I think Matt's question about why leaders are strikingly unwilling to speak against the Trump administration has a simple answer: Winners of intense professional competitions tend to prioritize career status and measures of professional success, so they tend to respond when measures of professional success are threatened. For example, perhaps fear of lost profits might explain lack of criticism from business leaders. Perhaps fear of lost billable hours might explain lack of fight from law firms. I sure (I work in a university) that fear of lost research grants and Pell grants explains conflict avoidance from most university administrators.
Intense professional competitions select against a tendency to do things that endanger one's own career. Therefore, fear that measures of professional success might be harmed has a big effect on many leaders.
I thought about the game theory of this for awhile and came to the tired old conclusion that everyone seems to come to these days. Not that it's not true, but you know...
When you have lions in Congress criticizing the administration on the grounds of the content of their economic policy, then business leaders do not assume much political risk in coordinating pressure. The post-Reagan business world could basically expect that there would be strong allies in some places throughout the legislative and executive branch. The past administration installed some allies and some very clear, public enemies. The current administration is simply acting like an enemy. But which mouse would want to speak up when neither party can actually promise a check and balance on anti-business semi-Peronist sentiment?
Because its an iterated game, one might not want to make enemies in this round who might be needed allies in future iterations of the game.
In other words, the "moral" failing does have macro political-economy cause plus the human bias to fear rocking boats unless others are rocking it too.
Thank you Matthew Yglesias for bringing up a neglected issue. I don't understand this paragraph, "Obviously, when liberals complain about Trump as an authoritarian menace to the rule of law, their intention is not for business leaders to respond this way! What they want to do is recruit people into the resistance. Which would be great. But we do also seem to be giving people, especially business leaders, either a reason or an excuse to cave to illegitimate demands or downplay normal criticisms of Trump's actions. And I think that’s the single most disturbing thing that I’ve seen over the course of the first 100 days." Can. you elaborate?
As mad as many are about Joe Biden (fairly): the true villains of American politics since 2016 have been Republicans. They were too cowardly to take their oaths seriously during both Trump impeachments. Their behavior in 2021 bares particular scorn: we really had a chance to rid ourselves of this deplorable human being, and they caved. Why? For no better reason than they're cowards.
Lisa Murkowski and Bill Cassidy proved they can oppose Trump and still win (along with a few other House members). Susan Collins could easily prove the same in 2026. But most were too cared and prayed the legal system would stop him. They were wrong and I am quite confident if Republicans had ditched Trump in 2021 they'd have won 2024 handily (although I'm also tentatively confident Joe Biden doesn't run for re-election so perhaps it would have been closer). EVERYONE would be better off right now, but they were cowards.
It’s a collective action problem. The chaos and bad policy hurts entire fields (including your competitors). Speaking out risks (I) having all those harms happen anyway AND (ii) getting you business blown up by EO or audits or whatever AND (iii) your business or YOU PERSONALLY being made a famous enemy of MAGA and open to boycotts and abuse.
Most administrations won’t do this stuff, so it is less costly to speak out and people are more willing to be first movers. It’s rational to keep your head down, so rational people are doing so.
While Trump’s approval rating has dropped, it’s still in the stratosphere with Team Red. I think higher than ANY leader of Team Red in history (Reagan, etc). People with skin in the game (federal contracts) are kissing the ring because of a rational evaluation of the pros/cons: Team Red will punish you if you don’t kiss the ring. Team Blue CAN’T punish you if you don’t.
Team Blue can’t because Team Blue is even LESS popular than Team Red: 1. They can’t win rural districts 2. They can’t win rural states 3. They don’t seem to have any interest in fixing this (or they have delusions their hero (Senator Sanders) will save us all Team Blue even turns on people such as Congresswoman Pelota (who supports drilling in ANWR) who remarkable DID win (even if it was a fluke).
Trump will never be King of America, but he’s ALREADY King of Team Red. Oddly enough, most of Trump’s round table is full of politicians who once challenged him and later bent the knee. They can’t beat him, but they have tried!
I think we know how this movie will end. These businesses will experience the same feeling German industrialists did when they saw the Soviet tanks rolling into Berlin 70 years ago.
