For close to half a century, Ben & Jerry’s has stood for far more than just ice cream. Its quirky flavours, social conscience, and “a Vermont-born defiance” turned a dessert brand into a cultural icon. But that partnership has now fractured.Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, has quit his role as “brand ambassador” in a stormy fallout with parent company Unilever over the conflict in Gaza and what he calls the silencing and sidelining of the brand’s voice in the Donald Trump era.A sweet beginningIt all began in 1978, when childhood friends Greenfield and Ben Cohen scraped together $12,000 — with $4,000 borrowed — to open a scoop shop in a converted gas station in Burlington, Vermont, according to the firm’s website. Armed with a $5 Penn State University correspondence course on ice cream-making, the duo churned out flavours as eccentric as their personalities.Soon, America fell in love with Cherry Garcia, Chunky Monkey, Phish Food, Americone Dream, and The Tonight Dough. But the brand’s secret sauce was never just in the mix-ins. It was in the mission — the belief that ice cream could be a vehicle for peace, justice, and progressive politics. Apart from the US, Ben & Jerry’s is now present in Europe, Asia, Australia and the Middle East. In India, it’s imported and available in some supermarkets and online delivery platforms.Unilever deal: marriage of oppositesIn 2000, British-Dutch giant Unilever bought Ben & Jerry’s for $326 million. The deal promised growth: the Vermont rebels gained global reach, while Unilever got a socially responsible jewel. Crucially, Unilever pledged that Ben & Jerry’s would retain autonomy over its social mission.For years, the uneasy marriage worked. While Unilever sold soaps and mayonnaise, Ben & Jerry’s weighed in on climate change, racial justice, and immigration. It remained a rare corporate voice speaking out when others stayed silent.Cracks appearBy 2021, tensions surfaced. Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, citing human rights concerns. The move ignited a firestorm. A year later, Unilever bypassed its subsidiary by selling Israeli rights to a local distributor, allowing sales to continue under Hebrew and Arabic branding.Story continues below this adExpress View | Jerry of Ben & Jerry has quit. We could all learn from himFor Cohen and Greenfield, this was a betrayal of the autonomy promised two decades earlier.Jerry Greenfield bows outGreenfield made it official on September 16. In a heartfelt letter that Cohen shared on the social media platform X, he said he could not “in good conscience” continue as brand ambassador as Ben & Jerry’s has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power.“For more than 20 years under their ownership, Ben & Jerry’s stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice and human rights, not as abstract concepts, but in relation to real events happening in our world,” Greenfield wrote. “It’s profoundly disappointing to conclude that independence, the very basis of our sale to Unilever, is gone.”His exit coincides with Unilever’s restructuring, which includes spinning off its entire ice cream division — a $20 billion portfolio featuring Magnum, Wall’s and Ben & Jerry’s — into a new entity called The Magnum Ice Cream Company by 2025.On Trump eraStory continues below this adHis anguish over the present US administration was also evident. In his letter, Jerry said, “and it’s happening at a time when our country’s current administration is attacking civil rights, voting rights, the rights of immigrants, women, and the LGBTQ community.”Explained | Trump celebrates as Jimmy Kimmel goes off air: why are US broadcasters toeing the line?“Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important, and yet Ben & Jerry’s has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power. It’s easy to stand up and speak out when there’s nothing at risk. The real test of values is when times are challenging and you have something to lose,” he said.Clash of culturesGreenfield’s frustration runs deeper than one geopolitical issue. He argued that Unilever’s corporate instincts clash with Ben & Jerry’s activist DNA. He pointed to the Trump era as a time when the brand should have spoken louder — on civil rights, voting rights, immigration, abortion and LGBTQ protections. Instead, he said, Unilever muzzled its most vocal child.The co-founders allege that Unilever even removed Ben & Jerry’s CEO in retaliation for political activism. In November last year, the ice cream maker sued its parent in federal court, accusing it of blocking social media posts on minimum wage, healthcare, and climate change.Story continues below this adUnilever insists it has respected the process agreed with Ben & Jerry’s board and remains focused on restructuring.Ice cream meets ideologyThe rift underscores a larger question: can a mission-driven brand survive inside a corporate behemoth? When Cohen and Greenfield sold in 2000, they thought they had secured permanent independence on social issues. But today, corporations are retreating from activism. Diversity pledges are being shelved, while CEOs dodge questions on policy.Against this backdrop, Ben & Jerry’s remains an anomaly, a pint-sized protest movement wrapped in cookie dough chunks and fudge swirls. But even anomalies face limits when owned by a multinational. “We believe that ice cream can change the world. We have a progressive, nonpartisan social mission that seeks to meet human needs and eliminate injustices in our local, national, and international communities by integrating these concerns in our day-to-day business activities,” the company says in its website.Push for freedomGreenfield and Cohen haven’t given up. They’ve lobbied for Ben & Jerry’s to become independent again. In a letter to Magnum’s incoming board, they argued the brand should not be tied to a corporation unwilling to champion its mission, reports say.Story continues below this adWhether that dream becomes reality is uncertain. Spinning Ben & Jerry’s off into independence would require shareholder approval and Unilever’s willingness to part with one of its most profitable, if politically troublesome, brands.As Unilever prepares to separate its ice cream business, Ben & Jerry’s stands at a crossroads. Will it remain the conscience-driven scoop shop that wades into politics? Or will it be streamlined into just another profit-driven unit?For now, Jerry Greenfield has walked away, leaving behind a brand both beloved and embattled. Ben Cohen, still fighting, continues to push it toward its activist roots. It seems even a pint of ice cream has turned into a battlefield, where fudge chunks and caramel swirls clash with profits and corporate caution.The saga of Ben & Jerry’s is more than a corporate spat. It’s about whether businesses can serve both profit and principle. It’s about the limits of activism inside a boardroom. And it’s about how two friends with a $5 course created not just ice cream, but a cultural force now struggling to hold onto its soul.As Jerry Greenfield takes his leave, the world waits to see whether Ben & Jerry’s will continue to scoop out justice — or melt away in Unilever’s corporate freezer.