Bill Ackman, Founder of Pershing Square Capital: I Would Fire Her Too
Bill Ackman, founder of Pershing Square Capital Management, responded to public doubts on social media, stating he "only shared a video and tagged KPMG". He was later informed that KPMG "conducted a thorough investigation and reviewed the relevant facts and video" before deciding to terminate the employee. He emphasized that "if anyone in my company insulted any race in that manner, I would also fire them," and stressed the company's "zero tolerance for such behavior."
The controversy originated from a conflict video that occurred on September 16, 2026, at the Chelsea Piers gym in Manhattan, where Yuen Lee, an audit/consulting manager at KPMG US, was filmed arguing with an unidentified man and calling him a "Zionist pig". Reports indicate that the conflict began when the man commented on the black-and-white checkered keffiyeh scarf Lee was wearing, leading to an escalation of words, with Lee responding in the video, "I have read many books, I am actually highly educated!".
The video was initially released by the anti-Semitism watchdog organization StopAntisemitism on the day of the incident, and Ackman later shared it on his social media account, which has millions of followers, tagging KPMG's official account. This post has garnered over 2.5 million views to date. KPMG initially responded by stating that Lee had been suspended and an internal investigation was underway, asserting that there is "no place for discriminatory remarks" within the company and committing to fostering an "inclusive culture free from discrimination."
Public records show that Yuen Lee has worked at KPMG for nearly six years, serving as a consulting manager for about two years. He graduated with a degree in business administration, majoring in accounting, from Baruch College in New York.
Notably, KPMG had previously required approximately 90,000 employees to complete the Anti-Defamation League's "Workplace Anti-Semitism 101" training course earlier in 2026. According to ADL statistics, there were 6,274 recorded incidents of anti-Semitism in the U.S. in 2025, a decrease of about 33% from 9,354 incidents in 2024.
From the perspective of public opinion and corporate risk management, Ackman's intervention continues his ongoing pressure on universities and corporate institutions regarding anti-Semitic remarks since 2023. A typical personal conflict video, once shared and tagged with a corporate official account, quickly escalated from a private dispute to a public issue involving corporate reputation, forcing KPMG to upgrade from "suspension investigation" to "formal termination" within days. The beneficiaries are activists seeking to leverage social influence to push companies to strengthen accountability against discrimination, while the pressured party is the company itself, which is caught in the public opinion whirlpool and needs to quickly demonstrate compliance externally. For the Big Four accounting firms, any exposure of discriminatory remarks can directly impact client trust and recruitment reputation, which is a core consideration for KPMG's choice to respond quickly and publicly.
Statistics show that the video has accumulated over 2.5 million views after being released by StopAntisemitism and subsequently shared by Ackman. KPMG's earlier anti-Semitism training for approximately 90,000 employees, along with the ADL's reported 6,274 incidents of anti-Semitism in 2025, provide a broader social context for this incident.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Ackman's intervention is not an isolated action but a continuation of his consistent approach—after the controversial statements made by Harvard President Claudine Gay and University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill regarding campus anti-Semitism at a congressional hearing at the end of 2023, Ackman publicly pressured and mobilized alumni and donors to hold the universities accountable for several months, ultimately leading to the resignation of both presidents. As an activist investor at Pershing Square, he has previously pressured companies like Herbalife and Valeant through sustained public exposure rather than solely internal or legal channels to force institutional change. This intervention regarding KPMG employees is another replication of the same strategy in the corporate employment context.
From a resource perspective, what is flowing here is not capital but attention and reputational capital—Ackman transforms the social media influence he has accumulated over years as a well-known hedge fund founder into leverage that can sway a multinational company's personnel decisions within days. KPMG, as one of the Big Four accounting firms that heavily relies on client trust and campus recruitment reputation, faces escalating brand risk once named by a high-profile account with millions of followers. This is the direct reason for the company's swift upgrade from "suspension investigation" to "termination"—the speed of managing reputational risk is determined by the scale of public attention rather than internal procedural rhythms.
Similar models of "viral video + @corporate account" forcing accountability have frequently appeared in the U.S. in recent years, from the 2020 "Central Park Karen" incident to multiple workplace conflict cases that were resolved within days due to exposure by high-profile accounts, forming a relatively fixed chain of public opinion—corporate response. In terms of industry positioning, professional service firms (especially the Big Four accounting firms) are among the most sensitive and responsive types of institutions to such public accountability due to their high dependence on public trust for clients and talent recruitment.
The structural change behind this is essentially a shift in regulation—actual accountability for inappropriate workplace remarks is moving from internal human resources and formal legal processes to individuals and advocacy organizations with significant public attention. The mechanism is that once a high-profile account completes exposure and tags the involved company, the marginal reputational cost of the company's delayed response rapidly accumulates with each hour of exposure. This structural cost curve compresses the company's originally methodical investigation and sanction cycle, making the actual speed of deciding an ordinary employee's fate increasingly dependent on how many times the video is shared and viewed, rather than the traditional internal compliance process itself.