I didn't understand ". But we do also seem to be giving people, especially business leaders, either a reason or an excuse to cave to illegitimate demands or downplay normal criticisms of Trump's actions. And I think that’s the single most disturbing thing that I’ve seen over the course of the first 100 days." How are we giving business leaders an excuse to cave into Trump?
"Under Trump, though, corporate America is acting like they absolutely agree with all the darkest warnings about democracy being on the ballot in 2024. They seem to have decided that America is now a dictatorship, where if you publicly complain about Trump you’ll be sent to the gulag."
I agree with the upshot of this piece. But I wonder if the calculus here is subtly different. I don't think business leaders fear the gulag per se - although they probably wouldn't admit this out loud, most Republican-friendly business elites are pretty sure Trump would never disappear *them* to CECOT even as he sends random immigrants and maybe eventually escalates to blue-haired protesters. (And although libs like me oppose this on principle and find it cruel and authoritarian, both business elites and the mass public are more or less fine with this implicit arrangement).
I think what business elites perceive is that *Trump's power is unconstrained because there is no opposition the GOP fears losing to.* They need to get on the GOP's good side because the GOP is the ruling party and will be as far as the eye can see. Elections in America are a binary choice, and as Dems we are just totally disqualified in the eyes of the public and nationally non-viable. Our approval rating is *in the 20s,* thanks largely to lingering discontent about 2022 inflation and the toxic unpopularity of the cultural values of college-educated libs. Sources like the Welcome Party and the Working Class Project have shown that even though independent and working-class voters disagree with some GOP policies, they have a deep and abiding commitment to Republicans and loathing of liberals.
A Dem Party whose public face was Blue Dogs like MGP and Jared Golden (and Blue Dog-style figures like Ruben Gallego) could serve as a check on Trumpism because such a party would be capable of winning a seat at the table. But the Dem Party as it exists is far too beholden to college-educated libs and will *never* win another national election. The business community is responding rationally to this expectation. And if we as Dems don't like it, we need to pivot NOW into a party that can compete.
My point here is that business leaders - with quite a lot of money at stake! - are betting on exactly this!
I am confident that the only way for Dems to win majorities again is with a *much* more Blue Dog-ified party brand. We will continue to lose until we do this. And the behavior of high-engagement libs in 2025 so far makes me very pessimistic because people clearly don't get it, and they aren't behaving in a way that will allow Dems to flip culturally conservative swing voters and pick up reddish seats. Unless something changes pretty drastically I would bet money on the GOP winning again in 2026 and 2028. And by that point we have probably gone the way of the opposition in Hungary.
I think Democrats’ approval is in the 20s because half of Democrats want the party to be more in the resistance mode, not because they prefer Republicans.
That is surely part of it - the national environment is not literally R+60. But it's still a problem - what Dems need to do to win is be more like MGP and Gallego. But instead of doing our job and eating shit when we need to, high-engagement libs are yelling at MGP and Gallego and pushing Dems to do maximal (performative) resistance. And as long as this is happening we will keep losing!
It's a hard cycle to break out of. As we keep losing and more and more working-class voters go over to the GOP side, the shrinking Dem coalition is even more dominated by college-educated libs. And those libs push the Dems towards more and more toxic positions. And the cycle repeats itself ...
Historically business has not been a bullwork against authoritarianism, and now that we are living through it you can immediately see a big reason why: they are the ones with the most to lose and with the most ways to be screwed over by a strongman willing to screw them. (Also, I don't think "courage" or "civic mindedness" are traits selected for in the corporate world, but let's put that aside for now)
The incredible no-show from business so far has made the Bernie/AOC approach look better and better. I hope though that the few sparks of corporate resistance we see--Perkins Coie, now maybe Microsoft--catch on and we really do get a strong across-the-ideological-board resistance movement going.
Pharma not lobbying against RFK is still a bit weird, but there’s an extent to which large pharma is going to be able to handle dumb FDA policy while smaller pharma companies won’t. Sort of the classic “corruption helps incumbents at the cost of industry growth and dynamism” situation.
