Subscribe for free to the White House Watch newsletter
A comprehensive overview of the implications of the 2024 US election for Washington and beyond
Slowly but surely, they began to emerge.
Following several days of tumult in the markets, America’s billionaires finally spoke out this week in a way that few top executives have since Donald Trump took office in January: they voiced concerns over the actions of the US president.
They described Trump’s extensive tariffs as a “significant policy error” born of “foolishness” that could trigger an “economic nuclear winter,” and in some instances simply labeled them as “nonsense.”
What a change in tone. Up until this market-disrupting moment, businesses across the US had shown remarkable tolerance towards Trump’s agenda.
It remains uncertain whether this attitude will shift following his retreat on tariffs, but one thing is clear: navigating an administration intent on disrupting conventional business interactions is exceptionally challenging.
At the outset, there is sheer bewilderment.
Last week, I spoke with Nneka Chiazor, the leader of the Public Affairs Council in Washington, a non-partisan organization representing public affairs professionals from some of the largest companies in the US.
She had just returned from meetings with her members in Brussels, where they inundated her with questions like: “Can we still use ‘green’?”; “Is ‘clean’ still acceptable?”; “Would participating in [New York] Climate Week be permissible?”
“People are grappling with how to demonstrate respect for the US administration” while fulfilling their duties to customers and other stakeholders, she noted.
This dilemma is exacerbated by the challenges companies face when backtracking on initiatives they previously supported that conflict with the Trump administration.
“Everyone appears completely hypocritical and rudderless,” expressed New York University professor Alison Taylor, author of Higher Ground: How Business Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World. “This creates the impression that anything they say is utterly implausible, which I don’t believe is very wise.”
Then there’s the issue of financial risk.
Target has seen a decline in shopper visits for nine consecutive weeks since the retailer sparked a consumer boycott with a January announcement indicating a withdrawal from previously promoted diversity initiatives, according to data from the Placer.ai analytics firm.
In contrast, foot traffic has continued to rise at Costco, which fought against a shareholder proposal that aimed to undermine its diversity and inclusion measures.
While correlation does not imply causation, various other factors might explain the discrepancy.
Target’s trust and approval ratings — a critical measure of reputation — fell to a four-year low in the first quarter of this year, according to market intelligence firm Caliber. However, the Caliber surveys indicate that this decline is part of a longer trend that started well before Target’s diversity reversal.
Additionally, Caliber’s research on ten major US companies, including Target, Walmart, and Apple, suggests that most saw little to no change in their trust ratings from the last quarter of 2024, regardless of whether they halted or defended diversity policies.
Yet, employee trust presents a different story.
Consider the hundreds of associates from some of the world’s largest law firms who signed an open letter condemning the administration’s targeting of firms it opposes.
Imagine their sentiments when some of these firms retreated, promising millions of dollars in pro bono services to administration-sanctioned initiatives — a shift that appeared to catch even the president off guard.
Firms are inquiring, “Where do I sign? Where do I sign?” Trump expressed wonder at the White House last month. “Nobody can believe it.”
Perhaps. History tells us that companies are rarely at the forefront of political resistance, regardless of the stakes involved.
Dutch journalist David de Jong highlights this in his 2022 book Nazi Billionaires, noting he discovered only two instances of major industrialists or firms defying Nazi Germany: Robert Bosch, founder of the company bearing his name, and steel magnate Fritz Thyssen.
Charles Hecker’s 2024 book Zero Sum provides another cautionary tale about foreign companies that continued operations in an increasingly authoritarian Russia.
In one notable case, a senior European executive revealed that while their corporate headquarters were “wagging their fingers” about Moscow’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, they were simultaneously urging their Russian offices to increase sales for the following year.
The US of 2025 may not mirror Russia in 2014, much less 1930s Germany.
Nevertheless, any US corporation that conforms to an administration resolutely focused on subduing its adversaries is treading a well-trodden path.
