As President Trump stood at a podium in the center of the Capitol Rotunda on Inauguration Day, behind him were the shadows of the CEOs of Google, Amazon, and Meta. Just a couple years ago, this show of political support by these figures would have been inconceivable, as these CEOs and their respective companies had often clashed with Trump during his first term. Furthermore, they had heavily promoted corporate social responsibility policies over the past several years that were antithetical to much of what Trump has stood for. Yet now these same CEOs were being heralded as guests of honor at Trump’s second inauguration, in part because it appeared that they had all suddenly become more ideologically congruent with Trump since his victory in November.
The sudden reversal by these CEOs came on the heels of what many have considered to be an electoral mandate in support of Trump’s agenda, as Trump was able to win the popular vote and receive Republican control of both chambers of Congress. It appears that CEOs like these ones have recognized that there is an ideological turning point in the U.S., which may explain why they are willing to align themselves more with Trump and abandon many of the corporate social missions they had previously touted.
One of the most notable reversals since November has been with corporations rolling back their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. On a superficial level, this would seem perplexing given that these corporations had so passionately promoted these policies after the Black Lives Matter movement protests in 2020. On virtually every major corporation’s website over the past few years, an entire page could often be found expounding on their supposedly heartfelt commitment to the social justice mission associated with DEI. Yet, following Trump’s recent victory, countless companies including Google, Amazon, Meta, McDonald’s, and Walmart have seemingly eschewed these policies. The timing of this reversal of DEI policies is likely strategic, given that these corporations may be interpreting Trump’s victory as a sign that these initiatives are not broadly popular with the public.
But wait, what happened to the passion for social justice that was supposedly core to these corporations’ operations? If these corporations genuinely believed in the social mission associated with implementing DEI in the first place, they would be sticking to these policies even when they do not seem as popular as before. These corporations should theoretically stay true to the values they were professing not only when the political climate is conducive to promoting them, but also when it is difficult.
Another significant reversal that has taken place since the November election has been with Big Tech companies gutting fact-checking efforts on their platforms. After the 2016 presidential election in which misinformation on social media platforms was pervasive and claimed to have affected voting behavior, companies like Meta, Twitter, and Google made commitments to clamp down on misinformation. During a congressional hearing following this election, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg famously said, “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake.” Additionally, following the riot on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, these tech companies all restricted Trump’s use of these platforms because they believed that his spreading misinformation about the 2020 election was a threat to the U.S.
Yet, these same companies have recently backed away from efforts to curtail misinformation following the 2024 election. For example, Meta has decided to end fact-checking and move to a “community-notes system” that has been criticized for not being as effective at curbing misinformation. Additionally, Google has stated that they will not include fact-checking information in search results or YouTube videos.
Even though these companies’ fact-checking has certainly been imperfect, the sudden about-face by nearly eliminating these efforts is momentous. Once again, what happened to the heartfelt mission of safeguarding democracy from the spread of misinformation and rectifying the mistakes of the past? These new policies seem to merely adjust these companies’ operations to a new ideological age in American culture, rather than continue to pursue the social responsibility goals these companies once purported to possess.
It has also been noteworthy that many corporations have rolled back attempts to fight against climate change with Trump’s recent victory. For example, since last November, many banks that had once pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 have suddenly abandoned these promises. Many banks also withdrew from coalitions that had sought to galvanize corporations to minimize the effects of climate change. Evidently, these corporations are exploiting the more favorable political climate now to reverse policies that may have been limiting profit maximization, even if it means they have to abandon their claimed goals of protecting the planet.
There are several explanations for why these reversals may be taking place. These corporations may simply be too cowardly to stand up for the policies they believe in when it is harder to do so. Alternatively, they may now be genuinely expressing their true feelings on these policies that they were too scared to articulate before. The most plausible option, however, could be that these corporations are opportunistically vacillating their stances on social policies to maximize their profits. Thus, corporate involvement in these movements appear to be a form of virtue signaling.
If these corporations truly take these social missions seriously and seek to propagate them when it is convenient, they must also have the backbone to uphold these policies when it is less beneficial for them. Several corporations have bucked this reversal trend to demonstrate how serious they are about their professed social missions, such as Costco maintaining its DEI policies, though it remains uncertain how long this will persist.
To be clear, it is fine for a corporation to change its mind on policies they promote after further deliberation. The problem in this case has been that the changes by these corporations do not seem to be coming from a place of sincerity, but rather because they are seeking to hitch a ride on an increasingly dominant political current. It is doubtful that these corporations would have been making these same reversals had former Vice President Kamala Harris won the last presidential election.
Moving forward, any corporation professing a commitment to a particular social mission should be heavily scrutinized. The time of naivete must come to an end, with Americans actively recognizing how a corporate social mission may be an attempt to take advantage of broader social trends to maximize profits.
Image by Sean Pollock from Unsplash
