Politics

Meet the billionaires cowering to Trump

Published

4 months 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

Andy Beshear hits Newsom for hosting Bannon on his new podcast

Published

13 hours ago

March 14, 2025

Blue Light Newsroom

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear took a swipe Thursday at a fellow leading Democrat, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, for hosting one of the most prominent figures in the MAGA movement on his new podcast.

Beshear, whose popularity in a heavily Republican state has turned him into a potential presidential candidate, told reporters that Newsom shouldn’t have opened his platform to Steve Bannon, an outspoken advocate of the “America first” agenda of President Donald Trump.

“I think that Governor Newsom bringing on different voices is great, we shouldn’t be afraid to talk and to debate just about anyone,” Beshear said at a Democratic policy retreat in Virginia. “But Steve Bannon espouses hatred and anger, and even at some points violence, and I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform, ever, anywhere.”

The criticism of Newsom, who is widely expected to run for president, amounted to what could be an early skirmish in the next Democratic primary. It also reflects divisions within a party trying to find its footing after Trump’s resounding victory.

The California governor recently launched the podcast, which appears to some degree to be an effort to find common ground with an ascendant conservative movement.

In his debut episode, speaking to Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, Newsom drew widespread attention — and criticism — for suggesting that Democrats were wrong to allow transgender athletes to participate in female youth sports. He was also critical of progressives who have called for defunding the police or who use the gender neutral term “Latinx.”

Newsom defended his approach and the Bannon interview in an email statement on Wednesday, saying it is “critically important” to understand Trump’s movement and how it successfully operated in the last campaign.

In the hour-long episode, Bannon repeated the debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen amid a discussion that also covered tariffs and taxes.

“I think we all agreed after the last election that it’s important for Democrats to explore new and unique ways of talking to people,” Newsom said.

A spokesperson for Newsom, who plans to have Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on his next episode, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Beshear’s remarks.

The Kentucky governor, who was a featured speaker at the retreat along with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, was not alone in criticizing the Bannon interview.

Former Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who was one of the few Republicans in Congress to challenge Trump, called it an “insane” decision to host Bannon.

“I am in shock at the stupidity of [Newsom] inviting Steve Bannon on his podcast,” Kinzinger said Wednesday. “Many of us on the right sacrificed careers to fight Bannon, and Newsom is trying to make a career and a presidential run by building him up.”

Politics

Top Illinois Democrat readies a Senate bid — and tells people she has major backing

Published

1 day ago

March 13, 2025

Blue Light Newsroom

Ambitious Illinois Democrats are dreaming about Sen. Dick Durbin’s exit in 2026. The latest contender: the state’s lieutenant governor.

Juliana Stratton, who first took office in 2019, is quietly positioning herself for a Senate bid if Durbin bows out, calling key Democratic figures to ask for support, according to three people with knowledge of her plans, one of whom spoke with her directly and the other two who spoke with members of her team.

And she and her staff have said that she’s already secured the support of Gov. JB Pritzker, the three people said. They were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations and avoid political retribution. She and her team have made clear she expects Pritzker to be heavily involved financially, those people said.

“Juliana continues to keep an open mind about future opportunities, and if she does decide to pursue higher office, she’d be proud to earn the governor’s support while working to build a broad grassroots coalition,” said a spokesperson for the lieutenant governor, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Pritzker, a high-profile governor and potential 2028 hopeful, is already a prolific Democratic donor and party operator, and his vast personal wealth would be a significant boost to any candidate. His money and endorsement could transform the brewing shadow primary that includes several members of the state’s congressional delegation.

His team declined to discuss an endorsement or financial backing in any potential primary. “We’re not going to engage with hypotheticals for a seat that’s not even open,” said a person close to the governor’s political operation granted anonymity to speak candidly.

The governor hand-picked Stratton, then a state representative, to be his running mate in 2017 and he was a guest of honor last month at a fundraising event for her newly formed federal PAC.

Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton speaks to reporters as Gov. JB Pritzker, to her left, looks on with other state lawmakers in Chicago on Feb. 10, 2025.

Pritzker, a billionaire heir to the Hyatt hotel empire, could support that PAC as well as donate millions to any other super PACs supporting her campaign. That kind of financial support could make Stratton the front-runner in a primary that would essentially guarantee a spot in the Senate in the heavily blue state.

And if a Pritzker-backed candidate wins the race, it could help position him even more firmly as a major Democratic powerbroker, one whose influence could extend beyond Illinois political circles as 2028 approaches.

Durbin has served in the Senate since 1997 and while many Democrats expect the 80-year-old will retire, those close to him say he hasn’t yet decided.

In a brief interview Wednesday, Durbin acknowledged the lieutenant governor was among the Democrats who are preparing for his possible retirement: “She said if I run she’s not going to.”

Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi has been padding his campaign account for years for a possible Senate run. He had amassed $17.1 million by the end of 2024. His fellow Democratic Reps. Lauren Underwood, who flipped a GOP-held district in 2018, and Robin Kelly, the former chair of the Illinois Democratic Party, are also eyeing the seat.

And Illinois Democrats have made a parlor game of wondering what’s next for Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor who just returned from an ambassador stint in Japan. For now, he’s a commentator on BLN.