Tech executives like Tim Cook, who attend White House events after state-sponsored killings, are immune to moral shaming. The only effective leverage against their complicity is threatening their company's stock price, as shareholder value is their primary, and perhaps only, motivator.
Related Insights
When governments become top shareholders, corporate focus shifts from pleasing customers to securing political favor and appropriations. R&D budgets are reallocated to lobbying, and market competition devolves from building the best product to playing the policy game most effectively, strangling innovation.
When facing government pressure for deals that border on state capitalism, a single CEO gains little by taking a principled stand. Resisting alone will likely lead to their company being punished while competitors comply. The pragmatic move is to play along to ensure long-term survival, despite potential negative effects for the broader economy.
Unlike past eras, tech leaders are constantly on stage or social media. Swisher argues this isn't just ego; it's a strategic necessity born from tech's deep entanglement with politics since the Trump administration, forcing them to constantly perform and grasp for power and influence.
The controversy over OpenAI seeking government loan guarantees highlights a key founder responsibility: maximizing shareholder value by securing any available public funds, even if it creates poor optics. Lobbying for handouts is framed as a strategic best practice, not a moral failing.
Against an administration fixated on market performance, traditional protests are merely 'cinematic.' A coordinated economic strike—reducing spending on major companies like Apple and OpenAI—creates market pressure that forces a political response where moral outrage fails.
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.
Don't expect corporate America to be a bulwark for democracy. The vast and growing wealth gap creates an overwhelming incentive for CEOs to align with authoritarians who offer a direct path to personal enrichment through cronyism, overriding any commitment to democratic principles.
When a government official like David Sachs singles out a specific company (Anthropic) for not aligning with the administration's agenda, it is a dangerous departure from neutral policymaking. It signals a move towards an authoritarian model of rewarding allies and punishing dissenters in the private sector.
CEO Dario Amodei rationalized accepting Saudi investment by arguing it's necessary to remain at the forefront of AI development. He stated that running a business on the principle that "no bad person should ever benefit from our success" is difficult, highlighting how competitive pressures force even "safety-first" companies into ethical compromises.
In authoritarian regimes like China, companies must prioritize state interests over shareholder value. Perth Toll argues this means foreign investors are not just taking on risk, but are actively subsidizing the cost of a company's compliance with a government agenda that may oppose their own financial goals.