Yup, that’s why it was still a weird decision all things considered… no idea, probably the assumption that there’d be enough inertia to contain his worst impulses? That certainly sounds familiar.
I suppose the idea was to bargain for a change to the IRA’s small molecule patent rules? But still, seems like an obviously poor deal even prospectively.
Separately, but somewhat related, I remain amazed by my many Trump supporting friends and acquaintances who acted like we were in the great depression when the stock market dropped for 2 days in August of 2024, wouldn't shut up when gas prices went above $4 for 2 months in 2022 and cry about "Pelosi's insider trading" suddenly having nothing to say about the stock market being down nearly 15% since Trump's inauguration, Trump's tariff charades and overall chaotic economic policy that will clearly have downsides. What has to happen for these people to admit they made a terrible mistake? An actual economic calamity that's much worse than The Great Recession. I mean, I know I shouldn't be amazed but it is truly infuriating for someone like me who lives in a Red Bubble in Florida.
“This is America, and it’s pathetic for powerful business leaders to be whining about how they’re afraid to anger the president.”
When I was a kid, Matt, my dad owned an auto parts store in Fort Worth. Dad boasted that he could compete successfully against (the then mighty) GM. But he feared the federal government. He felt that the feds, unlike General Motors, had the power to put him out of business tomorrow.
Maybe our powerful business leaders aren't, compared to Trump, all that powerful?
I've been completely enraptured by this administration and capital's response to it.
In many ways, it's like if a very very powerful Left-Wing government was in power instead. The administration makes decisions, unilaterally, that directly press down on the profit-making capacity of firms. It also clouds decision making, so that capitalists cannot properly forecast for investment purposes. Like, it's not that different than if a Left-Wing government just created a law that said, "Dropshipping business importing from China are banned." or, "Drayage should take a massive haircut." That the policies are made without any reflection on what actually happens in the real economy is irrelevant.
Yet, the capitalist class is overwhelmingly favorable. I can only assume this is because 1) there's a psychological belief that President Trump is fundamentally one of them or 2) the threat of The State is so existential to capitalists acting truly bitchmade is the best bet to secure ROI and avoid losses.
I have sort of a 3rd view that's way more historical-materialist: Liberals have to come to make peace with the fact that capitalists do not love the free-market. They want market distorting policies that help them. When The State picks winners and losers, it's not the picking that revolts them, it's being picked loser. It doesn't mean they're "bad" people or "bad" citizens or anything like that, but they are not a natural constituency for democratic or liberal politics.
I really try hard not to jump into a conspiracy as an easy unspecified boogeyman responsible for some existential threat, but I'm beginning to wonder about Project 2025. Objectively, Trump has carried out many of their objectives and leveraged their resources in some type of mutually beneficial partnership.
The concern is that Project 2025 has long-term goals to remake America in its image. So, what is their long-term plan to accomplish that?
They must have a plan. What makes them so confident that a policy of shock and awe will lead to long-term sustainable change? Even if Trump is elected to a third term (did I say that?), he's going to age out eventually. How do they prevent a backlash sweeping a (suddenly) invigorated Democratic Party back in place?
These people are smart -- I have a healthy and fearful respect for what they have accomplished and their willingness to destroy or threaten so many institutions. Is the silence and fear from the Republican Party and CEOs a manifestation of the long-term plan?
Regarding the 2025 people, remember that everybody believes that their best ideas are also super popular if they're carried out properly. So Heritage et al really believe that if we remake American society in their image we'll all be both better off and happier.
Does 2025 scare business and political leaders into silence, probably not. Much of 2025 is about prioritizing the interests of exactly those folks over everyone else's. They would like to see a world with much less government regulation, weak tax collection, and more protections for business against the hoi poloi. They believe the next POTUS will have Trump's pro-business, pro-conservative instincts, without his abject stupidity.
I think Matt's question about why leaders are strikingly unwilling to speak against the Trump administration has a simple answer: Winners of intense professional competitions tend to prioritize career status and measures of professional success, so they tend to respond when measures of professional success are threatened. For example, perhaps fear of lost profits might explain lack of criticism from business leaders. Perhaps fear of lost billable hours might explain lack of fight from law firms. I sure (I work in a university) that fear of lost research grants and Pell grants explains conflict avoidance from most university administrators.
