Business

Behind closed doors, our top CEOs say Trump is bad for business. Make America into America Again

Published

3 months ago

September 21, 2025

We just hosted a large gathering of top CEOs, primarily Republicans, and you might be surprised by what we heard. While many of them have been willing to support the president out of patriotic duty—and dismay over some Democratic policies—they are increasingly questioning who truly stands to benefit from the maelstrom of chaos, fear, and confusion that he has intentionally created.

The Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute’s CEO forum gathers top political leaders with Fortune 500 CEOs for a Chatham House rules discussion where direct quotes are off the record. In Washington DC this week at the 155th gathering, as clouds swirled around the Capitol building just steps away, senators from both parties and some top Trump administration officials joined us. They had to face down the near unanimous verdict from over 100 top business leaders, representing some of the world’s largest companies and most iconic brands: Trump’s policies aren’t working. These opinions were all about business results, by the way: the reasoning was independent of personal politics or industry sector, it always came back to the bottom line.

Business leaders at our forum worry that Trump is undermining an economic system that took decades to build and has long benefited the U.S. more than any other country, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, all for short-term gains. They see what’s happening as a hollowing out of U.S. economic foundations and institutions. In this free-to-speak environment (a loaded topic these days), they said that while they approve of bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. and bolstering economic and national security, they fear for America’s international standing amid the degradation of national security at the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon.

This widespread sentiment is directly counter to the heavily trumpeted “Dear Leader” tributes of just a handful of tech titans, who are decidedly not representative of the leadership class.

Survey says

Two-thirds of the CEOs surveyed at our event said that U.S. tariffs have been harmful to their businesses. They estimate that 80% of the tariffs have been shared equally between domestic firms and U.S. consumers, with the remainder shouldered by foreign counterparts. Businesses have attempted to limit the cost of tariffs from being passed on by rerouting supply chains, reworking operations, instituting hiring pauses, or administering large-scale layoffs. But they have limited options left as inventories built up before the tariffs took effect continue to be depleted.

One CEO of a major U.S. manufacturing company explained to the group: “If the U.S. government wants to help protect certain industries, they need to help those industries be successful. It is not just putting a bunch of tariffs in place and assuming those industries are going to get moved to the U.S. There have to be incentives … Consumers want products to be low-cost … power tools, hand tools, clothing, sneakers … Does it really make sense to be manufacturing all that in the United States? I do not believe it does. I believe there are certain industries where it does make sense … but it is not realistic to expect every industry in the world to be manufacturing products in the U.S. for the U.S.”

The leaders of Gap, Ford, Stanley Black & Decker, Nike, Conagra, Procter & Gamble, Home Depot, Best Buy, Macy’s, Target, and Walmart are but a few of the many who have outlined similar dilemmas in recent public commentary. This is the perfect opportunity for the Business Roundtable to advocate for its members in a forceful, direct challenge to the administration, but it has been perplexingly muffled. As expected, inflation has increased, reversing the downward trend that Trump inherited from the Biden administration, and the labor market continues to weaken.

Unfortunately, rebuilding at home does not seem to be the solution Trump had hoped for. Fewer than half of the CEOs reported having increased investments in domestic manufacturing and other infrastructure since “Liberation Day,” and even fewer said they expected the results of their capital investments to be material.

Why everything is frozen in the Trump 2.0 economy

Then there’s the uncertainty that hangs over everyone’s business during the second Trump term, and why CEOs told us that they’re watching and waiting. Across town the same day, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell described the “low firing, low hiring environment” in the labor market. We could have told him why.

As we saw in the first Trump administration, there is also the larger question of which major capital investment announcements are truly new, or whether they are old plans dusted off and repackaged to appease an exacting president. Past examples of widely celebrated manufacturing investments that petered out include the failed $10 billion Foxconn factory in Wisconsin. And while the president may still like to hold star-studded events celebrating the supposed hundreds of billions of dollars being invested in the U.S. because of him, the validity of some of those commitments has been called into question. Other pledges are once again encountering indefinite delays.

CEOs at our event repeated stories of similar quandaries. A well-known business leader with a significant manufacturing footprint in the U.S. and abroad told the group that while they want a level playing field and support the president’s goals in that regard, their company can only offset some of the tariff-related cost increases through operating efficiencies and tax benefits from the recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill.” They added that for now, the cost of tariffs still far exceeds the benefits provided by the Trump administration, drawing murmurs of agreement from the room.

