COLUMBUS, OH — In a formal legal opinion released today, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost clarified that county investment decisions must be driven by the “best and safest return” for taxpayers rather than social or political ideologies.
The opinion, issued May 8, 2026, comes in response to a request from Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney Julia R. Bates. The inquiry followed a recent move by the Lucas County Investment Advisory Committee to adopt a motion advising the county treasurer to stop reinvesting in foreign government bonds—specifically Israeli bonds—upon their maturity.
Profit Over Ideology
Attorney General Yost’s opinion centers on a clear interpretation of Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 135.35(O), which prohibits county officials from making investment decisions with the “primary purpose of influencing any environmental, social, personal, or ideological policy.”
“Simply put,” Yost stated, “the goal of investing public money is to protect the public money while trying to maximize returns.”
The Attorney General noted that while county investment committees have the power to set policies, those policies are only lawful if they aim to ensure fiscal safety and growth. Any policy designed principally to influence foreign affairs—such as the conflict in the Middle East—would violate state law.
Treasurer’s Authority Protected
A key takeaway from the 14-page opinion is the protection of the County Treasurer’s role. While a treasurer typically follows the guidelines set by a county’s investment advisory committee, Yost clarified that the treasurer is not bound to follow policies that are “unlawful or ultra vires” (beyond the committee’s legal power).
Furthermore, Yost ruled that County Commissioners do not have the authority to strip a treasurer of their investment powers if the treasurer’s refusal is based on an illegal, ideologically driven policy.
The “Boycott” Connection
The opinion also touched on Ohio’s anti-boycott laws. Yost explained that a decision to divest from a specific nation’s bonds—like Israel’s—without a “bona fide economic rationale” could be viewed as a prohibited boycott.
“County investment decisions must not be driven by ideology, and an economic justification must not be offered as a pretext,” Yost warned.
Potential Liability
The Attorney General emphasized that these are not merely suggestions but mandatory requirements of state law. Failure to comply could expose counties and their individual officials to legal challenges and civil liability for violating their fiduciary duties to the public.
