Those who’ve accused Donald Trump of having authoritarian ambitions have an avalanche of evidence to work with.
After all, since returning to power nearly seven months ago, the president has taken steps to exert unusual influence over everything from the economy to higher education, the judiciary to the media, the military to museums, labor unions to law enforcement, health care to sports teams, independent federal agencies to banks, cultural institutions to nonprofit organizations, the legal profession to the entertainment industry.
For all intents and purposes, there is effectively no part of modern American life that the Republican has characterized as off-limits. The White House’s reach, from Trump’s perspective, has no real limits.
As is becoming increasingly clear, that includes intervening in private American businesses. The Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip published a provocative analysis this week that rang true:
A generation ago conventional wisdom held that as China liberalized, its economy would come to resemble America’s. Instead, capitalism in America is starting to look like China. Recent examples include President Trump’s demand that Intel’s chief executive resign; the 15% of certain chip sales to China that Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices will share with Washington; the ‘golden share’ Washington will get in U.S. Steel as a condition of Nippon Steel’s takeover; and the $1.5 trillion of promised investment from trading partners Trump plans to personally direct.
Ip’s report added that it would be wrong to characterize this as “socialism,” because it more closely resembles “state capitalism, a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises.”
The Journal published a related analysis last week, noting that the American president “has no qualms about acting as the micromanager in chief,” which includes “telling corporate bosses how to run their companies.”
The president calling for the ouster of Intel’s CEO because of something Trump saw on Fox Business was certainly a dramatic example, but as the article noted, it was part of a pattern: “Trump has told Detroit carmakers not to raise prices and demanded Walmart ‘eat the tariffs.’ He has pressured the Washington Commanders football team to change its name and wants Coca-Cola to use cane sugar instead of corn syrup.”
It might be tempting to see this as evidence of the Republican’s populism, but that’s not quite right: Trump isn’t challenging corporations and executives on behalf of workers, he’s doing so on behalf of his own whims and quest for power. (In fact, as he tries to exert influence over the private sector, the White House is making life harder, not better, for workers.)
During the 2024 race, when many business leaders lined up behind the GOP ticket, they likely thought Republican rule would mean corporate tax breaks and fewer regulations on polluters. And while those assumptions have proven correct — the White House has delivered corporate tax breaks and freed polluters from regulatory burdens — those same business leaders have also ended up with more than they probably bargained for.
Indeed, the very idea that Trump is a pro-business president is increasingly preposterous. As he tries to dictate to America’s private sector, the Republican is also imposing erratic policies on trade tariffs and immigration, all of which are bad for employers.
The incumbent president has also launched an aggressive campaign to undermine public confidence in the Federal Reserve; told businesses to accept lower profit margins; targeted the nation’s system of higher education, which employers rely on for their workforces; demanded that employers alter their hiring practices to reflect Trump’s contempt for diversification efforts, and has even made it more difficult to rely on the integrity of government data, which businesses depend on for decision-making. All the while, instead of addressing the concerns of business leaders, he’s publicly mocked them. A couple of weeks before Election Day 2024, The New York Times’ editorial board published a memorable piece with a straightforward headline: “American Business Cannot Afford to Risk Another Trump Presidency.” The editors all but pleaded with private-sector leaders to recognize the looming dangers of a possible second term for Trump. “Voting on narrow policy concerns would reflect a catastrophically nearsighted view of the interests of American business,” they wrote, adding that business owners should be “afraid of the consequences if he prevails.” Nine months later, as the president intervenes in private businesses in ways that defy modern American norms, those warnings appear to have been prescient. This post updates our related earlier coverage.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
