PROXY MEMORANDUM
To: Shareholders of General Electric Company (d/b/a GE Aerospace) (the “Company” or “GE Aerospace”)
From: The Anti-Defamation League (“ADL”) & JLens (together, “we”)
Date: March 16, 2026
Re: The case to vote AGAINST Proposal 7 (Shareholder Proposal Requesting Report on Defense-Related Products) on GE Aerospace’s 2026 Proxy Statement
We Urge You to Vote AGAINST Proposal 7 in GE Aerospace’s 2026 Proxy Statement
Proposal 7 calls on GE Aerospace to commission an independent third-party report on the due diligence process the Company uses to “determine if customers’ use of its defense-related products, components, or systems contribute to human rights harms or violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) in conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRA).”
Proposal 7 was submitted by the Presbyterian Foundation (the “proponent”), one of the investment entities affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). While we support robust human rights risk management and consistent governance and respect the role that religious institutions play in advancing moral perspectives in public debate, we make four arguments below for shareholders to vote AGAINST Proposal 7.
We strongly believe the following: (1) Proposal 7 is not a neutral governance request, but is instead part of an Israel-focused pressure campaign that appears to mirror tactics associated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (“BDS”) movement; (2) approving Proposal 7 risks material harm to GE Aerospace’s defense business and shareholder value; (3) Proposal 7’s logic rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of how U.S. defense exports are authorized — it is the U.S. government, not GE Aerospace, that generally determines which foreign customers receive most defense equipment;[1] and (4) the proponent has a long track record of anti-Israel and BDS activism that undermines the credibility of Proposal 7’s neutral framing. In summary, approving Proposal 7 would impose unnecessary compliance and reporting burdens and risk destroying shareholder value without delivering meaningful governance insight.
Proposal 7 Appears to Advance an Anti-Israel Pressure Campaign, Not Improve GE Aerospace’s Governance
We do not believe this proposal is a neutral, consistently applied CAHRA-wide request. Instead, the proposal’s supporting statement appears to disproportionately focuses on Israel — citing language around “genocide” and “war crimes” in connection with Israeli operations in Gaza, and specifically identifying GE Aerospace products used by Israeli forces, while addressing Egypt, India, and Saudi Arabia only in passing, and relegating China to a single historical reference under a previous corporate structure. This disproportion is not incidental in our view. It reflects a broader pattern of using human rights frameworks to single out Israel and pressure companies to reduce or end their lawful defense relationships with Israel—an approach consistent with the BDS campaign, which seeks to isolate and delegitimize Israel through economic and reputational pressure.[2]
The October 7, 2023, attacks in Israel, in which Hamas terrorists murdered more than 1,200 people, raped women, killed children, and took more than 250 hostages,[3] were the deadliest attacks against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.[4] Those atrocities did not occur in isolation. Since October 7, 2023, Israel has continued to face missile, drone, and terrorist threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran and its proxies. Any serious assessment of defense-related businesses involving Israel must begin with that reality.
However, Proposal 7’s supporting statement disregards that reality and fails to meaningfully acknowledge Israel’s right to protect its citizens. Instead, Proposal 7 appears to present Israel’s military response to continued attacks on its citizens and its sovereignty solely through inflammatory allegations regarding Israeli operations in Gaza without acknowledging the circumstances that gave rise to Israel’s defensive operations. This selective framing follows a familiar BDS pattern: eroding support for Israel through reputational pressure under the banner of human rights. By stripping away that context and treating Israel’s defense measures as inherently suspect, it is clear the proposal is attempting to substitute a contested political narrative for a balanced analysis of company risk.
GE Aerospace’s products should be understood within the same security context. The Company’s F110 engine powers F-16 aircraft used by the Israeli Air Force, including in operations defending Israeli civilians against Iranian missile and drone attacks in 2024–2025[5] and in recent regional hostilities involving the Iranian Regime.[6] Framing GE Aerospace’s support and relationships with Israel as presumptively contributing to human rights harms is not a neutral exercise in governance best practices; it is a selective portrayal of Israel-related defense activity that undermines rather than informs a balanced assessment of company risk.