Intense professional competitions select against a tendency to do things that endanger one's own career. Therefore, fear that measures of professional success might be harmed has a big effect on many leaders.
I thought about the game theory of this for awhile and came to the tired old conclusion that everyone seems to come to these days. Not that it's not true, but you know...
When you have lions in Congress criticizing the administration on the grounds of the content of their economic policy, then business leaders do not assume much political risk in coordinating pressure. The post-Reagan business world could basically expect that there would be strong allies in some places throughout the legislative and executive branch. The past administration installed some allies and some very clear, public enemies. The current administration is simply acting like an enemy. But which mouse would want to speak up when neither party can actually promise a check and balance on anti-business semi-Peronist sentiment?
Because its an iterated game, one might not want to make enemies in this round who might be needed allies in future iterations of the game.
In other words, the "moral" failing does have macro political-economy cause plus the human bias to fear rocking boats unless others are rocking it too.
Thank you Matthew Yglesias for bringing up a neglected issue. I don't understand this paragraph, "Obviously, when liberals complain about Trump as an authoritarian menace to the rule of law, their intention is not for business leaders to respond this way! What they want to do is recruit people into the resistance. Which would be great. But we do also seem to be giving people, especially business leaders, either a reason or an excuse to cave to illegitimate demands or downplay normal criticisms of Trump's actions. And I think that’s the single most disturbing thing that I’ve seen over the course of the first 100 days." Can. you elaborate?
As mad as many are about Joe Biden (fairly): the true villains of American politics since 2016 have been Republicans. They were too cowardly to take their oaths seriously during both Trump impeachments. Their behavior in 2021 bares particular scorn: we really had a chance to rid ourselves of this deplorable human being, and they caved. Why? For no better reason than they're cowards.
Lisa Murkowski and Bill Cassidy proved they can oppose Trump and still win (along with a few other House members). Susan Collins could easily prove the same in 2026. But most were too cared and prayed the legal system would stop him. They were wrong and I am quite confident if Republicans had ditched Trump in 2021 they'd have won 2024 handily (although I'm also tentatively confident Joe Biden doesn't run for re-election so perhaps it would have been closer). EVERYONE would be better off right now, but they were cowards.
It’s a collective action problem. The chaos and bad policy hurts entire fields (including your competitors). Speaking out risks (I) having all those harms happen anyway AND (ii) getting you business blown up by EO or audits or whatever AND (iii) your business or YOU PERSONALLY being made a famous enemy of MAGA and open to boycotts and abuse.
Most administrations won’t do this stuff, so it is less costly to speak out and people are more willing to be first movers. It’s rational to keep your head down, so rational people are doing so.
While Trump’s approval rating has dropped, it’s still in the stratosphere with Team Red. I think higher than ANY leader of Team Red in history (Reagan, etc). People with skin in the game (federal contracts) are kissing the ring because of a rational evaluation of the pros/cons: Team Red will punish you if you don’t kiss the ring. Team Blue CAN’T punish you if you don’t.
Team Blue can’t because Team Blue is even LESS popular than Team Red: 1. They can’t win rural districts 2. They can’t win rural states 3. They don’t seem to have any interest in fixing this (or they have delusions their hero (Senator Sanders) will save us all Team Blue even turns on people such as Congresswoman Pelota (who supports drilling in ANWR) who remarkable DID win (even if it was a fluke).
Trump will never be King of America, but he’s ALREADY King of Team Red. Oddly enough, most of Trump’s round table is full of politicians who once challenged him and later bent the knee. They can’t beat him, but they have tried!
I think we know how this movie will end. These businesses will experience the same feeling German industrialists did when they saw the Soviet tanks rolling into Berlin 70 years ago.
I didn't understand ". But we do also seem to be giving people, especially business leaders, either a reason or an excuse to cave to illegitimate demands or downplay normal criticisms of Trump's actions. And I think that’s the single most disturbing thing that I’ve seen over the course of the first 100 days." How are we giving business leaders an excuse to cave into Trump?
