Politics

Meet the billionaires cowering to Trump

Published

1 year ago

November 11, 2024

Moral fortitude has never been a prominent character trait of the obscenely wealthy. Even so, as the White House remains up for grabs, it has been discouraging to see multiple billionaires and CEOs hedging their bets to avoid being found on a future President Donald Trump’s bad side.

In one light, trying to stay in the good graces of a president is business as usual for the corporate elite. They like to spread out donations between parties, ensuring favor from whoever comes out on top. But banking on a second Trump administration to deliver similar results this time around could prove a bad bet by America’s 1%, one that could leave them bankrupt not just morally but financially, as well.

The obsequious fanboy behavior by Tesla and SpaceX owner Elon Musk is in a category of its own among the billionaire class. But others among his financial stratum have been speaking volumes through their silence. Midwest magnate Warren Buffet and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, for example, are refusing to endorse either candidate publicly. Even if Trump weren’t a threat to American democracy, you’d think the threat he poses to the health of the U.S. economy would be enough for them to take sides.

The spinelessness on display is even more obvious when it comes to those billionaires who own major media outlets. Los Angeles Times publisher Patrick Soon-Shiong caused an uproar last week when he nixed his paper’s endorsement. It paled in comparison, though, to the outrage directed at Amazon owner Jeff Bezos, whose decision to spike The Washington Post’s endorsement of Harris has caused a mass exodus of the newspaper’s subscribers.

Their decisions are especially telling because of the business their companies has with the federal government.

Their decisions are especially telling because of the business their companies has with the federal government. Soon-Shiong has reason to stay on the good side of regulators with the Food and Drug Administration even if Trump mass fires civil servants to be replaced with cronies. Amazon’s cloud computing contracts with the Defense Department and the National Security Agency alone are worth around $20 billion. Trump also reportedly met with executives from Blue Origin, Bezos’ rocketry company and a rival to Musk’s SpaceX, the same day the Post announced it wouldn’t make a presidential endorsement.

Bezos wrote in an opinion piece published on Monday that he didn’t know about the meeting before it took place. But regardless of the timing, the Blue Origin meeting is an example of big business titans — especially those in Silicon Valley — attempting to ingratiate themselves with Trump in case he wins. There was plenty of discussion about the danger another Trump presidency would present at a recent meeting of the Business Council, a high-level gathering of CEOs.

Two Trump campaign advisers, who went unnamed, recently told the Post that “numerous executives” had been reaching out. One of those advisers hinted at retribution for perceived disloyalty from business leaders, all but warning that their time is running short to appease Trump:

“I’ve told CEOs to engage as fast as possible because the clock is ticking. … If you’re somebody who has endorsed Harris, and we’ve never heard from you at any point until after the election, you’ve got an uphill battle,” the Trump adviser said. “People are back-channeling, looking at their networks — they’re talking to lobbyists to see what they can do to connect with the president and his team.”

Trump has been outlandishly transparent in his promises to various business sectors about how well he’ll treat them once in office. The “quo” in this quid pro quo would be donations to his campaign, in the form of either massive outpourings of cash (as in the case of the crypto cabal) or in-kind contributions such as mailers to voters declaring Trump’s newfound love of the vaping industry.

With Trump, there is no such thing as an ironclad deal that doesn’t benefit him personally.

In one sense, this could be seen as a return to form for America. For much of the 19th century this was how politics worked. The patronage system greased the wheels for robber barons to accumulate fortunes on the backs of poor laborers. A wave of anti-corruption laws were passed in the 20th century, but lax campaign finance regulations have made it easy for tycoons to place their chips on whoever might win regardless of party. And Trump speaks to their long-standing interests in deregulation and massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. But these billionaires might be putting too much faith in the continuation of the rule of law.

With Trump, there is no such thing as an ironclad deal that doesn’t benefit him personally. His appetite for retribution is well-established, and any slight or perceived disloyalty is enough to curry his disfavor. Instead, the system that Trump would preside over would likely more closely resemble how Russian President Vladimir Putin has handled his country’s oligarchs.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the onetime party apparatchiks who seized control of formerly state-run industries were at one point more powerful than the Kremlin. But over his time in power, Putin brought them to heel, targeting his detractors for arrest and show trials, stripping them of their assets and doling them out to loyalists or pocketing them himself. Billionaires who still exist within Russia do so only through Putin’s grace.

One of Trump’s former officials, Russia expert Fiona Hill, who served on the National Security Council, noted in a recent interview with Politico that Trump “has already made an example of Jeff Bezos, who was punished for his criticisms when Trump was in power previously by Trump trying to deny Amazon major government contracts. That’s exactly a hallmark of an oligarchy or of an autocracy.”

It seems doubtful at this late stage of the game that many of the titans of industry fearful of Trump will heed Hill’s warnings about how Trump’s vision of power can be turned against them. There’s no free market in a world of kings, as there can be no fair dealings in a world where one man’s word is law. There’s likewise no guarantee that Trump will lose, which may be forcing these billionaires to make their own self-preservation paramount. But their willingness to potentially sacrifice the rest of us, and the well-being of the country, in the process is the true mark of cowardice.

