Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Caution in the C-Suite: How Business Leaders Are Navigating Trump 2.0

Opinion

Caution in the C-Suite: How Business Leaders Are Navigating Trump 2.0

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks alongside CEO of Cisco Systems Chuck Robbins (R) at the Business Roundtable's quarterly meeting at the Business Roundtable headquarters on March 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump addressed the group of CEO’s as his recent tariff implementations have sparked uncertainty that have helped fuel a market sell-off.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

In the first months of Donald Trump’s second term as president, his policies – from sweeping tariffs and aggressive immigration enforcement to attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion – have thrown U.S. businesses into turmoil, leading to a 26-point decline in CEO confidence.

Yet despite this volatility, many American corporations have remained notably restrained in their public responses.


This might come as a surprise. After all, in recent decades, CEOs have become increasingly willing to speak out about social and political issues. But while some universities and law firms have publicly pushed back against the Trump administration, business leaders are seemingly opting for caution.

What would it take for these titans of corporate America to speak out against Trump’s policies? We are a professor and a graduate student who study business, and back in 2018, one of us – Dr. Carmel – conducted an analysis asking this very question. More recently, we gathered new data looking at how business leaders are responding to Trump’s second term.

The 2018 analysis, involving data from about 200 leading U.S. CEOs, found that most business leaders remained publicly neutral on Trump, and only a handful expressed strong opposition. Silence was often a strategic choice, with many leaders staying mum due to fear of retaliation. The evidence also suggested that Trump could one day cross a line that would prompt a broader CEO backlash.

Seven years later, that line hasn’t yet appeared, even as Trump’s footprint on corporate America is now far more direct and substantial.

Most notable are Trump’s tariffs, first announced in April 2025, which have roiled global markets and unnerved CEOs. And there are many other ripples: Some companies, such as CBS’ parent company, Paramount – which is seeking the Trump administration’s approval for a merger – have decided to self-censor. Others, including Disney and Meta, gave in to Trump’s lawsuits and paid multimillion-dollar settlements, against the counsel of many outside experts. CEOs also have to deal with the threat of backlash from both the right and left.

Against this backdrop, we collected new public data to see how corporate leaders are responding to the second Trump administration. Just as in 2018, we examined the 232 companies that make up the Business Roundtable – a club of the most powerful American businesses.

We assessed the actions that these companies took regarding DEI and whether they experienced any backlash. We focused on these criteria as a way to assess whether CEOs are seeking either to support or placate Trump, or to stand on other principles. We also collected other data, including public statements from CEOs and campaign donations.

DEI as a bellwether

Corporate DEI actions were an early, useful way to gauge a business’s stances, since, from the outset, the Trump administration identified DEI as a “scourge” to be eliminated. Although the White House’s anti-DEI directives have applied to the executive branch and federal contractors, some private businesses rushed to make changes as well.

By May, just a bit over 100 days into Trump’s second term, a significant number of companies had decided to go along with Trump’s preferences. Sixty-nine of the 232 companies in the Business Roundtable rolled back their DEI initiatives in some way, while just 20 companies announced that they kept their DEI programs in place. There’s no information either way on the remaining 61% – likely because they decided it’s better to stay out of the news.

DEI-related actions have tapered off since May, but there’s still an impact. For example, the Federal Communications Commission pressured T-Mobile to eliminate DEI. Only then was its merger approved.

Companies that scaled back their DEI initiatives sometimes pointed to the political environment as a factor. Meta, for example, said in an internal memothat it was ending its DEI efforts due to a “shifting legal and policy landscape.” Other companies, including Verizon and Comcast, reportedly rolled back DEI programs because they feared legal action by the federal government.

Some corporations announced changes through internal announcements, legal filings or quiet updates to their websites, suggesting they want to stay out of the media spotlight.

A small number of Business Roundtable companies stood firm on their DEI policies – to mixed results. When Marriott’s CEO voiced support for DEI at a corporate leadership event, he reportedly received 40,000 appreciative emails from employees. On the other hand, after Coca-Cola reiterated its “commitment to sponsoring an inclusive workplace,” the right-wing activist Robby Starbuck — who The New York Times has described as “the anti-DEI agitator that companies fear most” – said Coca-Cola “should be very nervous about continuing with its woke policies.”

