In a dimly lit ballroom on Thursday, U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Suzanne Clark delivered a message that was firm in principle but cautious in tone. She urged business leaders to be “fearless” in standing up for free markets over government control, stressing that the United States must remain “open to the world—open to the global exchange of talent, goods, ideas, and innovation.”
While Clark never mentioned President Donald Trump by name, her remarks were widely interpreted as a subtle signal of concern. As the head of the nation’s most powerful business lobby, her speech reflected how American CEOs offer a restrained pushback against Trump at a time when his administration has taken an unusually hands-on approach to corporate affairs. Trump has pushed the government into tech-sector investments, asserted influence over corporate equity structures, imposed sweeping tariffs, and advanced immigration policies opposed by the Chamber.
Cautious Criticism From the Corner Office
Clark’s carefully worded stance mirrors a broader pattern among top executives. In recent weeks, several high-profile CEOs—including Exxon Mobil’s Darren Woods and JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon—have voiced limited criticism of specific Trump policies. Their comments, however, have largely focused on areas directly affecting their businesses, such as Venezuela’s oil sector or the independence of the Federal Reserve.
Notably, Clark avoided naming Trump or detailing his policies in her address. Corporate governance experts say this restraint reflects a widespread fear among executives that open dissent could trigger retaliation from the administration. That marks a sharp contrast with Trump’s first term, when many business leaders more openly criticized him, particularly after the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Fear of Retaliation Shapes the Response
Even as controversial actions—from aggressive immigration enforcement to talk of seizing Greenland—raise alarms about economic fallout, many business leaders have responded with what critics call muted concern. Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor and former chief ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush, described the corporate response as “milquetoast.”
Painter argued that Trump’s governing style leans toward authoritarianism, diverging sharply from Bush-era free-market principles. “I’d like to see a much more aggressive stance from the Chamber,” Painter said. “Executives may support the president politically, but they should speak out against coercion—whether it targets protesters or CEOs who don’t follow the White House line.”
New York City Comptroller Mark Levine echoed that sentiment, saying corporate leaders have taken only “baby steps,” often speaking up only when their own bottom lines are directly threatened. “Capitalism doesn’t function if a president with autocratic tendencies dictates how every company in America should behave,” Levine said.
Quiet Lobbying, Public Silence
Responding to criticism, a Chamber of Commerce spokesperson pointed to a recent briefing in which Clark emphasized the group’s consistent opposition to government interference in business, regardless of political party. She said many CEOs are doing “quiet work” behind the scenes to promote sound policies rather than engaging in public outrage.
Neil Bradley, the Chamber’s chief policy officer, has also said the organization aims to respond to Trump in a nonpartisan manner to preserve long-term support for free markets.
Meanwhile, Trump’s approval rating on the economy stands at 36%, trailing his overall approval rating of 41%, despite his repeated claims of economic success. “Growth is exploding, productivity is soaring, investment is booming,” Trump said during a speech in Detroit, dismissing criticism from business leaders.
Selective Pushback, Real Consequences
A handful of executives have tested the limits of that restraint. Exxon’s Darren Woods publicly described Venezuela as “uninvestable,” contradicting White House optimism. Days later, Trump suggested Exxon could be excluded from future deals there. JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon defended Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s independence amid a federal investigation, warning that political interference could fuel inflation. Trump brushed off Dimon’s remarks.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla also criticized the rollback of childhood vaccine recommendations, calling the move scientifically baseless. In each case, the companies declined further comment, underscoring the caution that now defines corporate engagement with politics.
Uncertainty Looms Over Boardrooms
A recent Conference Board survey found that uncertainty is the top risk factor for U.S. CEOs heading into 2026. While the survey did not explicitly mention Trump, economists say executives recognize that the rules of lobbying have changed.
Gary Clyde Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics believes many CEOs are carefully calibrating their words to avoid backlash while positioning their companies to benefit from administration priorities. But he warned that silence carries its own risks. If businesses fail to push back now, heavier regulation could follow in the future.
“Some executives may think this is just a passing phase,” Hufbauer said. “But state-driven capitalism appeals to both progressive Democrats and some MAGA Republicans. If corporate leaders stay quiet, they may be asleep at the switch.”
Taken together, the moment illustrates how American CEOs offer a restrained pushback against Trump—defending free-market ideals in principle, while treading carefully in practice amid an increasingly uncertain political climate.