"Under Trump, though, corporate America is acting like they absolutely agree with all the darkest warnings about democracy being on the ballot in 2024. They seem to have decided that America is now a dictatorship, where if you publicly complain about Trump you’ll be sent to the gulag."
I agree with the upshot of this piece. But I wonder if the calculus here is subtly different. I don't think business leaders fear the gulag per se - although they probably wouldn't admit this out loud, most Republican-friendly business elites are pretty sure Trump would never disappear *them* to CECOT even as he sends random immigrants and maybe eventually escalates to blue-haired protesters. (And although libs like me oppose this on principle and find it cruel and authoritarian, both business elites and the mass public are more or less fine with this implicit arrangement).
I think what business elites perceive is that *Trump's power is unconstrained because there is no opposition the GOP fears losing to.* They need to get on the GOP's good side because the GOP is the ruling party and will be as far as the eye can see. Elections in America are a binary choice, and as Dems we are just totally disqualified in the eyes of the public and nationally non-viable. Our approval rating is *in the 20s,* thanks largely to lingering discontent about 2022 inflation and the toxic unpopularity of the cultural values of college-educated libs. Sources like the Welcome Party and the Working Class Project have shown that even though independent and working-class voters disagree with some GOP policies, they have a deep and abiding commitment to Republicans and loathing of liberals.
A Dem Party whose public face was Blue Dogs like MGP and Jared Golden (and Blue Dog-style figures like Ruben Gallego) could serve as a check on Trumpism because such a party would be capable of winning a seat at the table. But the Dem Party as it exists is far too beholden to college-educated libs and will *never* win another national election. The business community is responding rationally to this expectation. And if we as Dems don't like it, we need to pivot NOW into a party that can compete.
How much money would you bet on the fact that Democrats will "never win another national election"?
My point here is that business leaders - with quite a lot of money at stake! - are betting on exactly this!
I am confident that the only way for Dems to win majorities again is with a *much* more Blue Dog-ified party brand. We will continue to lose until we do this. And the behavior of high-engagement libs in 2025 so far makes me very pessimistic because people clearly don't get it, and they aren't behaving in a way that will allow Dems to flip culturally conservative swing voters and pick up reddish seats. Unless something changes pretty drastically I would bet money on the GOP winning again in 2026 and 2028. And by that point we have probably gone the way of the opposition in Hungary.
I think Democrats’ approval is in the 20s because half of Democrats want the party to be more in the resistance mode, not because they prefer Republicans.
That is surely part of it - the national environment is not literally R+60. But it's still a problem - what Dems need to do to win is be more like MGP and Gallego. But instead of doing our job and eating shit when we need to, high-engagement libs are yelling at MGP and Gallego and pushing Dems to do maximal (performative) resistance. And as long as this is happening we will keep losing!
It's a hard cycle to break out of. As we keep losing and more and more working-class voters go over to the GOP side, the shrinking Dem coalition is even more dominated by college-educated libs. And those libs push the Dems towards more and more toxic positions. And the cycle repeats itself ...
Historically business has not been a bullwork against authoritarianism, and now that we are living through it you can immediately see a big reason why: they are the ones with the most to lose and with the most ways to be screwed over by a strongman willing to screw them. (Also, I don't think "courage" or "civic mindedness" are traits selected for in the corporate world, but let's put that aside for now)
The incredible no-show from business so far has made the Bernie/AOC approach look better and better. I hope though that the few sparks of corporate resistance we see--Perkins Coie, now maybe Microsoft--catch on and we really do get a strong across-the-ideological-board resistance movement going.
Pharma not lobbying against RFK is still a bit weird, but there’s an extent to which large pharma is going to be able to handle dumb FDA policy while smaller pharma companies won’t. Sort of the classic “corruption helps incumbents at the cost of industry growth and dynamism” situation.
Yup, that’s why it was still a weird decision all things considered… no idea, probably the assumption that there’d be enough inertia to contain his worst impulses? That certainly sounds familiar.
I suppose the idea was to bargain for a change to the IRA’s small molecule patent rules? But still, seems like an obviously poor deal even prospectively.
