Ballou-Aares is the founder and CEO of the Leadership Now Project, a membership organization of business and thought leaders committed to protecting and renewing American democracy.
Recently, we’ve observed an unsettling trend in the United States — political retribution against companies for their speech, especially when that speech involves disagreement with political leaders. The ongoing conflict between the state of Florida and the Walt Disney Co. serves as a visible and disturbing example. In an effort to address the issue, the Leadership Now Projec t working with pro bono counsel Covington & Burling, on August 2, 2023, filed an amicus brief in Walt Disney Parks v. DeSantis.
Leadership Now’s brief underscores what is at stake when political leaders use their power to punish companies who express alternative views. Political retaliation creates a chilling effect throughout the market, hampers economic growth and deters investment by undermining fundamentals of business and democracy.
Regrettably, the actions of Florida and Gov. DeSantis outlined in the Disney v. DeSantis case are not isolated incidents of government retaliation against businesses. Companies from Delta Airlines to Walgreens have faced the threat or reality of government retaliation after responding to customer opinion, or taking actions in response to state or federal laws. The outcome of the Disney v. DeSantis case will have profound and broad-reaching effects that could significantly undermine the ability of companies to be responsive to the evolving needs and interests of customers, employees and shareholders.
Beyond affecting the targeted company, the threat of political retribution engenders what historian Timothy Snyder terms “anticipatory obedience.” Businesses more broadly may choose not to take certain actions out of fear, thereby reining in their own rights. This self-imposed restraint can limit a company's ability to make decisions about how to manage itself in the best interests of its stakeholders, including choosing when to take action or voice opinions.
Today, firms are under heightened pressure from customers, regulators, employees and shareholders to engage on an ever-expanding range of issues. Companies, whether supporting or opposing a particular policy, or aiming for neutrality, find themselves navigating the treacherous waters of a politically charged environment, fearing both government punitive measures and running afoul of public opinion.
But stepping back from the arena in fear of retaliation inadvertently helps create an environment where companies become ever more susceptible to the whims of political actors and agendas. In the face of corporate retreat from the public sphere, political leaders become ever more emboldened to behave like autocrats, rewarding allies and punishing perceived adversaries. Businesses working to ensure political retribution does not take hold in the U.S. as it has in other countries is in the best interest of firms and of democracy.
Furthermore, as trust in government and media dwindles globally, business leaders have emerged as rare credible figures in a distrustful landscape. According to the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer, businesses were perceived as the most trusted institutions, and by 2023, they were uniquely viewed as institutions of both competence and ethics. As a trusted group in society, business leaders can navigate these tricky waters by focusing on protecting the fundamentals of democracy without addressing every individual issue that arises from political processes misaligned with citizen interests.
For instance, in August 2023 in Ohio, business leaders — from former Chairman and CEO of Procter & Gamble, John Pepper, to Jeni Britton, Founder of Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams, firmly defended democracy against an effort to alter the state's century-long rule. The effort aimed to make it more difficult for citizens to approve or win ballot initiatives. The trusted leadership of these business figures played a critical role in the campaign's success in preserving a stable democratic process.
Leadership Now recommends utilizing our Corporate Civic Action Plan or the University of Michigan's Erb Institute Principles for Corporate Political Responsibility, as guidance. Both offer business leaders actionable, non-partisan templates to help determine whether and how to engage in civic and political affairs responsibly.
It is in the collective interest of democracy and a strong economy for businesses to push back on political retribution and use its influence to help restore the fundamental tenets of democracy.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.