Hayes Brown

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for BLN Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.

Politics

2028 Democrats say anyone can win. Voters aren’t so sure.

Published

6 hours ago

April 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — A fear of losing again is already shaping how Democrats think about 2028.

Chants of “run again!” reverberated through the packed room as Kamala Harris spoke Friday at the National Action Network convention, a gathering of Black voters, lawmakers and power brokers that saw drop-ins from a steady stream of potential presidential candidates. But several Black attendees openly questioned whether anyone other than a straight, white man can win the White House.

“The Democratic Party, they’re going to have to consider … who can win? Who can win, Black, white, who can win?” the Rev. Kim Williams, 63, a New Yorker and registered independent said in an interview.

“I don’t think [the country is] ready for another different type of person,” said Annette Wilcox, a 69-year old New Yorker.

It’s an open question the party is grappling with in the wake of Harris’ decisive 2024 loss to President Donald Trump. Conversations with a dozen people on the sidelines of the Rev. Al Sharpton’s gathering found some lingering concerns that America remains too bigoted — and that as a result, the desire to diversify the highest reaches of government is in tension with the desire to win.

In interviews, several of the prospective 2028 Democrats themselves argued that anyone can win. They poured into the midtown Manhattan ballroom over the week to build their relationships with Black voters for what became a barely-hidden shadow primary.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, a first-term Democrat who won statewide in Arizona despite Harris losing the state, told Blue Light News on the sidelines of the convention that the party shouldn’t let fear narrow who ultimately runs.

“If you got stuck into this idea of what an ideal character is … you could potentially miss some really great talent,” said Gallego, who leaned intohis identity as a Latino veteran in his 2024 campaign.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, another possible 2028 candidate, said that he doesn’t “know many people back in 2022 who thought that an African American who had never held political office in his life was gonna be the next governor of Maryland.”

“People want to know, does your message meet a moment,” he added.

On stage with Sharpton on Friday, Harris seemed to agree. She made her most explicit overture at running again for the presidency, telling the audience she was “thinking about it” — to loud cheers and applause. Her appearance at the convention energized an otherwise largely staid event.

But even Harris, the first Black and South Asian woman to become vice president, has tacitly acknowledged the limitations of the country.

In her latest book, she divulged that former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg — another 2028 contender who also made a pit-stop at NAN — was her top vice presidential pick in 2024. But she didn’t select him because she didn’t believe the country was ready for both a woman of color and a gay man in the White House.

A spokesperson for Harris declined to comment.

Some women, from former first lady Michelle Obama to various convention attendees disappointed by Harris’ 2024 loss, have said the U.S. isn’t ready for a female president.

“I believe the current climate of this country is not ready for a Black woman as president,” Aaliyah Payton, 30, a middle school teacher in the Bronx, said while waiting to see Harris speak on the third day of the convention in a line that spanned far outside the convention room.

“If Kamala Harris is running as a Democrat, and there is another white man also running as a Democrat, she would have a tough time winning,” said 60-year-old Donna Carr, who lives in New Jersey. “It’s a man’s world.”

“I’m not going to lie, it may be too soon,” said 27-year-old New Yorker Justina Peña when asked if Harris should run again.

The same handwringing roiled the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, and voters ultimately selected Joe Biden — a more moderate straight white man — to block Trump from winning a second consecutive term.

The debate within the Democratic Party over what kind of candidate is electable played out again most recently in Texas, where the Democratic Senate primary was defined by tensions over race and concerns over which candidate could unify enough Democrats, independents and disillusioned Republicans to flip the red state. Voters chose seminarian James Talarico, a white man, over political firebrand Jasmine Crockett, a Black woman, in the end.

“We saw it with the race with Crockett, and I saw a woman say she wanted to vote for Crockett, but she knew she could not win against [a] white male Republican,” said Williams, the 63-year-old reverend.

Now, those conversations are already emerging for 2028 before a single Democrat has officially announced a bid for the White House. The question over 2028 ambitions hovered over Moore, Gallego, Harris, Buttigieg, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and California Rep. Ro Khanna this week — and while nobody said they officially are, nobody ruled it out. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly are slated to speak on Saturday.

Buttigieg has dismissed concerns over his viability, including in a direct response to Harris’ revelation of why she didn’t choose him as a running mate in 2024.

“My experience in politics has been that the way that you earn trust with voters is based mostly on what they think you’re going to do for their lives, not on categories,” Buttigieg told POLITICO in a September interview.“Politics is about the results we can get for people and not about these other things.”

Some of the Black voters at the conference similarly expressed frustration with the idea that candidates’ identities should be a consideration in the looming 2028 primary.

“My concern — biggest concern — is when we get into a crisis like this in this country, people want to go to the ‘center,’ which usually is right of center in my view. A lot of people get kind of left out,” said Wilcox, the 69-year-old New York voter.

“In my experience, or history I’ve had with the Democratic Party, I feel like when that happens, Black people get tossed to the side.”