Politics and the Corporate World
Revised June 2025
Corporate America has never been immune from politics. Whether behind closed doors or through campaign contributions, large corporations have long exerted influence over legislation and regulation. But in recent years, that influence has become more visible—and controversial. From public statements on voting laws to high-profile boycotts and diversity pledges, companies are increasingly stepping into political debates. And consumers, investors, and employees are paying attention.
A key factor involves the tumult due to the extensive use of executive orders by Trump. He has set a historic record during the first 100 days of his second term, as reported by CBS News, signing far more executive orders than any other president in U.S. history over the same period. President Trump has issued 142 executive orders. The previous record was held by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who issued 99 executive orders during his first 100 days in 1933, primarily to combat the Great Depression. Clearly, the number and scope of executive orders made by Trump dwarfs his predecessors.
Beyond the sheer volume, the approach taken by the Trump Administration has been a significant factor as well. The Associated Press reported that President Donald Trump delivered another jarring reversal in American trade policy on April 10th, suspending for 90 days import taxes he’d imposed barely 13 hours earlier on dozens of countries while escalating his trade war with China. The move reversed a dramatic slide to the stock market but left businesses, investors and America’s trading partners bewildered about what the president is attempting to achieve.
Another key factor involves dramatic policy shifts in areas such as diversity equity and inclusion (DEI). As reported by the Pew Research Center, the American public is divided on DEI. Shortly after being sworn in, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo to Justice Department staff stating the department will “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences” at private companies and universities that receive federal funds. She urged the department to enforce federal civil rights laws to push private companies to roll back DEI, and cited the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court case, which ended affirmative action, as cause for eliminating DEI at universities. According to Forbes, the threat of the loss of federal funding, has led many companies to voluntarily curtail DEI practices internally.
Another dramatic policy shift is occurring with energy policies designed to curb climate change. Trump’s executive orders have removed or stripped the authority from Biden’s policies. As reported by earth.org, many companies are backtracking on climate sustainability related practices. It is noted that drawdown.org also reports a similar pattern, though they acknowledge that a number of companies are planning to hold firm with sustainability practices.
These are but two areas of those targeted in the federal government overhaul. And not surprisingly, there is a certain amount of of pushback from citizens, leading to public protests against the administration and companies who've supported the changes. U.S. News and World Report has identified 7 companies that are being targeted for public protest: Tesla, Palantir Technologies, Amazon, Meta, Nestle, Walmart and Target.
Meanwhile, Newsweek reported that more than 12,000 people have signed a petition launched by Christian organization, Faithful America, committing to boycott "one or more" corporations that the group says support the Trump administration policies tha they oppose.
And there have been numerous public protests. As reported by NPR, the most notable of these was the “Hands Off!” movement, which, according to organizers, mobilized between 3 to 5 million participants across over 1,400 locations nationwide on April 5, 2025 to protest the policies of Donald Trump.
This leads to the question, are there any resources for companies that are seeking to stay out of the crosshairs? One notable resource is Third Side Strategies, a nonprofit 501c3 organization. Elizabeth Doty is the Director. Launched as the Corporate Political responsibility Taskforce (CPRT) in 2021, they serve as a non-partisan forum where business leaders, academics, and stakeholders collaborate to develop best practices for corporate political engagement. The program operates under the Chatham House Rule, encouraging open dialogue among its 20 member companies, which include prominent brands such as IBM, Danone, and Pirelli.
A cornerstone for Third Side Strategies are the Erb Principles for Corporate Political Responsibility, a framework designed to help companies navigate political involvement responsibly:
Legitimacy: Assessing whether and why a company should engage in political matters, ensuring that such involvement is appropriate and justified.
Accountability: Aligning political actions with the company’s stated purpose, values, and commitments to stakeholders.
Responsibility: Supporting the systems that underpin the economy, society, and environment, recognizing the broader impact of corporate political activity.
Transparency: Communicating openly about political activities to build trust and maintain integrity.
In an era where silence is rarely neutral, corporate leaders must make a choice: to navigate the storm with clarity and conviction or risk being swept away by it. Third Side Strategies offers a lifeline—a principled framework for companies that want to engage wisely or disengage responsibly. They have earned a Green Light for their work. But principles are but a start. What’s also needed is courage: to uphold values, communicate transparently, and act with integrity in the face of intense scrutiny.
As political tides continue to shift and public expectations rise, companies that fail to define their stance—or worse, appear to waver—risk losing the trust of consumers, investors, and employees alike. The spotlight is no longer optional; it is the new business reality. For Corporate America, the question is no longer if politics belongs in the boardroom—but how it will be handled when it arrives.
Lee Rasch, LeaderEthics
