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.

CEOs of major corporations are now forced to spend a significant portion of their time—estimated at 15-20%—managing political risks created by the Trump administration. This 'Trump Drag' functions as a direct tax on innovation and long-term strategy, as executive focus shifts from business to political firefighting.

As traditional economic-based antitrust enforcement weakens, a new gatekeeper for M&A has emerged: political cronyism. A deal's approval may now hinge less on market concentration analysis and more on a political leader’s personal sentiment towards the acquiring CEO, fundamentally changing the risk calculus for corporate strategists.

Markets react sharply to clear, quantifiable events like tariff announcements but are poor early-warning signals for gradual, harder-to-price risks like the erosion of democratic norms. This creates a dangerous complacency among investors and policymakers.

The key risk facing biomedical innovation is not just policy chaos, but the normalization of political and ideological influences on science-based regulation. This includes CEOs negotiating prices with the president and FDA enforcing pricing policies, breaking long-standing norms that separated science from politics.

The U.S. intervention in Venezuela reflects a broader domestic trend of fast, unilateral policymaking via executive authority. This pattern bypasses congressional consensus-building, heightening policy uncertainty and systemic risk premiums for investors across all sectors.

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.

Alan Blinder argues that financial markets are severely underpricing the risk of political interference at the Federal Reserve. He cites the President's attempt to remove a governor and political appointments as clear threats that defy historical norms, calling it "one of the biggest underreactions" he's ever seen.