In the event that Donald Trump secures a second term, he has pledged to govern in a manner that no modern president has, including implementing high tariffs, cracking down on immigrants, pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, and potentially withdrawing from NATO. Trump has indicated that he plans to achieve these goals by appointing loyalists rather than the more moderate military leaders and corporate executives from his first term.
Despite this, many CEOs are not concerned, as described by my colleague Jonathan Mahler in a recent article. They do not believe that Trump will follow through on his promises, in contrast to scholars who have studied politicians like Trump and believe that he will fulfill his commitments.
To gain insight into the situation, I sought input from Jonathan and three Times reporters who have been closely following Trump’s plans for a second term: Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage, and Jonathan Swan. Below is our exchange.
‘They can work with him’
David Leonhardt: Do CEOs simply assume that Trump will fail to implement his agenda, or do they quietly support it?
Jonathan Mahler: Most CEOs are not enthusiastic about a potential second Trump term. They had a tumultuous experience during his first term — though they did benefit from the tax cuts and deregulation they desired — and they believe he will bring about instability, which is generally unfavorable for business.
However, many CEOs also have reservations about President Biden, who has taken a more aggressive stance on regulating business. It seems that they have not fully grasped the messages that Trump and his allies have been conveying about what a second term under Trump’s leadership might entail.
For CEOs, it may be challenging to envision a scenario where they have significantly less influence in the future. Yet, this perspective appears to overlook both historical precedents and prevailing political currents globally, including within America’s conservative movement.
Charlie Savage: The underlying assumption here is that CEOs would be more motivated by broader issues of American democracy as a form of enlightened self-interest rather than their immediate self-interest. I am uncertain if this assumption holds true.
The term “populist” is frequently used as a shorthand for Trumpism. However, this label may not be accurate when considering which candidate’s policies are more likely to enable corporations and the wealthy to accumulate more wealth in the short term. Biden intends to let Trump’s 2017 income tax cuts expire for affluent individuals, while Trump is proposing a new corporate tax reduction. Additionally, Trump criticizes regulatory agencies — the mechanisms through which society imposes regulations on powerful business interests that may impact their profits — as part of the “deep state” he aims to dismantle.
Many of the radical elements in Trump’s agenda may not necessarily hinder the wealthy from becoming wealthier.
(Related: In a recent speech, Biden strongly condemned Trump as a guardian of the wealthy. “He evaluates the economy from Mar-a-Lago, where he and his affluent friends endorse the failed trickle-down policies that have disadvantaged working families for over 40 years,” Biden remarked.)
Maggie Haberman: Some CEOs may be convincing themselves that similar warnings were issued about Trump in 2016 and that they believe he is so transactional that they can cooperate with him. However, the issue with this perspective is that Trump’s interest in CEOs is purely based on necessity. While he enjoys approval from the wealthy, if he wins, he cannot legally run for president again, which would remove constraints on his actions.
The fundamental point that these executives are dissatisfied with economic policies under Biden is crucial. I have heard numerous complaints about the climate initiatives, student debt relief, and the federal deficit (despite the lack of complaints from these executives when Trump increased the deficit).
Most significantly, these executives tend to dismiss coverage of Trump’s radical plans and believe they can navigate them.
‘Averting their gazes’
Jonathan Swan: In 2025, Trump will have fewer incentives than he did in 2017 to appease corporate America. The donor class largely abandoned him after Jan. 6, although some are slowly returning. American banks have refused to engage with the Trump Organization.
Under Trump, the Republican base has undergone significant changes. They are more working-class, more likely to disdain corporate leaders and Davos “thought leaders.” The relationship between corporate America and congressional Republicans has also cooled. Several Trump-aligned Republicans have expressed sentiments akin to this about corporate America: “We shielded you for years. And then you turned around and aligned with the Democrats on every major cultural issue — the environment, immigration, diversity and inclusion, and voting rights.”
While most Republicans remain closely tied to corporate interests, some of the newer Trump-aligned members of Congress, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, are less reliant on corporate funding as they receive substantial online contributions from grassroots donors.
David Leonhardt: I am inclined to believe that many CEOs genuinely support a significant portion of Trump’s agenda but also oppose other aspects. The executives appear to be wagering that they can secure the elements they favor without the ones they do not.
Maggie Haberman: Irrespective of whether they genuinely support or oppose specific components, many CEOs are motivated more by their aversion to Biden than their attraction to Trump. They are purposefully ignoring the parts they find disagreeable.
SPORTS
N.B.A.: The Sacramento Kings defeated the Golden State Warriors, 118-94, in a Play-In game. The Warriors are eliminated from playoff contention.
Los Angeles Lakers: The Kings will play the Pelicans for the Western Conference’s final playoff spot after the Lakers won in New Orleans to advance to the full playoffs.
W.N.B.A.: Monday’s draft averaged 2.4 million viewers; the previous record was 601,000, in 2004.
Cage-match politics: Dana White, the chief executive of the U.F.C., has risen to the peak of Trump-era political influence.
ARTS AND IDEAS
Healthcare professionals in the U.S. have started exploring a concept that originated in Britain: “social prescription.” This approach involves addressing issues like isolation and stress by recommending nonclinical activities such as glassblowing, nature walks, or ballroom dancing to patients.
However, some experts are skeptical about the effectiveness of this approach in a country without socialized medicine: “I believe that the biases ingrained in the system favor medical care and more acute intensive care,” noted a health policy professor in The Times.