Sure, they can work around dumb policy. What they can't do is work with an FDA that just stops doing its job altogether.
https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/drug-development-is-slowing-down-after-cuts-at-the-fda-f22369cf
Separately, but somewhat related, I remain amazed by my many Trump supporting friends and acquaintances who acted like we were in the great depression when the stock market dropped for 2 days in August of 2024, wouldn't shut up when gas prices went above $4 for 2 months in 2022 and cry about "Pelosi's insider trading" suddenly having nothing to say about the stock market being down nearly 15% since Trump's inauguration, Trump's tariff charades and overall chaotic economic policy that will clearly have downsides. What has to happen for these people to admit they made a terrible mistake? An actual economic calamity that's much worse than The Great Recession. I mean, I know I shouldn't be amazed but it is truly infuriating for someone like me who lives in a Red Bubble in Florida.
It's a cult. I think that explains all of it.
“This is America, and it’s pathetic for powerful business leaders to be whining about how they’re afraid to anger the president.”
When I was a kid, Matt, my dad owned an auto parts store in Fort Worth. Dad boasted that he could compete successfully against (the then mighty) GM. But he feared the federal government. He felt that the feds, unlike General Motors, had the power to put him out of business tomorrow.
Maybe our powerful business leaders aren't, compared to Trump, all that powerful?
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/04/21/cook-trump-tariffs-wapo
The Joker wasn't afraid of the Batman, but he was afraid of the IRS.
I've been completely enraptured by this administration and capital's response to it.
In many ways, it's like if a very very powerful Left-Wing government was in power instead. The administration makes decisions, unilaterally, that directly press down on the profit-making capacity of firms. It also clouds decision making, so that capitalists cannot properly forecast for investment purposes. Like, it's not that different than if a Left-Wing government just created a law that said, "Dropshipping business importing from China are banned." or, "Drayage should take a massive haircut." That the policies are made without any reflection on what actually happens in the real economy is irrelevant.
Yet, the capitalist class is overwhelmingly favorable. I can only assume this is because 1) there's a psychological belief that President Trump is fundamentally one of them or 2) the threat of The State is so existential to capitalists acting truly bitchmade is the best bet to secure ROI and avoid losses.
I have sort of a 3rd view that's way more historical-materialist: Liberals have to come to make peace with the fact that capitalists do not love the free-market. They want market distorting policies that help them. When The State picks winners and losers, it's not the picking that revolts them, it's being picked loser. It doesn't mean they're "bad" people or "bad" citizens or anything like that, but they are not a natural constituency for democratic or liberal politics.
I really try hard not to jump into a conspiracy as an easy unspecified boogeyman responsible for some existential threat, but I'm beginning to wonder about Project 2025. Objectively, Trump has carried out many of their objectives and leveraged their resources in some type of mutually beneficial partnership.
The concern is that Project 2025 has long-term goals to remake America in its image. So, what is their long-term plan to accomplish that?
They must have a plan. What makes them so confident that a policy of shock and awe will lead to long-term sustainable change? Even if Trump is elected to a third term (did I say that?), he's going to age out eventually. How do they prevent a backlash sweeping a (suddenly) invigorated Democratic Party back in place?
These people are smart -- I have a healthy and fearful respect for what they have accomplished and their willingness to destroy or threaten so many institutions. Is the silence and fear from the Republican Party and CEOs a manifestation of the long-term plan?
Just wondering....
Regarding the 2025 people, remember that everybody believes that their best ideas are also super popular if they're carried out properly. So Heritage et al really believe that if we remake American society in their image we'll all be both better off and happier.
Does 2025 scare business and political leaders into silence, probably not. Much of 2025 is about prioritizing the interests of exactly those folks over everyone else's. They would like to see a world with much less government regulation, weak tax collection, and more protections for business against the hoi poloi. They believe the next POTUS will have Trump's pro-business, pro-conservative instincts, without his abject stupidity.
Companies, congresspeople, universities, media companies, and (most of all) our country's heroic Substackers should think more about game theory.
The case for fighting back is stronger than we think.
https://bigifftrue.substack.com/p/fighting-back-is-underrated