Mukunda: CEOs staying silent is no longer an option

This week the Trump administration threatened a two-front war, with one against America’s allies and another against its own central bank. The White House’s threats to use force to seize Greenland from Denmark and the launch of a Justice Department criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell are profound and needless assaults on two of the most important pillars of American power and prosperity – NATO and central bank independence.

The response from corporate America? Deafening silence.

The stakes are almost impossible to overstate. For starters, using force against the territory of a NATO ally would likely make massive economic retaliation by the rest of the alliance against the U.S. inevitable. That could range from expelling American military forces from Europe to dumping European holdings of U.S. Treasuries to barring American companies — particularly those seen as close to the administration — from European markets. Meanwhile, turning the Fed into a tool of presidential politics would expose the U.S. economy to the kind of inflationary pressures that have crippled countries such as Turkey and Venezuela.

These moves are not, like tariffs, the massive cuts to scientific research, or the daily turmoil surrounding the White House, something that can simply be absorbed as a cost of doing business and offset against tax cuts. The chaos is no longer just hanging over the system; it’s coming for the system. That distinction is key.

‘Silence is irrational’

Business leaders could look at tariffs or funding cuts to science and technology and conclude that, while harmful, they mattered only at the margins or were temporary until a new administration comes to power and reverses course. For the next few years, the U.S. still would remain the best place to invest. And if necessary, offering tribute as a way to curry favor with the Oval Office and fix the problem would be a viable option, as Apple and Rolex demonstrated. Plus, tax cuts meant that even if business suffered, their personal balance sheets might still improve. Long-term problems could be left to successors.

So even business leaders who aren’t true believers could ask why risk alienating the famously vindictive, most powerful person in the world — and his army of supporters — when doing so would accomplish little, if anything? After all, every other executive is making the same calculation. In other words, silence is rational. As long as the system is not meaningfully threatened, keeping your head down is the easiest and safest choice.

But that’s not where we are anymore. Destroy NATO — an alliance that every company that sells outside the U.S. depends on — from within and America’s global position would collapse over days, not decades. Destroy the Fed’s independence and inflation would return and foreign capital flee. These would not be distant problems; they would be immediate catastrophes of world-changing scale.

This isn’t about partisanship. You can be a loyal Republican and still believe that dismantling stable capital markets or rupturing America’s relationship with Europe is so dangerous that it demands public opposition.

There is a difference between holding power and exercising leadership that leaves a legacy. Leaders are judged by what they do when a system is under threat. Winston Churchill’s career was riddled with failure, from Gallipoli to a disastrous India policy to a stint as Chancellor of the Exchequer so damaging it inspired John Maynard Keynes to write “The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill.” Yet none of that defines him. What matters is his lonely stand against Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and, above all, his resolve in May 1940. When the survival of the system was at stake, Churchill acted and saved the world. Those are the moments by which leaders are remembered.

Draw red lines

Business leaders who have told themselves they are uninterested in or above politics need to now understand that whatever their preferences, politics is coming for them. Leadership would mean clear public statements drawing red lines around NATO and the Fed, backed by the withdrawal of campaign donations from anyone who supports an assault on either institution and the willingness to support politicians who oppose the attacks.

Although most CEOs likely fear the costs of taking a stand, there are those who have such extraordinary stature that they could safely challenge these actions but have not tied themselves to either the administration or the Democratic opposition so closely that they have neither lost their credibility with other business leaders nor much of the public. For example, Ken Griffin will never be dislodged from Citadel and Satya Nadella will lead Microsoft for as long as he chooses. There are others. The institutions that made them among the wealthiest, most powerful and most respected leaders in recent history are now under threat.

If they lead, others who are less secure can and will follow. Business associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the CEO Roundtable could help coordinate action, ensuring that the full weight of the business community is felt.

The U.S. has faced existential crises before. Surviving many of them required the patriotism and public service of business leaders. During both World Wars, business leaders happily devoted both their personal time and their companies’ resources to the war effort (while paying marginal tax rates well over 90%). Every generation of business leaders likes to imagine that, in such a moment, they would have done the same.

This is such a moment. It is one created not by historical accident or external threat, but by the whims of a single person. Business leaders — for their own good, for the good of the world, and for the sake of their legacies — have been silent long enough. If they wait any longer, it may well be too late.

Gautam Mukunda writes about corporate management and innovation. ©2026 Bloomberg. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency.