Corporations Targeted Over Politics

The boundary between government and business has always been porous, but in recent years it has begun to dissolve entirely. Corporations are no longer only economic entities delivering goods and services; they are political actors in their own right, wielding influence over public opinion, shaping national economies, and in some cases projecting power internationally. This new status as “corporate actors” has placed them squarely in the sights of political leaders, regulators, and activist movements. The result is a growing wave of targeting by governments in which punitive regulation, public denunciation, selective enforcement, and market access restrictions driven by political and ideological considerations.

The cases of Elon Musk’s clash with India’s internet censorship regime, Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan’s public censure over ties to Chinese companies, JPMorgan’s inclusion in a U.S. crackdown on “politicized debanking,” the Trump administration’s punitive actions against disfavored law firms, and the European Union’s aggressive enforcement of its Digital Markets Act against U.S. tech giants each illustrate a broader shift. These disputes represent are political contests in which corporations are treated as strategic actors whose alliances, policies, and even leadership choices carry geopolitical weight.

For corporate leaders, this evolution demands a new posture. Risk management must also account for the company’s position in political, ideological, and regulatory crosscurrents. Whether the threat comes from an adversarial foreign government, a domestic administration seeking to reward allies and punish critics, or an activist campaign framing the company as a proxy in a cultural battle, corporations must now anticipate that they can—and will—be targeted over politics. The companies that thrive in this environment will be those that monitor these trends, understand their own political exposure, and develop strategies to navigate the complex, often adversarial relationship between governments and corporate power.

Trump Targets Banks

President Trump signed an executive order in August 2025 directing federal banking regulators to investigate whether financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase, have discriminated against customers based on political or religious beliefs, or by refusing service to lawful industries such as firearms and cryptocurrency. The move targets the practice of “debanking,” where banks close accounts or deny services for reputational or ideological reasons rather than financial risk. Trump personally accused JPMorgan and Bank of America of cutting ties with him and other conservatives, though both banks denied the claims. The order instructs regulators to remove “reputational risk” from supervisory frameworks and to refer any suspected politically motivated account closures to the Department of Justice within 120 days.

Why JPMorgan Is Being Targeted

1. Symbol of Alleged Institutional Bias
   Trump has singled out JPMorgan as emblematic of banks allegedly discriminating against conservatives and their businesses, framing its practices as politically motivated.
2. Use of “Reputational Risk” as a Gatekeeping Tool
   JPMorgan’s risk assessments, like those of other large banks, have incorporated reputational considerations that can exclude controversial but lawful industries, making it a primary focus of the executive order.
3. High-Profile Example in a Broader Political Narrative
   By naming JPMorgan, Trump highlights his broader campaign against perceived corporate censorship and ideological discrimination in essential services, using the bank as a high-visibility test case.

Trump Targeting Intel

In August 2025, President Donald Trump publicly demanded the immediate resignation of Intel's CEO, Lip‑Bu Tan, labeling him “highly conflicted” due to his extensive financial ties to Chinese companies, including some linked to the Chinese military, even as he leads a U.S. semiconductor firm critical to the nation’s chipmaking revival. Tan, either personally or through venture funds he operates, has invested at least $200 million in hundreds of Chinese advanced manufacturing and chip firms, some tied to the People’s Liberation Army. These concerns were further amplified by Republican Senator Tom Cotton, who sent a letter to Intel’s board highlighting both those investments and a recent criminal plea involving Tan’s former company, Cadence Design Systems, over illegal chip sales to a Chinese military university. Trump’s pronouncement sent Intel’s stock down by around 2–3%, illustrating market sensitivity to such political pressure.

Why Tan Is Being Targeted

1. Perceived National Security Conflict
   Tan’s financial connections to Chinese tech firms, especially those with ties to the PLA, are seen as a conflict of interest given Intel’s role in U.S. semiconductor self-sufficiency efforts.
2. Past Association with Export-Control Violations
   His tenure at Cadence Design Systems is linked to a criminal plea over unlawful chip sales to a Chinese military university, reinforcing perceptions of compromised loyalties.
3. Geopolitical and Political Symbolism
   In the current U.S.–China rivalry, Tan’s profile as a leader of a strategically vital American company with deep Chinese business ties makes him an easy target for political figures seeking to project toughness on China.

