‘Set Us Free’: Ice Cream Socialists Want Their Brand Back After Melting Down Over Trump

Ben & Jerry’s founders are trying to take their brand back after parent company Unilever allegedly barred them from criticizing President Donald Trump in the lead-up to his return to the White House.

Cofounder Ben Cohen is now publicly lobbying to buy Ben & Jerry’s back as Unilever prepares to spin off its entire ice cream division. The plea follows years of internal strife over the brand’s progressive messaging, culminating in a recently revealed claim that Unilever blocked the company from posting any anti-Trump political statement during his most recent inauguration.

“Despite four decades of progressive social activism — and years of challenging policies under both Democratic and Republican presidents — criticizing Trump was now too taboo for the brand synonymous with ‘Peace, Love, and Ice Cream,’” Ben & Jerry’s attorneys recently wrote in a court filing against Unilever.

Ben & Jerry’s complaints about Unilever tamping down on their political messaging came to a head when Peter ter Kulve, president of the company’s ice cream division, allegedly blocked a planned anti-Trump Inauguration Day post — then bragged at an “ice cream townhall” that Nelson Peltz, another Unilever executive, had introduced Trump to Elon Musk.

“Within twenty-four hours of Mr. ter Kelve blocking the Inauguration Post on the grounds that it was ‘partisan,’ he hosted an Ice Cream Townhall, where he publicly touted that Mr. Peltz had been the one to introduce Elon Musk to Donald Trump,” the lawsuit reads.

Ben & Jerry’s activist streak, once a source of mutual pride, has become a corporate liability for Unilever in recent years. Controversies surrounding Ben & Jerry’s statements on social justice and foreign policy — particularly its decision to halt sales in Israeli territories in 2021 — drew backlash from shareholders and political leaders alike. Unilever eventually sold off its Israeli operations in defiance of the brand’s wishes, igniting internal legal friction and spotlighting the deep cultural rift between the conglomerate and its supposedly autonomous subsidiary.