Logic is often considered theoretically neutral, imposing no significant constraints on the world. In this talk, we explore how this purported neutrality can be understood, focusing on a proposal Beall has done. He suggests that logic should be viewed as the universal closure relation of theories. Under this view, a logic that just closes truths gathered by extralogical theories is superior to a logic independently proving logical truths. The main thesis of the talk is that the absence of logical truths can be interpreted as a hallmark of logic's neutrality. We present this proposal, examine its complexities, and ultimately argue that this account of neutrality is tenable when approached through a meta-linguistic framework.