Bracing for backlash

Overall, 22% of Business Roundtable companies saw some sort of backlash to their actions. Most came from the political right: 36 companies were called out by conservatives, another eight by progressives, and eight more faced bipartisan backlash.

With more than three years left in Trump’s second term, it’s worth asking what lies ahead. We think the most likely scenario is that companies will continue to try to stay off the president’s radar and placate him when they must. After all, following the split with Elon Musk, Trump quite explicitly threatened to use presidential powers to hurt Musk’s businesses. Any CEO gets the implications.

While our analysis primarily focused on social issues, policies at the business core may push U.S. companies to confront Trump. Tariff policy is a prime example. Back in April, major retailers like Walmart quietly warned Trump that tariffs could lead to empty shelves and higher prices. More recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs publicly warned that tariffs “have raised the level of uncertainty to a degree I do not think is healthy for investment and growth.”

These are voices of criticism – but worded quite softly.

Erran Carmel is a professor of business at American University's Kogod School of Business.

Joseph Garbowski is a master's student at American University.

Caution in the C-Suite: How Business Leaders Are Navigating Trump 2.0 was originally published by The Conversation and is republished with permission.

Read More

Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

"Just the Facts" on the new $100,000 H-1B visa fee, its impact on tech firms, startups, and healthcare, plus legal challenges and alternatives for skilled workers.

Getty Images, Popartic

Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What Is the $100,000 Visa Fee?

This is a new one-time $100,000 application fee for employers seeking to sponsor foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. The visa is designed for highly skilled professionals in fields like tech, medicine, and engineering.

Keep ReadingShow less
Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

Dave Anderson shares how the Fed’s rate cuts reveal misconceptions about fiscal vs. monetary policy and government intervention in U.S. free markets.

Getty Images, Royalty-free

Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

The Federal Reserve Board's move on Wednesday, Sept. 17, to lower the federal funds interest rate by one-quarter of a point signals that it is a good time to discuss a major misconception that most voters have about public policy.

It is typically assumed that Democrats stand for government intervention into free markets to counteract the inherent bias towards those who are more economically well off. It is also assumed that Republicans, in contrast, reject the idea of government intervention in free markets because it violates rights to property and the natural order of free markets, which promotes the greatest total welfare.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of a nurse's hand resting on the shoulder of an older man who's hand rests on top.

September is World Alzheimer’s Awareness Month. Dr. Dona Kim Murphey explains how systemic failures, Medicare privatization, and racial disparities are deepening the dementia care crisis.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

Profits Over Patients: Re-Examining Systems As Culprit in Dementia Care (or Lack Thereof)

September is World Alzheimer's Awareness Month. Alzheimer's is the most common kind of dementia, a disorder characterized by the progressive loss of brain cells and, in its final stages, complete dependence—the inability to remember, speak, move, or even eat or swallow unassisted. Many end up in nursing homes. Seven million people are impacted by dementia in the United States today, a number that will more than double in the next 25 years.

But awareness is not just about understanding the magnitude of the problem or content expertise on the choices we make as individuals to mitigate the enormous present and future challenges of this disease. It is about a consciousness of the role of systems, namely insurance and government, that are seriously undermining our ability to care.

Keep ReadingShow less
Government by Deadline: Why Shutdowns Are Killing Congressional Power

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) arrives for a news conference following a House GOP Conference Meeting at the U.S. Capitol on September 16, 2025 in Washington, DC. House Republican leadership faces a long week as they try to rally House Republicans behind a stopgap funding bill to avert a shutdown, while also navigating growing pressure to boost security for lawmakers in the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing.

Getty Images, Kent Nishimura

Government by Deadline: Why Shutdowns Are Killing Congressional Power

Every autumn brings its rituals: football, spectacular fall colors, and in Washington, the countdown to a government shutdown. Once a rare emergency, these funding standoffs have become as routine as pumpkin‑flavored beverages.

September 30 marks when federal funding will expire, a recurring cliff since the 1970s. Each year it looms larger, shaping the rhythm of Congress’s work. Lawmakers are again scrambling—not to solve problems, but merely to keep the lights on.

Keep ReadingShow less