Even when peers privately support your cause, publicly challenging leadership puts you on a list. When the next round of layoffs occurs, being known as an internal agitator makes you an easy target for removal, a 'cruel truth of capitalism.'

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.

While sometimes viewed as ineffective, trade associations serve a critical function by allowing CEOs to take political stances in aggregate. This collective voice provides a shield against the individual targeting and retribution that solo actors might face.

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.

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 a president targets a specific corporate board member, it shifts markets from predictable, rules-based competition to a personality-driven system. Investors can price regulatory changes, but they struggle to price discretionary political targeting, which undermines market stability.

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.