The case follows Kristin Hull, founder and CIO of Nia Impact Capital, a mission-driven investment firm in California, as she faces a pivotal decision in July 2025: Should she file a shareholder resolution against Tesla, Inc.? Hull and Nia have engaged Tesla for over five years on issues of human capital management, workplace equity and board oversight. In 2025, the stakes are higher. Tesla is facing mounting reputational, legal and operational risks, including civil rights litigation, governance controversies and product recalls, compounding the previous year's 53% decline in profits. Now, Hull must decide between two draft resolutions: one framed in the language of social justice, the other in terms of business efficiency and governance. A third option is to total withdraw from the engagement. This decision must be made in a shifting US political and regulatory context marked by heightened scrutiny of environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiatives and a national rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) commitments. The polarized climate makes language and framing not just strategic choices but also existential ones: How can impact investors continue to advance their missions while maintaining legitimacy and influence in an increasingly hostile environment? Designed to mirror the complexity of real-world decision making, the case immerses students in an environment of competing pressures, contradictory information and media "noise." It reflects the paradoxes impact investors face: staying true to the mission vs. maintaining strategic influence; framing issues in values-based vs. efficiency-based language; and exercising leadership amid political backlash and reputational risk. The case is suitable for courses on sustainable finance, non-market strategy, governance and leadership. It challenges students to explore fiduciary duty, rethink the role of shareholder engagement, and consider how language and framing can serve as tools of influence in turbulent times.