Trump’s Expanding Grip: From Politics to Corporate Boardrooms

Beyond leading the nation, the president appears determined to oversee the operations of the entire business sector as well.

This extends to influencing the Fortune 500 companies directly.

By dismantling numerous business regulations, Donald Trump seems focused on substituting regulatory frameworks with his personal involvement. Many corporations may resist this interference, particularly due to his unconventional economic perspectives, but they find it difficult to avoid. The outcomes may not favor these companies nor the broader public.

In recent months, the president has taken several notable actions. He imposed a 15 percent tax on Nvidia’s AI chips sold to China and reportedly pressured the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan over his previous affiliations with Chinese companies. He also compelled firms involved in a significant steel merger to grant the U.S. government the right to appoint a board member in the merged entity. Additionally, he suggested that Goldman Sachs dismiss its chief economist for forecasting that tariffs would ultimately increase inflation—a prediction shared by many independent economists. Furthermore, he demanded that Coca-Cola revert to using cane sugar in its flagship soda instead of the long-used high-fructose corn syrup.

However, the president’s economic views often clash with market realities. He urges energy companies to ramp up drilling even when market signals advise caution. Regulatory rollbacks occur after companies have already invested heavily to comply. His skepticism toward clean energy conflicts with the growing demand for sustainable power sources, particularly as states like Texas lead in wind and solar energy production.

Trump’s eagerness to control deals is evident. After initially opposing the Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel merger, he reversed course, reportedly on the condition that his administration receive a ‘golden share’ granting personal influence over major corporate decisions.

Regarding efforts to revive manufacturing, Federal Reserve data shows that manufacturing’s share in the economy has remained fairly constant since 1947. Relocating production globally is costly and slow, and consumer preferences do not necessarily favor higher-priced American-made products or the jobs that come with them.

Trump insisted that Walmart absorb a proposed 30 percent tariff on Chinese imports despite widespread consumer preference for affordable goods. Meanwhile, consumers have shown little concern about changes to Coca-Cola’s sweetener. The 1985 backlash to New Coke demonstrated that customers can clearly express their preferences without government intervention.

Companies understand that consumer accountability remains paramount, even if government agencies do not prioritize environmental protection. Therefore, corporate interests align with sustainable practices.

Insurance companies acknowledge climate science through underwriting policies, evident in rising hurricane insurance rates in Florida. Despite the president’s opposition to clean technologies and efforts to hinder electric vehicle sales, the transition away from internal combustion engines is inevitable—though likely to be more expensive for manufacturers and consumers.

Trump’s track record includes leading six businesses into bankruptcy, a fact that challenges his reputation as a savvy businessman. Nevertheless, American corporate leaders must engage with his administration. For example, JPMorgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon appears to have reconciled with the president, while Ford’s executive chairman faces the challenge of having his family company politicized despite Ford’s longstanding international manufacturing presence.

This effort to embed government influence in private industry reflects a model of state capitalism more commonly seen in China or parts of Europe, contrasting with traditional Republican values that favor minimal governmental interference in business and trust in market forces, as advocated by economist F.A. Hayek.

History shows that government takeovers of struggling businesses rarely yield positive results, as exemplified by Amtrak’s challenges.

While government involvement has proven essential in developing sectors like computing, the internet, and clean energy, the president’s direct attempts to steer corporations risk harming businesses, consumers, and the principles of capitalism. The administration would be better served focusing on governance while allowing experienced executives to manage America’s businesses.