Politics

Meet the billionaires cowering to Trump

Published

2 years 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

Iowa’s last Democrat on how he can win in Trump country

Published

50 minutes ago

August 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Iowa’s last Democrat on how he can win in Trump country

lead image

Politics

The other Dan Sullivan makes November ballot against Sen. Dan Sullivan

Published

10 hours ago

August 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Alaska GOP Sen. Dan S. Sullivan can’t shake his same-name challenger.

Retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan punched a ticket out of the state’s top-four, all-party primary early Wednesday morning. He could now play spoiler in a high-stakes Senate clash between the Republican senator and former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola that could help swing control of the upper chamber.

Republicans fought and failed to keep Dan J. Sullivan off the primary ballot, arguing he was a Democratic plant designed to boost Peltola. Both Dan J. Sullivan and Peltola’s campaign have denied any coordination.

The senator’s allies have already taken steps to mitigate the second Sullivan’s potential vote siphoning, in some cases running ads using the senator’s middle initial to help differentiate between the same-named candidates.

Supporters of the state’s ranked-choice voting system, which kicks in for the general election, argue the process helps curtail the spoiler effect. But the presence of other candidates could still skew the results of the battleground race. Outside groups flooded the primary with more than $2 million to boost myriad fringe candidates — and could do so again ahead of November.

It’s not smooth sailing for Peltola, either, as she wages an uphill battle to flip a red seat in a state President Donald Trump won by 13 percentage points in 2024. She recently replaced her campaign manager in a staffing shakeup ahead of the primary, among other internal moves.

Politics

‘It’s put up or shut up time’: Battleground Republicans want the Darline treatment

Published

10 hours ago

August 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump notched a major win on Tuesday night. Republicans in battlegrounds wonder if it was the best use of his time and money.

Sen. Darline Graham defeated Rep. Ralph Norman in South Carolina’s snap Senate GOP runoff, handing Trump a revitalizing win after several of his endorsed candidates fell in recent primaries.

It was a victory that Graham, a complete political unknown six weeks ago, could not have pulled off without Trump’s steadfast support, underscoring just how much his influence still matters among the Republican electorate in the deeply conservative state.

But South Carolina’s Senate seat will not dictate the balance of power in Washington, and GOP strategists working on critical swing state campaigns are eager for Trump to finally direct his attention to them.

“The message coming out of this is that obviously the president’s support is still super powerful. The president’s operation still has the ability to move the needle in a lot of these states,” said a Republican strategist working on several battleground races, including in Georgia, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about Trump’s involvement. “Hopefully, this is a sign of things to come that the president is willing to get involved and really start to move the needle in some other places that obviously matter a little bit more than South Carolina.”

Trump’s persistent backing of Graham defined the race: He championed her appointment to her late brother Sen. Lindsey Graham’s seat, he coaxed her into the race with an early endorsement, stood by her as she stumbled on the debate stage, and flew down to Myrtle Beach for a rare political rally that few of his chosen candidates have enjoyed this cycle. MAGA Inc., Trump’s behemoth super PAC, even spent a slice of highly sought after cash from its $400 million stockpile in the closing days of the race.

And yet, the president hasn’t taken a meaningful step into the states that will matter in a few short months — even as battleground Republicans have been clamoring for him to spend his MAGA Inc. money.

“It’s now or never. It’s put up or shut up time, and it’s really time to start to see if he’s going to get serious,” the GOP strategist said. “You’ve got September and October to really move the needle here, and it just doesn’t seem like there’s any sense of urgency, or like we understand that we are down big in some of these states.”

During her victory speech in Columbia, Graham acknowledged Trump’s heavy hand: “Our victory would not have been possible without you, and we are truly grateful,” Graham said of the president. “South Carolina is truly Trump country.”

Norman’s take on the president’s participation was not as rosy: “The president got involved. He has that right. That’s his prerogative,” Norman said in his concession speech Tuesday, prompting jeers from the crowd at his election night watch party. “Y’all,” he continued, “his policies are good. I never understood why he got in this race. It is what it is, and I’ll accept it.”

Norman’s bewilderment reflected several national and South Carolina Republicans’ confusion as to why the president would expend energy for the safe Republican seat when his MAGA allies like Mike Collins in Georgia, scandal-plagued Ken Paxton in Texas and Michael Whatley in North Carolina are facing tough Senate battles against Democratic opponents.

“There’s the principle,” said a North Carolina-based GOP strategist who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the battleground picture. “If you’re not Trump and you have these people shoved down your throat, you’re like, ‘Okay, are you gonna help?’”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some Republicans are worried that though Trump helped power Graham’s win, the president’s overall unpopularity may be more of a curse than a boon in any highly competitive battleground state. A series of Trump-backed candidates lost gubernatorial and congressional primaries in recent weeks, including in Georgia and Iowa.

Republicans overall are facing a tough election environment given the ongoing and unpopular war in Iran, backlash to the administration’s highly-visible deportation agenda and voters’ persistent cost of living concerns.

“You have a president and maybe even a vice president that are just so underwater politically in the polls, that they might be a help by not intervening,” said Matthew Bartlett, a GOP strategist and former State Department official in the first Trump administration.

Still, Trump swept the battlegrounds in 2024, and his ability to boost Graham despite her foreign policy debate gaffe and questions about her political inexperience serves as a reminder of his electoral prowess to campaign officials.

The question remains when — or if — he’ll throw them a presidential life raft.

“I wouldn’t count on the money if I were in these states,” said the North Carolina-based Republican strategist. “He still could. I’m just saying, I wouldn’t count on it. We’re not dealing with somebody that’s, you know, super calculated in the way they plan.”

For months, Republicans across the country have watched on as the president has continued to amass a remarkable pile of cash — and many have implored him to empty his pockets in their races. The president told reporters last week that he’ll spend “a lot of that money” to boost “Republican candidates that I think are good,” without being specific.

However, what some saw as a distraction from the greater Republican cause this year, others read as the first few drops of Trump’s cash flood.

“If they’re going to spend 800 grand in South Carolina, they’re going to spend in the midterms,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist based in Texas who worked on Sen. John Cornyn’s failed reelection campaign and is now backing the GOP ticket. “It signals they’re going to make a substantial investment in the midterms because you don’t make an 800-grand investment in South Carolina and say, ‘Yeah, we’re going to let everybody do their own thing.’ This was in some ways a test case.”

Trump’s targeted support for Graham — the kind that some Republicans are banking on to shift the dial later this fall — paid off for her in dividends on election night. Horry County, the site of the president’s marquee rally with the candidate late last week, resoundingly broke for Graham.

Trump’s backing also helped open the door to endorsements from key South Carolina Republican figures, including fellow GOP Sen. Tim Scott, who helped Graham shore up support in his Charleston-area home base, Gov. Henry McMaster, and two members of the state’s congressional delegation, Reps. Russell Fry and William Timmons.

Outside spending also proved crucial to Graham’s success. Her campaign and its allies outspent Norman by more than $5 million in the runoff alone, according to AdImpact.

Trump’s allies took a victory lap after Graham’s victory was confirmed Tuesday evening.

“The power of the Trump endorsement is alive and well in South Carolina,” said Mike Hahn, a GOP strategist involved in the midterms. “A good opening salvo for the team at MAGA Inc. and the president ahead of the midterms.”