Just as frustrating for CEOs is the lingering sense that this entire house of cards might collapse at any moment due to a court reversal. Nearly three-quarters of all executives surveyed said they the courts are correct in saying Trump’s tariffs are illegal as implemented. If the Supreme Court agrees with those business leaders, then corporate America’s plans will be thrown into disarray again amid halting uncertainty.

Another leading CEO in the manufacturing sector, whose products are primarily made in America, explained just how debilitating this kind of uncertainty is for their company: “Manufacturing has always been a big advantage for America. So, I think bringing back manufacturing is important. The administration has it right … [We need a level] playing field in the United States … But I am always worried about what the government is going to do next. It seems like the tariffs have simmered down, but in reality, where manufacturers import from is Mexico, Canada, and China. None of those [trade deals] is settled. So, if you want to make a change in your business, you recognize tariffs are going to change in 90 days or 120 days. And I don’t want to look like a fool! So, I’m going to hold back.”

The worries of the group also extended beyond their business operations. More than three-quarters said Trump is not acting in America’s best interests by pressuring Jerome Powell to cut interest rates. The majority said they believe the president has done lasting damage to the independence of the Federal Reserve, and over 60% said they felt his recent actions of politicization are to blame.

The head of a major U.S. multinational investment bank discussed how perplexing it is to see the administration pursue an America-first agenda but then attack the independence of the Fed: “If you look at all the things that the President and this administration are doing, all of them are in service of keeping the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency … The only thing that I have not been able to square with this administration is the attack on the Fed’s independence. That is such a critical part of making sure that the U.S. dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, because people trust that the Fed’s independence is the one area that is outside the presidential influence.”

Credit where it’s due

The CEO forum was not entirely pessimistic. The chief executives want to see a thriving America and they were quick to congratulate President Trump when his actions reap tangible results. On CNBC’s Mad Money with Jim Cramer last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Corning CEO Wendell Weeks credited Trump for encouraging their $2.5 billion partnership in Kentucky. A similar sentiment echoed at our event.

CEOs told us they still believe in the promise of the U.S. and its capitalist system, but it’s hard to ignore the Trump administration’s drift toward a quasi-socialist statism, seizing ownership from private shareholders, dictating staffing, and selectively blocking moves into strategic markets based upon politics and kickbacks. Nearly three-quarters of CEOs surveyed said they were confident that U.S. free-market capitalism can compete with China’s socialist market economy in the global AI contest, and they expressed a near-unanimous discontent as the Trump administration has veered away from the capitalist system.

The gathered CEOs firmly disapproved of the president’s recent market interventions by taking equity stakes in Intel and MP Materials, requiring a revenue sharing agreement for approval of Nvidia’s and AMD’s China-sourced revenues, and mandating a golden share for authorization of the Nippon Steel takeover of a failing U.S. Steel, feeling that his actions more closely resemble those of China than the America envisioned in “Make America Great Again.”

Such flirtation with state-driven capitalism and protectionism not only leaves CEOs facing heightened uncertainty, fearfully wondering what comes next, but also providing China an opening with their suppliers and customers. At our CEO forum in March, 85% of business leaders viewed U.S. government uncertainty as a gift to China in terms a competitive opportunity. They said this week that this has proved true over the last six months.

Similarly, in March, we asked whether the U.S.-Russia-Ukrainian peace talks happening that week in Saudi Arabia would lead to a peace agreement. Nearly three-quarters said that would happen within six months. Regrettably, over three-quarters of CEOs now see relations with Russia and Ukraine as worse since Trump took office. A similar proportion of executives said they thought we are at risk of losing the momentum gained in the Middle East from the Abraham Accords.

The CEO’s dismay across foreign relations and economic issues is consistent with general opinion polling across the board. From Ipsos, Gallup, and the Associated Press to Emerson College, Quinnipiac University, and Morning Consult, each set of data set sends a clear message: America sharply disapproves of President Trump’s leadership. His approval ratings are worse than those of any other president at this point in their tenure since President George W. Bush.

After nine months in office, there is a clear desire to return to a respect for the balance of powers in government, to reinforce international allies, to fortify independent, objective expertise of economists and scientists, to encourage freedom of voice, to stop bullying countries, cities, and companies into resentful, uneconomical compromises. In short, CEOs are calling to make America, America again.

When one commenter compared MAGA to the Maoist movement, there wasn’t an outcry of disagreement. Quite the opposite.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Source link

Business

A San Francisco woman just gave birth in a Waymo robotaxi — and Waymo says it’s not the first time

Published

3 minutes ago

December 11, 2025

Jace Porter

Self-driving Waymo taxis have gone viral for negative reasons involving the death of a beloved San Francisco bodega cat and pulling an illegal U-turn in front of police who were unable to issue a ticket to a nonexistent driver.