Proposal 7 Could Harm GE Aerospace and Shareholder Value
Defense is not a peripheral activity for GE Aerospace. The Company is among the world’s leading aerospace propulsion and services providers, serving customers in approximately 120 countries.[7] The Defense & Propulsion Technologies segment represented approximately 23% of total revenue in 2025, and most of its Defense & Systems revenue is derived from U.S. government and allied defense budgets.[8] Proposal 7 effectively asks GE Aerospace to treat this core business line as a source of reputational liability rather than a contribution to U.S. and allied national security. In our opinion, approving Proposal 7 could damage the Company and shareholder value through multiple pathways:
- Reputational harm: Approval of Proposal 7 could fuel erroneous and misleading external narratives framing GE Aerospace as complicit in human rights harms — narratives that could tarnish the Company’s brand and invite negative media attention, regardless of the report’s outcome.
- Erosion of established compliance frameworks and additional costs: GE Aerospace is already subject to stringent U.S. export controls and robust human rights risk assessments. Mandating a new, external process would impose additional costs — including fees for independent third-party reviewers, management time, and legal and compliance resources — while seemingly delivering only marginal additional insight into the Company’s human rights impact given the existing level of scrutiny. Proposal 7 and its contemplated report could also erode confidence in existing frameworks, implying they are inadequate and introducing confusion for internal teams, partners, and customers.
- Revenue and contracting risk: GE Aerospace’s Defense & Systems business — which designs and services engines and aircraft systems for governments — generated $6.6 billion in revenue in 2025.[9] External scrutiny of GE Aerospace’s defense relationships could undermine trust with U.S. government and allied defense customers, delay contract awards, and create uncertainty around renewals. We believe approving Proposal 7 and its disproportionate focus on Israel further risks signaling to key defense partners that GE Aerospace’s commitment to lawful government contracts is subject to shareholder-driven political pressure — which could translate into material financial harm.
Foreign Military Sales Decisions Are Made by the U.S. Government—Not GE Aerospace
Proposal 7’s logic rests on a flawed premise: that GE Aerospace exercises meaningful independent discretion over whether its products reach foreign government customers, including the Israeli Air Force and other Israeli defense customers. As explained in further detail below, while contractors may decide whether to participate in U.S. defense programs generally, the determination of which foreign governments receive U.S. defense equipment is typically made by the United States government—not the contractor.
Under the Foreign Military Sales program authorized by Congress, the State Department, in close coordination with Department of Defense, administers the sale of arms and articles of defense to foreign nations, which starts with the review and approval of a foreign country’s request to buy articles of defense. This happens before the US military engages any contractor.[10] Under the Direct Commercial Sales program authorized by Congress, every sale of arms and articles of defense to foreign nations still requires a State Department export license, granted only after review of foreign policy, national security, and human rights considerations.[11] In both channels, GE Aerospace acts as a fulfillment contractor supplying equipment pursuant to a U.S. government authorization rather than independently selecting the foreign military customer.
The public record confirms this structure. In March 2025, GE Aerospace announced a U.S. Air Force contract valued at up to $5 billion explicitly to support Foreign Military Sales of F110-GE-129 engines — the same engine family powering Israel’s F-16 fleet.[12] Human rights review is already embedded in these approval processes — the State Department reviews human rights and international humanitarian law considerations before authorizing any transfer. Commissioning a report cannot change, supplement, or override determinations already made by the Secretary of State and reviewed by Congress.[13] Moreover, restricting U.S. contractors does not eliminate defense procurement; defense customers could source comparable systems from alternative suppliers, often outside U.S. oversight frameworks—potentially reducing, rather than enhancing, human rights accountability.
In our view, approving Proposal 7 would ask GE Aerospace to improperly second-guess determinations already made by the Secretary of State, administered by the Department of Defense, and notified to Congress under the Arms Export Control Act[14] — an attempt to achieve through corporate governance what proponents have been unable to change through the political process. Corporate boards are not designed to adjudicate matters of national security assigned by law to the U.S. government, and we strongly believe diverting them into that role does not serve shareholders’ long-term interests.