India Targeting X

In a legal showdown in India, Elon Musk’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter) is suing the Indian government over newly expanded internet censorship powers. The conflict centers on a 2023 directive from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s IT ministry that permits a wide range of state and federal agencies to directly issue takedown orders for content deemed illegal under any law. This authority was further streamlined in October 2024 with the launch of Sahyog, a government platform designed to expedite takedown demands. X rejects the system, calling it a “censorship portal,” and continues to fight it in India’s Karnataka High Court. Court filings reveal that between March 2024 and June 2025, India issued roughly 1,400 removal orders to X. These encompassed satire, political cartoons, news reports (e.g., on a deadly stampede), and other commentary. X contends that such directives suppress legitimate criticism, satire, and free expression without sufficient legal oversight. Conversely, India portrays these measures as necessary steps to curb misinformation and control unlawful content, and notes that major companies like Meta and Google reportedly support the approach.

Why Musk Is Being Targeted

1. Challenging Expanded Government Control
   X’s lawsuit strikes at the heart of India’s broadened censorship regime, effectively challenging the legal basis that empowers numerous government actors to request takedowns with minimal oversight.
2. Free-Speech Absolutism vs. Regulatory Control
   Musk positions himself as a free-speech absolutist. His resistance to Sahyog reflects a broader pushback against what he and his platform see as overreaching government control, creating friction with a government asserting the need for stricter moderation to combat misinformation.
3. Strategic and High-Stakes Market Dynamics
   India is pivotal for Musk’s businesses. The dispute over censorship isn't just ideological—it has strategic implications. Musk’s firms, particularly X, Tesla, and Starlink, are deeply invested in thriving in India’s digital and economic ecosystem.

Trump Targets Law Firms

In early 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive actions targeting prominent U.S. law firms, such as Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, WilmerHale, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block, revoking their employees' security clearances, barring their access to federal buildings, and pushing agencies to terminate contracts with them, often citing alleged political bias, lawsuits against his administration, or DEI policies. These firms responded with legal challenges, and courts have blocked several of the orders, ruling that such actions were unconstitutional and retaliatory. A key decision came on May 2, 2025, when a federal judge ruled that Trump’s order against Perkins Coie violated multiple constitutional rights, such as free speech, due process, and the right to counsel of choice, and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order.

Why Law Firms Are Being Targeted

1. Political Retribution Against Lawyers for Trump’s Adversaries
   The firms targeted are those that represented Trump’s legal or political opponents, such as Hillary Clinton, Jack Smith, Robert Mueller, and Dominion Voting Systems, making them high-profile symbols of institutional resistance.
2. Chilling Effect on Legal Representation
   By threatening government contracts, clearances, and facilities access, the administration signaled to the legal profession that representing clients opposed to its agenda could result in punitive consequences, a perceived attack on lawyers’ First Amendment rights and on the adversarial system itself.
3. Enforcing Loyalty and Viewpoint Neutrality
   Some firms like Paul Weiss and others opted to avoid orders by agreeing to extensive pro bono commitments aligned with administration priorities and scaling back DEI policies, effectively rewarding compliance and signaling to other firms the personal and institutional cost of dissent.

EU Targets Tech Firms

The European Union is intensifying its oversight of major U.S. tech companies under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). In April 2025, regulators issued the law’s first enforcement actions, fining Apple €500 million and Meta €200 million for breaching anti-competitive rules. Reuters reports that Google (Alphabet) and X (formerly Twitter) are emerging as the next regulatory targets, with possible investigations or penalties on the horizon. The DMA, designed to curb the influence of dominant “gatekeepers,” mandates changes like prohibiting self-preferencing and enhancing platform interoperability—measures aimed at boosting competition and market access across the EU. Despite criticism from the White House calling such actions “economic extortion,” EU officials are pressing ahead, framing their approach as calibrated, focused on ensuring future compliance rather than imposing maximum fines immediately. Possible outcomes for Google include forced divestiture of parts of its adtech business, while X could face scrutiny under the complementary Digital Services Act, where an investigation is already underway.

Why Tech Firms Are Being Targeted

1. Dominance as "Gatekeepers"
   Companies like Apple, Meta, Google, and X are designated as influential platforms whose entrenched market power enables anti-competitive tactics, prompting EU regulators to intervene.
2. Enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA)
   The DMA is Europe’s regulatory framework to impose behavioral shifts—such as eliminating preferential treatment and enabling data portability. Enforcement signals that regulatory patience is evolving into rigorous oversight.
3. Political Friction Between the EU and U.S.
   These regulatory actions are unfolding against a backdrop of broader political and economic tension between Brussels and Washington. U.S. officials, including the White House, have criticized the DMA fines as “economic extortion,” framing them as politically motivated efforts to curtail American corporate influence in Europe’s digital economy. For EU policymakers, taking on U.S. tech giants is also a way to assert regulatory sovereignty and demonstrate that foreign corporations must adapt to European norms, not the other way around.