If Donald Trump wins a second term, he has promised to govern in a way that modern presidents have failed to do, imposing hefty tariffs, rounding up immigrants and killing the January 6 rioters. and possibly withdraw from NATO. President Trump has indicated he will accomplish all this by appointing his allies rather than first-term moderate military leaders or business executives.
Yet, as my colleague Jonathan Mahler noted in a recent article, many CEOs remain apathetic. In contrast to many academics who study politicians like Trump and believe that he delivers on his promises, they do not believe that Trump will deliver on his promises.
To understand the situation, I turned to Jonathan and three other Times reporters who have been covering President Trump’s second-term plans: Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage, and Jonathan Swan. Our exchange is as follows.
“They can work with him.”
David Leonhart: Do CEOs simply assume that Trump will not be able to carry out their policies, or are they secretly supporting them?
Jonathan Mahler: Most CEOs are not enthusiastic about a second term for Trump. They had a rough start, but while they were able to get the tax cuts and deregulation they had hoped for, they believed he would bring instability and generally be bad for business.
That said, many criticize President Biden for being more aggressive in regulating business. And I don’t think they’re absorbing the messages that President Trump and his allies have been sending out about what a second term will look like.
It may be hard for CEOs to imagine that their influence could be significantly reduced next time. But to me, that attitude seems to ignore both history and political currents around the world, including within America’s own conservative movement.
Charlie Savage: The assumption here is that CEOs will be motivated by the larger issues of American democracy, as a matter of enlightened self-interest, rather than direct self-interest. I don’t know if that premise holds.
I often hear the word “populist” used as an abbreviation for Trumpism. But if the question is which candidate’s policies are likely to make corporations and wealthy people save more money in the short term, this is not the right label. Biden has allowed Trump’s 2017 income tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, while Trump has promised new corporate tax cuts. And President Trump despises regulators — the means by which society imposes rules and squeezes profits on powerful corporate interests — as part of the “deep state” he has vowed to dismantle.
Many of the more radical aspects of President Trump’s policies are compatible with making the rich richer.
(Related: In yesterday’s speech, Biden harshly criticized Trump as a champion of the wealthy. “He’s been looking at the economy from Mar-a-Lago, where he and his wealthy friends are trying to protect working families. “We are embracing the failed trickle-down policies that have led to the collapse of the United States for more than 40 years,” Biden said.
Maggie Haberman: I think some CEOs are telling themselves that they had similar warnings about Trump in 2016, and they believe they can work with Trump because he’s so transactional. The problem with this view is that Trump’s interest in CEOs is entirely needs-based. Yes, he likes approval from the wealthy. But if he wins, he cannot legally run for president again, and that is not a constraint on him.
I think the fundamental point is that these executives are dissatisfied with the economic policies under the Biden administration. I’ve heard constant complaints about climate action, student debt relief, and the federal deficit (despite no complaints from those same executives when President Trump widened the deficit).
Most importantly, these executives tend to roll their eyes at reports of President Trump’s radical plans and convince themselves they can find a way to survive them.
“Avert your gaze”
Jonathan Swan: President Trump in 2025 will have far less incentive to appease American companies than he did in 2017. Although some are now slowly returning, the majority of his donor base has abandoned him after January 6. American banks refuse to do business with the Trump Organization.
And under the Trump administration, the foundations of the Republican Party have changed dramatically. They are more blue-collar and more likely to dislike corporate executives and Davos “thought leaders.” Relations between American companies and Congressional Republicans have also cooled. I heard the following about corporate America from some Trump-supporting Republicans: And then you turned around and sided with Democrats on every major cultural issue: the environment, immigration, diversity and inclusion, voting rights. ”
While most Republicans remain friendly to corporate interests, some pro-Trump upstarts like Marjorie Taylor Greene have raised large sums of money online from grassroots donors, making corporate funding more likely. dependence on is low.
david leonhart:I believe that many CEOs wholeheartedly support many of President Trump’s policies, but also oppose others. Executives appear to be betting that they can get parts they like without using parts they don’t like.
Maggie Haberman: Regardless of how deeply they support or disapprove of a particular work, many people feel more antipathy toward Biden than attraction toward Trump. And I look away from the parts I don’t like.
sports
NBA: The Sacramento Kings defeated the Golden State Warriors 118-94 in the play-in game. The Warriors were eliminated from playoff contention.
Los Angeles Lakers: After the Lakers advance to the playoffs with a win in New Orleans, the Kings will face the Pelicans for the last playoff spot in the Western Conference.
WNBA: Monday’s draft averaged 2.4 million viewers. The previous record was his 601,000 in 2004.
Cage match politics: UFC chief executive Dana White has risen to the pinnacle of political influence in the Trump era.
art and ideas
Physicians in the United States have begun to consider the concept of “social prescribing,” which was first popularized in Britain. That means trying to address issues such as isolation and stress by offering patients non-clinical activities such as glass blowing, nature walks, and ballroom dancing.
But some experts are skeptical about how far this approach will go in countries without socialized medicine. “I think all the biases built into the system favor medicine and more acute intensive care,” the health policy professor told the Times.