The Proponent Has a Long Track Record of Anti-Israel and BDS Activism
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA) and affiliated entities have been repeatedly criticized by major Jewish organizations, including the ADL[15] and the American Jewish Committee,[16] for its “obsessive” focus on Israel and for at times stepping beyond criticism of Israel to broader questioning of the validity of Jewish statehood and the morality of Jews and Judaism.[17] PCUSA has a long-established track record that suggests this proposal is less about neutral, global due diligence and more about advancing a singular focus on Israel. Key context includes:
- 2004: PCUSA’s General Assembly voted to begin phased selective divestment in multinational companies operating in Israel.[18] This divestment decision preceded the launch of the formal BDS movement and only focused on Israel.[19]
- 2012: PCUSA passed a boycott resolution that was welcomed by the BDS movement.[20]
- 2014: PCUSA divested from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions, tied to Israel-related activism.[21] A BDS movement co-founder Omar Barghouti praised the 2014 vote.[22]
- 2016: Among multiple other anti-Israel resolutions passed by the General Assembly, PCUSA voted to conduct a “prayerful study” of BDS, again praised by the BDS movement.[23],[24]
- 2018: PCUSA passed new anti-Israel resolutions, in which the campaign leading the resolutions stated: “In just a few years, we have gone from focusing on Israel’s 1967 occupation to a broad platform challenging all aspects of Israeli colonialism.”[25]
- 2022: PCUSA voted to label Israel an apartheid state.[26]
- 2024: PCUSA divested from Israeli government bonds and began focused engagement with GE Aerospace regarding defense relationships involving Israel.[27]
In 2024, a faction of PCUSA accused GE Aerospace of being “involved in activities that bring them into direct conflict with our policy of mission-directed investment,” citing as a primary concern engines and equipment components used by the Israeli Defense Forces, and its Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment was also directed to report back to PCUSA’s 2026 General Assembly with “possible divestment recommendations for the companies that are not moving toward compliance with established General Assembly policies.”[28] These actions continue an observable pattern of targeting companies with ties to Israel: All four companies on PCUSA’s divestment list for “Human Rights Violations” are tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite Proposal 7’s mention of countries like China, Egypt, India, and Saudi Arabia, PCUSA’s divestment actions show no comparable focus on these countries.[29]
Conclusion: We Urge Shareholders to Vote AGAINST Proposal 7 to Reject a Politically Motivated Campaign and Protect Shareholder Interests
As detailed above, the case to vote against Proposal 7 rests on four grounds: (1) the proposal is not a neutral governance request but the latest iteration of an Israel-focused pressure campaign; (2) approving the proposal could expose GE Aerospace to material reputational and contracting risk; (3) the proposal asks GE Aerospace to second-guess U.S. foreign policy determinations that are out of its control; and (4) the proponent’s decades-long record of divestment activism makes it clear its purported neutral framing lacks. We believe approving Proposal 7 would impose unnecessary burdens on the Company and risk destroying shareholder value without delivering meaningful governance insight. Accordingly, we urge shareholders to vote AGAINST Proposal 7.
Thank you for your careful consideration.
For more information, please contact Dani Nurick, JLens Director of Advocacy, at
dani@jlensnetwork.org.
About the Anti-Defamation League
ADL is the leading anti-hate organization in the world. Founded in 1913 to protect the Jewish people, ADL works to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and secure justice and fair treatment to all. In the face of rising antisemitism and extremism, we protect, advocate, and educate, through a mix of programs and services using the latest innovations and technology, and seek to create a world without hate. More at www.adl.org.
About JLens
Founded in 2012, JLens is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and Registered Investment Advisor that empowers investors to align their capital with Jewish values and advocates for Jewish communal priorities in the corporate arena. JLens’ Jewish Investor Network is composed of over 35 Jewish institutions, representing $12 billion in communal capital. In 2022, JLens established an affiliation with ADL (Anti-Defamation League), the leading anti-hate organization in the world. More at www.jlensnetwork.org.
THIS IS NOT A PROXY SOLICITATION AND NO PROXY CARDS WILL BE ACCEPTED
Please execute and return your proxy card according to GE Aerospace’s instructions.
[1] U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Arms Sales and Defense Trade,” https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade/.
[2] Anti-Defamation League, “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign (BDS),” https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-campaign-bds.
[3] A Look at the Hostages Left in Gaza, by the Numbers, PBS NewsHour (Oct. 15, 2025), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/a-look-at-the-hostages-left-in-gaza-by-the-numbers.
[4]Statement from President Joe Biden Marking One Year Since the October 7th Attack (Oct. 7, 2024), https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/10/07/statement-from-president-joe-biden-marking-one-year-since-the-october-7th-attack/.
[5] Udi Etsion, “IAF eyes major overhaul of F-16s, used to strike Iran, to meet future combat needs,” Jerusalem Post (September 15), 2025, https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-867472.
[6] Cameron McMillan, Justin Leopold-Cohen, and Bradley Bowman, “US and Israel race to defeat Iranian missiles and drones following early campaign successes,” FDD, (March 3, 2026), https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/03/03/us-and-israel-race-to-defeat-iranian-missiles-and-drones-following-early-campaign-successes/.
[7] GE Aerospace, Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, (January 29, 2026), https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000040545/f5af2bd1-3fdc-4ea1-b1ff-ed5812f2c4be.pdf.
