> Cook, a proud Alabama native, believes the inauguration is a great American tradition, and is donating to the inauguration in the spirit of unity, the sources said.
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/03/tim-cook-apple-donate-1-mil...
He basically paid $1M to try and save thousands of jobs at Apple (and of course increase Apple’s value)
Tim Cook is going to find out very soon what happens to anyone who makes a deal with Donald Trump: he gets what he wants, and they don't get paid.
> I’m sure he doesn’t support the admin
Why, are you a personal friend of his?
The billionaries are the only people who can actually apply a meaningful level of practical opposition to autocratic rulers. Instead they chose to bend the knee, because they think it better fits their self-interest. Which is what their Russian counterparts did with Putin 20 years ago, and where are they now? Either confined inside a pariah state, or dead.
Apple is the 8-th largest company in the world by revenue [1]. If they wanted to oppose the admin, they would be uniquely positioned to do so. That they choose not to tells me that either they support the admin or that they choose not to. That they chose the option that shows active support for the admin has a negative impact on my ability to empathize with their CEO.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by...
Would cancel my Apple family plan but like my family, instead, bought a refurbished second hand iPhone instead of buying a new one recently.
Will be speaking with my wallet in a variety of ways, along with calling, marching, etc. We start here... let's see where we end up. The moment is _now_.
If Tim Cook gave you a million dollars, would it be fair to say he doesn’t support you?
It’s silly the kind of gymnastics we engage in to preserve our mental models. The facts are the facts.
I don't think he "supports" or is "against" this administration, I think it's much simpler: he does not care. I know this is cynical, but if the last three years in the software world has taught us anything, it seems like these tech CEOs regard their employees as expendable, and they're willing to change their political allegiances when they feel like it.
Maybe all of us would do that if put into this position, I don't know, no one wants to give me billions of dollars to run this experiment. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.
If, hypothetically, Cook said "fuck this administration, we don't like their politics, we're not going to work with them", their shareholders could and probably would sue them. Those shareholders could make a case that Cook was asking of his own political interests, point to other organizations that did make exemption deals, and sue for losses in their share value. The reason for this is not entirely wacky: when you borrow someone's money to do something, you can't do your own pet projects with it.
Now that, of course, doesn't mean that Cook had to donate. But Cook is businessman himself, runs Apple to make money, and doing that is his modus operandi.
In this case, it's already happening:
https://electrek.co/2025/04/02/nyc-sue-tesla-over-elon-musk-...
Shareholders can sue, yes, but in the U. S. you can sue anyone for anything, and "suing" is not the same as "winning".
But fundamentally, shareholder maximization is the goal stated by both common business sense and legal rulings. I personally believe that long-term optimization rather than short term is a more successful strategy. But in the short term the board could remove him for going against the feds. Shareholders could sue if it caused a drop in value or impacted global operations. Caused by I don't know, tariffs that could have been avoided with a corrupt monetary contribution.
I'd love to actually see a CEO refuse to grease the palm and them get sued for not doing something corrupt. Would be a case to follow.
The point is, as I understand it, that CEOs of publicly traded corps are not afforded the freedom required to make an ideological stand and keep their job.
It is also entirely true that you cannot just do whatever you personally want with shareholder money.
The truth here is in the middle.
Apple (well, Cook) certainly did not have to donate to him. But the fact of the matter is that they will have to work with this administration to run their business over the next 4 years, and I am sure that $1m is a small investment to make Cook's life easier.
This is true. But it has nothing to do with fiduciary duty.
Trump dropped his lawsuit against Meta for suspending him after the insurrection.[1] They want to avoid an antitrust trial.[2] They want Trump to pressure the EU into allowing surveillance capitalism.[3] They want influence in negotiations over Section 230.[4]
[1] https://apnews.com/article/trump-meta-settlement-zuckerberg-...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/meta-ceo-zuckerberg-lobbies...
[3] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
[4] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section_230_bipartisan_b...
While that might sound like an improvement (and kind of is as at least we're getting more honest), I also view it as a big regression. At least when there's perceived shame in being corrupt, people aspire to be better. When it just becomes routine, I fear it's the beginning of the end.
Did you also call Biden's inaugural funding as corruption when he was donated ~$62 million ?
Donations included several billionaires - including the Gates family.
Is raising Presidential inaugural funds considered as "corruption" only for one party ? Or only when it crosses ~$100 million like President Trump did ?
I believe you missed another option. The President-elect has been convicted for fraud, is a big believer in quid pro quo, and did similar actions in his first term.
Sometimes it really is about corruption.
Sometimes it really is about extreme corruption.