Corporate leaders often justify their silence on threats to democracy by citing shareholder value. This is a fallacy, as they have a history of criticizing presidents on policy. Their silence is more accurately a fear-based calculation that creates a path of zero resistance for authoritarianism.

To influence policy on critical issues like the Priority Review Voucher, biotech CEOs are forming consortiums and going to Washington as a unified group. This collaborative approach is more effective than individual company efforts because it demonstrates a widespread industry problem that needs a legislative solution.

When CEOs face pressure to speak on political issues, acting as a unified group, like the 69 Minnesota CEOs did, provides safety in numbers. A coalition is harder for political actors to single out and punish than an individual executive.

The current political and regulatory environment means running a biotech company is no longer just about science and capital. CEOs must now actively engage in policy discussions and lobby legislators to ensure the ecosystem remains favorable for innovation. Ignoring politics is no longer an option.

CEOs remain silent on controversial political issues not out of agreement, but because they operate in silos. Their boards advise them to avoid individual conflict with Trump. This fear of being singled out prevents the collective action that would effectively counter authoritarian pressure.

Top tech leaders are aligning with the Trump administration not out of ideological conviction, but from a mix of FOMO and fear. In a transactional and unpredictable political climate, sticking together is a short-term strategy to avoid being individually targeted or losing a competitive edge.

Reid Hoffman pushes back on the idea that business leaders should stay silent on political issues to avoid risk. He argues that feeling fear is the precise indicator that courage is required, and leaders have a responsibility commensurate with their power to speak up for society.

When Harley-Davidson's CEO acted alone against tariffs, the president's targeted criticism tanked the stock, leading to the CEO's dismissal. This serves as a stark warning that collective action is essential protection against political backlash.

Individual CEOs are reluctant to be the first to push back against political pressure due to the risk of targeted retaliation from the government. The only viable solution is collective action, where a large group of leaders (50-100) issue a joint statement, providing safety in numbers and mitigating individual risk.