How has Trump changed corporate governance?

What has Trump done to corporate governance, both in the US and beyond its borders? The latest news analysis after eight months in office. 

It’s fair to say that things have been busy since Trump took office for the second time. Companies both within and outside the US have been feeling the impact of his aggressive economic approach, defined by major shakeups to systems that are decades old, and more uncertainty as it becomes clear that many of those shakeups will take years to bed in, sometimes getting caught in political uncertainty. 

What does this mean for boards, directors, and any other corporate leaders wondering how their strategy will get them from one year to the next? We had a rough idea before Trump took office, but now that eight months have passed, we have a more established picture of priorities and how they will land on corporate strategy. 

The main conclusion is that corporate leaders must now navigate a fragmented, politicised environment that challenges everything from supply chains to PR to recruitment. 

Let’s dive in further:

The balance of power between these two groups is a tricky subject in many companies. Leaders sometimes vocalise a nervousness around what they view as excessive shareholder scrutiny, while shareholders demand greater transparency and control, motivated by multiple corporate scandals over the years, and significant world events like the Great Recession and the role of unscrutinised business practice in causing it. 

Under Trump, the philosophy has shifted away from shareholders and towards leaders. Almost from day one of his second term, Trump was adamant that regulators should scrap ten rules for every new one they introduce – rules that shareholders often depend on for their own transparency. According to the Financial Times, the SEC is now also actively looking into ways to curb shareholder lawsuits, which may give leaders more breathing space during crises. Meanwhile, the president himself took direct aim at the practice of quarterly reports and questioned whether they should be less frequent. 

It’s all geared towards a world of anti-compliance and anti-scrutiny – a major departure from the strict standards which have been constantly evolving over the last three decades. 

Shareholder and their representatives have often blasted the new philosophy. On the other hand, it may come as good news to many boards and executives. However, the ultimate future of this pro-corporate-leader mindset could hang in the balance as debate intensifies. 

The flipside of the above point is Trump’s personal desire to lean on companies when he feels like it – for policy changes, product changes, leadership changes, it doesn’t matter. He comments where he likes, and companies, for the most part, are listening.  

It means that the president is becoming a stakeholder that corporate leaders have to listen to. Most businesses are off his radar and not directly affected, but the big global brand names are certainly feeling the pinch. Coca Cola (makes a new product at Trump’s insistence), Intel (Trump approves a 10% stake for the US government in the company), Walmart (Trump demands the company absorb the cost of tariffs rather than charge consumers more) and Disney (Trump crticises late-night talk show hosts up to and following Jimmy Kimmell’s headline suspension) have all earned direct public interventionist rhetoric from the president. 

The notable thing about this trend is that Trump represents the political party that’s supposed to be against government interference in business. His recent actions are enough to provoke criticism from party colleagues. Still, he stands by the actions. When questioned about his actions at Intel, he said he will “make deals like that for our country all day long.”

So, while corporate leaders in most businesses may find some reprieve – albeit an uncertain reprieve – from shareholder scrutiny and action, leaders in bigger corporations may find themselves dealing directly with Trump and his cabinet – a new shareholder – with or without a physical stake – in the early days of flexing power.

This is no surprise; we knew it from the get-go. The Trump administration does not approve of the ESG or DEI movements, and has been largely successful in re-inforcing a taboo around those terms. Even if companies continue to pursue it in principle, they do so quietly, disbanding public-facing initiatives and restrategising to avoid attention. 

The money and action behind ESG in particular continue to perform strongly (into the tens of trillions of dollars), and other jurisdictions like the EU are at the opposite end of the spectrum, toughening ESG reporting standards and climate goals, meaning many transatlantic companies have two conflicting structures to navigate. 

For that reason, the drift away from ESG in the US is often more of a PR exercise. In any case, it remains a strategic challenge for companies that have invested heavily in the three pillars and are wondering what to do next.

Tariff talk hasn’t stopped, and border uncertainties linger. 

Companies worldwide have been hit hard by Trump’s tariffs on paper, and it hasn’t gotten easier when you consider the lack of clarity on the issue. Whether Trump will actually follow through on tariff levels as initially claimed is one thing, but there’s also the lingering judicial issue that stakeholders are paying close attention to. If the courts agree that Trump doesn’t have final say on tariffs, then it’s back to square one uncertainty. 

Meanwhile, his administration’s actions on visas – like the recent bombshell around H1-B “skilled workers” visa now costing $100,000 – means that recruitment from overseas talent pools just got far tougher. 

All of this can cause upset in boardrooms, because it challenges business, supply chain and recruitment models that are decades old and tested. That means strategic challenges, questions over whether boards, executives and wider management teams need new expertise or upskilling.

With only eight months done of a 4-year presidency, this trend will likely continue.