[8] GE Aerospace, Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, (January 29, 2026), https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000040545/f5af2bd1-3fdc-4ea1-b1ff-ed5812f2c4be.pdf.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Nathan J. Lucas and Michael J. Vassalotti, Transfer of Defense Articles: Foreign Military Sales (FMS), CRS In Focus No. IF11437 (Congressional Research Service), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11437
[11] U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Arms Sales and Defense Trade,” State.gov, https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade/
[12] GE Aerospace, “GE Aerospace Secures $5 Billion U.S. Air Force Contract for F110 Engines,” GE Aerospace News, (March 14, 2025), https://www.geaerospace.com/news/press‑releases/ge‑aerospace‑secures‑5‑billion‑us‑air‑force‑contract‑f110‑engines
[13] Paul K. Kerr and Michael A. Weber, U.S. Arms Sales and Human Rights: Legislative Basis and Frequently Asked Questions, CRS In Focus No. IF11197 (Congressional Research Service, July 23, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11197
[14] Paul K. Kerr, Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process, CRS Report RL31675, Congressional Research Service, (March 28, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL31675
[15] Jackie Subar, “The Presbyterian Church’s Lost Moral Compass on Israel,” Anti-Defamation League (ADL), (January 19, 2022), https://www.adl.org/resources/news/presbyterian-churchs-lost-moral-compass-israel
[16] Noam E. Marans, “The Presbyterian Church Has Been Hijacked by Anti-Israel Activists,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), May 24, 2018), https://www.jta.org/2018/05/24/ideas/presbyterian-church-hijacked-anti-israel-activists(
[17] Anti-Defamation League, “ADL Letter to Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Regarding Statement Directed at American Jews,” (January 19, 2022), https://www.adl.org/resources/letter/adl-letter-presbyterian-church-usa-regarding-statement-directed-american-jews
[18] Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, “The PCUSA General Assembly’s Latest Betrayal of Israel and the Jewish People,” Brandeis Center, https://brandeiscenter.com/the-pcusa-general-assemblys-latest-betrayal-of-israel-and-the-jewish-people/
[19] Palestinian Civil Society, “Palestinian Civil Society Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Against Israel Until It Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights,” (July 9, 2005), https://bdsmovement.net/bds-call
[20] Palestinian BDS National Committee, “Palestinian Civil Society Welcomes Presbyterian Church (USA) Israel Boycott Resolution,” BDS Movement, (July 7, 2012), https://bdsmovement.net/news/palestinian-civil-society-welcomes-presbyterian-church-usa-israel-boycott-resolution
[21] Lauren Markoe, “Presbyterians Narrowly Vote to Divest from 3 Companies Involved in Israeli/Palestinian Conflict,” Religion News Service, (June 20, 2014), https://religionnews.com/2014/06/20/prebyteriansdivestment/
[22] Associated Press, “Presbyterian Church Votes to Divest Holdings to Sanction Israel,” The Guardian, (June 21, 2014), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/21/presbyterian-church-votes-divest-holdings-to-sanction-israel
[23] Palestinian BDS National Committee, “US Churches Advance Effective Solidarity with Palestinian Freedom, Justice and Equality,” BDS Movement, (July 3, 2016), https://bdsmovement.net/news/us-churches-advance-effective-solidarity-palestinian-freedom-justice-and-equality
[24] Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), A Prayerful Study of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (Louisville, KY: Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),( November 4, 2022), https://pcusa.org/sites/default/files/A-Prayerful-Study-of-Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions.pdf
[25] U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), “2018 Presbyterian Assembly Made Strides for Palestine,” USCPR, (June 23, 2018), https://uscpr.org/2018-presbyterian-wins/
[26] David Rullo, “Israel Labeled an Apartheid State by Presbyterian Church USA,” Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, (July 25, 2022), https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/israel-labeled-an-apartheid-state-by-presbyterian-church-usa/
[27] Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 2026 General Assembly Divestment/Proscription List, Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment, approved October 27, 2025, effective (January 1, 2026), https://pcusa.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/2025_1216_APPROVED_MRT_2025-2026_GA_Divestment_List.pdf
[28] Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Presbytery of Pittsburgh, Overture FIN-01: On Engaging General Electric and Palantir Technologies Through Mission Responsibility Through Investment, Pittsburgh Presbytery, (February 2024), https://www.pghpresbytery.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/10-Overture.pdf.
[29]Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 2026 General Assembly Divestment/Proscription List, Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment, (October 27, 2025) https://pcusa.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/2025_1216_APPROVED_MRT_2025-2026_GA_Divestment_List.pdf