But this week, the self-driving taxis are the bearer of happier news after a San Francisco woman gave birth in a Waymo.

The mother was on her way to the University of California, San Francisco medical center Monday when she delivered inside the robotaxi, said a Waymo spokesperson in a statement Wednesday. The company said its rider support team detected “unusual activity” inside the vehicle and called to check on the rider as well as alert 911.

Waymo, which is owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet, declined to elaborate on how the vehicle knew something was amiss.

The company has said it has cameras and microphones inside as well as outside the cars.

The taxi and its passengers arrived safely at the hospital ahead of emergency services. Jess Berthold, a UCSF spokesperson, confirmed the mother and child were brought to the hospital. She said the mother was not available for interviews.

Waymo said the vehicle was taken out of service for cleaning after the ride. While still rare, this was not the first baby delivered in one of its taxis, the company said.

“We’re proud to be a trusted ride for moments big and small, serving riders from just seconds old to many years young,” the company said.

The driverless taxis have surged in popularity even as they court higher scrutiny. Riders can take them on freeways and interstates around San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Los Angeles and Phoenix.

In September, a Waymo pulled a U-turn in front of a sign telling drivers not to do that, and social media users dumped on the San Bruno Police because state law prohibited officers from ticketing the car. In October, a popular tabby cat named Kit Kat known to pad around its Mission District neighborhood was crushed to death by a Waymo.

Source link

Business

What it takes to be wealthy in America: $2.3 million, Charles Schwab says

Published

34 minutes ago

December 11, 2025

Jace Porter

“If I had a million dollars… I’d be rich,” the Barenaked Ladies sang in their hit 1988 song.

At the time, a million dollars felt like a lot. But as inflation and tariffs have made essentially everything more expensive, that amount of money doesn’t feel like all that much at all. In fact, Americans now think it takes an average of $2.3 million to be considered wealthy, according to a Charles Schwab report.

The financial services firm surveyed 2,200 adults between the ages of 21 to 75 from April 24 to May 23, so a variety of generations offered their input. The average response for what it takes to be considered “financially comfortable” was $839,000.

While the reported $2.3 million was a slight drop from last year’s Modern Wealth Survey at $2.5 million, it’s still 21% higher than the 2021 figure of $1.9 million.

Respondents also reported the bar to achieve monetary wealth feels as if it’s increasing, and 63% said it feels like it takes more money to be wealthy today compared to last year, citing the impacts of inflation, a worsening economy, and higher taxes.

Brad Clark, founder and CEO of financial advisory firm Solomon Financial, said these sentiments are relatively reflective of what he hears from his clients. There are a large number of millionaires in the U.S. when you factor in all assets, he told Fortune, but this typically includes their home, meaning their investable assets are typically less than $1 million.

“With so many middle-class Americans being considered millionaires, it stands to reason that the average individual would consider $2.3 million to be wealthy, as it may seem out of reach,” Clark said.

But experts said being considered wealthy doesn’t necessarily equate being opulent in all life choices.

The $2.3 million figure is “not luxury for everyone, but security. It’s wanting to have a house, retire well, have family, and have one’s time,” William “Bill” London, a lawyer and partner at Kimura London & White LLP who routinely handles high-net-worth families and individuals in divorces and estate cases, told Fortune. “Affluence is not about excess, but about reducing anxiety.”

What it means to be wealthy for different generations

The Charles Schwab survey showed when compared with other generations, Gen Z tends to set lower thresholds for what it takes to be wealthy and financially comfortable—$1.7 million and $329,000, respectively. Meanwhile, millennials and Gen Xers say it takes $2.1 million to be wealthy, and $2.8 million for baby boomers.

That may have to do with how exactly different generations define wealth. Earlier generations like baby boomers more frequently frame wealth in terms of security, London said, with a focus on property, pension, and assets that get passed down. Younger generations, on the other hand, more frequently consider experiences, freedom from debt, and lifestyle decisions, he added.

“More of my younger clients are more concerned about breathing space and time than they are about a big house or pricey assets,” London said. “Their definition of wealth is more about lifestyle than about acquisition.”

But it could also be the fact younger generations have a harder time acquiring large assets like a home due to comparatively high mortgage rates and home prices.

