon Investment Council (OIC) in January 2026. He noted that investment in fossil fuels contributes to global instability, using Venezuela as an example. (See this blog .) The current Iran war emphasizes this point. Andrew regularly comments on the ties between insecurity and fossil fuels as a policy lead for human rights and natural resource justice at Oxfam. The argument that fossil fuel investments are a sensible diversification of a portfolio has long been outdated. But looking at the most recently published June 2025 public equity and fixed income data, the Treasury is still investing in fossil fuels. Under fiduciary duty and the Climate Resilience Investment Act ( CRIA ), the Treasury must move to alternative investments that align with the reality of climate change and a rapidly destabilizing world. Is the Treasury screening investments prone to legal liability, human rights abuses, or reputational risk? In an April 2023 report , Divest Oregon called out the Treasury's investment in private prisons and surveillance technology as context for the question: Does the Treasury have a screening process? If so, what is the screening process? One example given in that report was the NSO/spyware technology that OST heavily invested in. The Guardian reported extensively (2022) on the OST’s investment in NSO/Pegasus spyware: “However, it now appears that the Oregon pension fund, one of the most prominent in the US, gave its tacit approval over an investment in NSO several years ago – at a time when security researchers were already publicly raising alarms about the company.” In a more recent report, Oregon Treasury’s Investment Screening Failures ( October 2025 ), Divest Oregon again questioned the Treasury’s investment screening process. Examples of questionable investments included GEO Group, CoreCivic, and Palantir. Investments in GEO Group and CoreCivic fund private prison contractors and ICE detention centers. Investment in Palantir funds ICE surveillance software used against US residents. See additional information below for each of these companies. The most recent public data ( June 2025 ) shows that the Treasury continues to invest in these private prison and surveillance technology companies with a long history of human rights abuses and legal vulnerability. These companies are central to the current federal administration’s construction of a police state and its massive violation of due process. See Trump’s Mass Deportation Campaign ( The New Yorker 3/15/2026). For example: Recent private prison contractor GEO Group news: In February 2026, the Supreme Court found that GEO Group, a private prison operator running an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, cannot claim governmental immunity from lawsuits for violating human trafficking laws, even if those violations were under government orders. Recent surveillance technology company Palantir news: In Portland, now, Palantir’s Elite app is being used to identify potential deportation targets, generate dossiers on individuals and provide a “confidence score” on the person’s address. ( The Guardian 3/13/2026) Why should the Treasury screen its investments? Screening is necessary to avoid investments that contravene Treasury standards, OIC policy, legal standards including fiduciary duty, or Oregon State law. For instance: The Oregon Department of Justice has recently opened an inquiry as to whether OST investment in companies with contractual ties to ICE violates the Oregon Sanctuary Promise Act of 2021 . The CRIA Act of 2025 mandates that the Treasury: -- “actively analyze and manage” climate risk to the portfolio -- report on its progress toward investing in public equity holdings that incorporate the tenets of a just transition in their overall priorities and portfolio
Part 2: Building on Oregon State Treasury’s 2025 Progress toward Net Zero Emissions Divest Oregon applauds initial action, offers recommendations for future reporting, including the use of multiple metrics
Part 1: Building on Oregon State Treasury’s 2025 Progress toward Net Zero Emissions Divest Oregon applauds initial action, offers recommendations for future reporting, including the use of multiple metrics
Oregon State Treasury should engage or divest from companies fueling a new era of resource conflicts
Thanks to the passage of CRIA and the Coal Act, Oregon is moving toward a more transparent assessment of climate-related risks, engaging with asset managers and companies, and identifying climate-positive investments. OPERF has nearly $90 million invested with Exxon, $40 million in Chevron, and $5 million in Shell. Can the Treasury hold these companies accountable and protect the wider portfolio from major conflict exposure? Following is incisive testimony to the January 2026 Oregon Investment Council by Andrew Bogrand, Divest Oregon’s volunteer Communications Director. For over five years, the Divest Oregon coalition has encouraged the Oregon State Treasury to take seriously the financial risks associated with fossil fuel investments, particularly within the context of the wider energy transition. Treasury, as well as the Oregon Investment Council, has listened and responded. Thanks to the 2025 Climate Resilient Investment Act (CRIA) and the 2024 Clean Oregon Asset Legislation (COAL) Act , our state is moving toward a more transparent assessment of climate-related risks, engaging with asset managers and companies, and identifying climate-positive investments. Of course, much of the work remains. In the spring of 2025, Divest Oregon provided testimony to lawmakers in Salem about the coalition’s support of CRIA. We shared how the bill would help Treasury address “new economic realities, where geopolitical contestation…and natural resource competition will upend the financial logic of passive investing.” A year later, this statement rings painfully true. We stand on the precipice of resource-driven conflicts in Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran. We are witnessing a deterioration of the international rules-based order, which will come with serious financial implications. This breakdown is not random. Chevron has played “the long game” in Venezuela, spending millions lobbying the Trump administration and positioning itself to profit following the US invasion. Shell is seeking a multi-billion gas project following the illegal ouster of President Maduro, which presumably also secured ExxonMobil’s interests – not in Venezuela, but in neighboring Guyana . And, the American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobby group including Chevron, Shell, and Exxon, recently pledged to “stabilize Iran” if the regime is ousted there, too. Of course, whether these companies will profit from this new era of resource colonialism remains unclear. Darren Woods, the CEO of ExxonMobil, said bluntly that Venezuela is “un-investable.” Chevron has also acknowledged that any future work in Venezuela will require extensive guarantees and long-term stability, conditions which remain absent. Despite all the money spent on lobbying, the oil market remains volatile and these companies will likely seek taxpayer support and sanctions relief for risky bets abroad Treasury has nearly $90 million invested with Exxon, nearly $40 million in Chevron, and over $5 million in Shell. Now the question is how to hold these companies accountable and protect the wider portfolio from major conflict exposure. Not all energy companies are equal. In contrast to Chevron, France’s TotalEnergies, which Treasury also owns, has no intention to enter Venezuela despite its operations in nearby Suriname, presumably worried that their presence could make a humanitarian crisis worse or even directly fund human rights violations. If Treasury is serious about engagement, as set forth in CRIA, now is the time to exercise this commitment toward the most politically-exposed companies. Extraction by military force pushes the absolute boundaries of the social license to operate and undermines other holdings in Treasury’s portfolio. Companies have a major and well-recognized responsibility to avoid contributing to war. This responsibility is rooted in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as well as in international humanitarian law. Companies are expected to conduct rigorous human rights due diligence to ensure that their operations, supply chains, and technology do not fuel or contribute to conflict. If companies like Chevron and Exxon fail to respond to engagement along these lines then divestment is both an appropriate business decision -- and the right thing to do.