Crisis of Courage Part I: Corporate America Doesn’t Care About Us

“If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States.” – Henry A. Wallace, 33rd vice president of the United States

I’ve never been one to sit on the sidelines. Call it righteous indignation if you like, but I cannot stand injustice, hypocrisy, or corruption. I cannot stand these things in leadership, but I especially cannot stand when others ignore these traits, or worse justify them when they’re so obviously part of a leader’s identity.

Unfortunately, injustice, hypocrisy, and corruption are now openly part of the identity of the United States federal government, and few seem to be doing anything about it. Or worse, many others are openly cheering it.

Matt Labash had an excellent article detailing the crisis of cowardice in Our New Pandemic: Moral Cowardice:

But you could substitute any number of other names for the moral coward, JD Vance’s. Like say, Speaker Mike Johnson’s, who theoretically lives in Shreveport, Louisiana, but who mostly lives on his knees before Trump/Musk. Or you could add 7/10ths of brocasters, or 8/10ths of the broligarchy, or 10/10ths of Republican Senators, who are passing through one disastrous Cabinet pick after another — from accused sexual-assaulters, to dictator-coddlers, to science-deniers, to enemies-list keepers. People who would never even be considered, let alone confirmed, under a sane president. But who, when an insane president’s party is too cowardly to stand up to his insanity, decide instead to become an instrument of his madness.

History has always tested societies with moments that demand courage – moments where individuals choose between the easy road of complacency or the hard, upright path of resistance.

In the United States, we find ourselves in such a moment. The erosion of democracy under the Trump administration has been met with a collective shrug from many of our most powerful institutions—business leaders especially, who prioritize profit over morality or virtue.

This is not just a political crisis. It is also a moral crisis, and I see HR as being on the frontline whether they want it or not, or know it or not, but more on that in part II.

The Business World’s Silent Capitulation

Many corporate leaders who once positioned themselves as champions of democracy have found themselves tongue-tied in the face of authoritarianism. Rather than taking a moral stand, they have chosen self-preservation, appeasement, or outright complicity.

But hey, the shareholders need their cut, right?

Examples abound where business leaders and major corporations have either refused to push back or have actively enabled corruption:

1. Tech Industry’s Inaugural Support: During President Trump’s inauguration, major tech companies such as Amazon, Meta, Apple, and Alphabet each donated $1 million to the inaugural fund. These contributions were seen as efforts to foster favorable relations with the administration, especially given previous tensions over regulatory issues. en.wikipedia.org
2. Energy Sector’s Endorsement of Policy Changes: Following President Trump’s executive actions aimed at deregulating the energy industry, including withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord and expediting fossil fuel projects, industry groups like the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute publicly praised these measures. Their support underscored a strategic alignment with the administration’s agenda to reduce environmental regulations. foxbusiness.com
3. Corporate Adoption of ‘Gulf of America’ Terminology: After an executive order renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America,” companies such as BP, Chevron, Shell, Google, Microsoft, and Apple promptly adopted the new terminology in their communications and maps. This swift compliance highlighted their willingness to align with the administration’s nationalistic initiatives, despite public controversy and criticism. wsj.com
4. Elon Musk’s Government Efficiency Initiatives: Elon Musk, CEO of companies like Tesla and SpaceX, has closely collaborated with President Trump, leading significant cuts within U.S. government agencies through the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge). This partnership not only aligns Musk’s business interests with federal policies but also positions his companies to benefit from increased privatization and government contracts. theguardian.com
5. Financial Sector’s Optimism Towards Deregulation: Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan expressed enthusiasm for the Trump administration’s fiscal policies, highlighting expectations of increased mergers and acquisitions activity and a more favorable investment climate due to deregulation efforts. Such public endorsements reflect the financial industry’s approval of the administration’s economic strategies. foxbusiness.com

These instances illustrate how various businesses have actively supported and aligned themselves with the Trump administration’s policies, often adjusting their practices and public communications to maintain favorable relations and potentially benefit from the administration’s regulatory and economic initiatives.

This is the literal definition of economic fascism, an economy where the government subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. Unfortunately, the word “fascist” has been used too much as an attack on things the accuser didn’t like, so it’s lost most of, if not all of, its meaning. Merriam-Webster’s definition of fascism is “a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.”

The results of moral-less businesses bowing to their Führer:

1. Politicization of the Justice Department: The administration has undertaken measures that compromise the independence of the Justice Department. This includes demanding the identities of FBI agents involved in the Capitol riot investigation, suing a state attorney general who won a fraud case against Trump, and dismissing a criminal case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. These actions have led to widespread criticism and resignations within the department. apnews.com
2. Selective Immigration Policies Favoring White South Africans: President Trump signed an executive order to resettle Afrikaner refugees from South Africa, citing claims of racial discrimination and property confiscation. This policy favors white South Africans while revoking humanitarian parole for refugees from countries such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, leaving many in legal uncertainty. Critics argue this reflects a racially biased immigration agenda. wired.com
3. Dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives: The administration has targeted DEI programs, removing two of the three Democratic commissioners from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), leaving it without the quorum necessary to function. This move undermines efforts to address workplace discrimination and promote inclusivity. apnews.com
4. Erosion of Government Integrity Mechanisms: In its initial weeks, the administration aggressively targeted mechanisms designed to uphold government integrity. Actions include forcing out leaders of offices responsible for ethics and whistleblower complaints, pausing enforcement of anti-bribery laws, and purging inspectors general. These efforts weaken oversight bodies and blur the line between public responsibilities and private financial interests. apnews.com
5. Dismantling Election Security Efforts: The administration has undermined federal efforts to monitor election interference, creating openings for foreign meddling. Key agencies like the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have faced cutbacks and task force disbandment, undermining their ability to address foreign influence and misinformation. apnews.com
6. Targeting Independent Media Outlets: The administration has taken steps to suppress media organizations that do not align with its views. Notably, President Trump issued an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” and subsequently banned the Associated Press from covering White House events due to their refusal to adopt the new terminology. This action has been widely criticized as an infringement on press freedom and a violation of First Amendment rights. theguardian.com

But again, shareholders need their cut, right?

And if you think it’s hyperbole, just read history. This same kowtowing from businesses happened in Nazi Germany.  A great post on BlueSky by Laurie Ruettimann reminds us to expect less from those who care little about you anyway. Corporations don’t care about the greater good. Only cozying up to dictators to get their piece of the pie.

In my next post, I’ll discuss what HR professionals with a conscience and an appetite for courage can do about it.

© 2025 HR Philosopher. All rights reserved.