“Millennials and Gen Z are justifiably pessimistic about the prospects of home ownership, which historically was the most common way for Americans to build wealth,” Markus Schneider, associate professor and chair of the economics department at University of Denver, told Fortune. “There are lots of reasons why millennials and Gen Z may feel less secure about the world than the boomers did when they were the same age, and that may also impact how they feel about their wealth.”

Despite the differences among generations, experts agree it takes more than money to feel wealthy—and it shows in the Charles Schwab report. Some of the most popular personal definitions of wealth include happiness, physical health, mental health, quality of relationships, accomplishments, amount of free time, and material possessions.

“You don’t have to look too far to find a study that shows how depressed ultra-wealthy people often are. If you are defining wealth solely based on dollars, you likely will be disappointed when you achieve the number,” Clark said. “True wealth is being able to use your assets to free up your time to benefit those around you. The happiest people tend to be those with a greater purpose in life.”

A version of this story was published on Fortune.com on July 10, 2025.

Source link

Business

Netflix’s takeover of Warner Brothers is a nightmare for consumers

Published

1 hour ago

December 11, 2025

Jace Porter

If the government approves Netflix’s megadeal to buy Warner Brothers Discovery—the parent company of HBO Max and the mammoth library of Warner Bros. content—it would be a disaster for consumers and a deathblow for Hollywood. Giving the world’s largest streaming platform even more control over what Americans watch and what content gets produced will mean fewer options for consumers and, inevitably, higher prices.

There is another path forward. Paramount Skydance has submitted its own hostile bid to compete with Netflix’s. Combining Paramount Skydance with Warner Bros. Discovery would create a new competitor with the scale and resources necessary to challenge Netflix’s dominant grasp on the streaming and entertainment landscape. That deal would maintain – and arguably enhance – competition in the space, bolstering cost discipline and choices for consumers. Importantly, Paramount has also said it remains committed to theatrical releases, a stark contrast to Netflix, whose leadership has written off theaters as outdated and anti-consumer.

Instead, the Netflix acquisition of Warner Brothers will create an entity that would dominate the media industry. This year, Netflix announced its largest-ever subscriber increase to over 300 million users, making it the largest Subscription Video on Demand (SVOD) service in the U.S. and the world.

On the same day it released its subscriber increase it also announced a price hike. If this is any indication of what Netflix does when it has increased market power, consumers can expect higher subscription prices in a less competitive market.

Netflix promotes itself as an innovator: as recently as October, CEO Ted Sarandos told investors that the company is “more builders than buyers.” But its skyhigh bid for Warner Brothers suggests that its trendsetter days have peaked and it’s now pivoting toward acquisition for subscriber growth rather than spending money to create new content.

The streaming giant’s recent dispute with Hollywood writers, which ended with a $42 million settlement, seems to confirm Netflix’s pivot away from investing in new content. One industry analyst opined that “a Netflix purchase of Warner would be a death knell for some of the movie business’s most important aspects, properties, and long-held traditions.”

The merger between Warner Brothers and Netflix threatens to push the industry past a dangerous tipping point: The combined company would command about 30 to 40 percent of the market, giving it enough power to dictate the terms of engagement to consumers, content creators, and distributors alike.

The effect on the market could be significant, with some market analysts fearing that it would put an end to the so-called streaming wars. That’s hardly positive news for consumers, who reap the benefits of more content, greater innovation, and lower prices when companies have to compete for viewers.

The downstream impacts of the merger are also problematic for the market: A Warner Brothers acquisition would allow Netflix to exert its newfound power over theaters (it has a notorious reputation for refusing wide-release feature films), writers and creative directors, and the entire entertainment industry ecosystem that relies on the entertainment industry. Director James Cameron, a major player in the market, warned that a merger with Netflix would be a “disaster.”

The increased power the acquisition of Warner would give Netflix is not lost on federal trust busters: Senior White House officials raised concerns last month that a merger with the streaming giant could stifle competition and suggested that the FTC would be compelled to initiate an in-depth investigation of the transaction.

Open markets and robust competition drive innovation, which helps keep prices low, but when a handful of firms dominate an industry, competition disappears. Big Tech’s power has already shown us what happens when companies become “too big to challenge,” and Big Media seems to be intent on replicating that playbook.

The purpose of antitrust law should not be to regulate innovation out of existence, but to ensure that markets remain open, competitive, and aligned with the interests of consumers and the broader economy.

Warner Brothers’ leadership may believe that it is getting the best deal from Netflix. But the merger will surely face intense regulatory scrutiny, and for good reason—it would do a disservice to American consumers.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Source link