Behind closed doors, our top CEOs say Trump is bad for business and it’s time to Make America into America Again

We recently convened a high‑level gathering of top business executives—predominantly Republicans—and what emerged from those closed meetings may surprise many. Though many in that circle have publicly supported the president out of a sense of national loyalty or frustration with certain Democratic policies, a clear theme surfaced among them: they’re increasingly questioning who actually stands to gain from the turmoil he is actively fomenting—chaos, fear, and confusion—especially when stability is the bedrock of business.

The forum, hosted by Yale’s Chief Executive Leadership Institute, invites Fortune 500 CEOs and political figures to speak candidly under Chatham House rules (meaning remarks are off the record). This week in Washington, D.C., at the 155th edition of that forum, senators from both parties and key figures in the Trump administration joined in conversation just steps from the Capitol. What they encountered was a virtual consensus among over a hundred business leaders from globally recognized companies: Trump’s policies aren’t delivering. And importantly, these critiques were not framed through ideological lenses—they were rooted in business metrics and bottom‑line concerns.

Many executives voiced a fear that the administration is chipping away at the very economic structure that took generations to build—and that for decades has served U.S. interests under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Their worry: short‑term gains are being prioritized at the expense of long‑term strength, hollowing out trust in core institutions. Yes, they broadly support goals like revitalizing U.S. manufacturing and reinforcing national security, but they warn that undermining the integrity of agencies like the FBI, CIA, and the Department of Defense erodes America’s global credibility.

Behind the scenes, the narratives of unwavering loyalty to Trump from a few tech titans look increasingly disconnected from how the broader leadership class feels. The affection and affirmations he gets in certain public settings are not representative of what many business leaders think in private.

Tariffs and their fallout formed a recurring subject of frustration. Roughly two‑thirds of CEOs at the event said that U.S. tariffs have negatively impacted their operations. Many believe the burden is being shared nearly equally between domestic companies and American consumers, with only a small portion falling on foreign producers. To absorb these costs, firms have tried strategies like rerouting supply chains, streamlining operations, pausing hiring, or cutting staff—but many say their flexibility is exhausted, especially as stockpiles purchased before tariff impositions are now depleted.

One major manufacturer spoke bluntly: “If the U.S. wants to protect certain industries, it must help them be competitive—not just slap on tariffs and expect everything to shift magically back to America. Consumers still want low-cost goods—tools, clothing, sneakers. It’s not realistic to expect every product in the world to be made domestically.” That perspective echoed the public complaints of leaders at Gap, Ford, Nike, Home Depot, Walmart, and others, who have warned about the gap between patriotic rhetoric and economic reality.

Despite the administration’s push for onshoring and “resilience,” fewer than half of the CEOs said they had increased investments in domestic manufacturing or infrastructure since the new term began—and even fewer predicted those investments would matter materially in the short run.

A central cause of paralysis is policy uncertainty. During the first Trump term, business leaders often questioned how much of the grand investment announcements were original initiatives versus rebranded existing plans. Many worry the same pattern is repeating. A company executive with both U.S. and overseas operations explained his approach: yes, he supports fair trade and leveling the playing field, but if policies shift every few months, committing to projects becomes a gamble. He noted that many supply chains currently source from Mexico, Canada, and China—territories in flux under shifting trade deals—and he fears looking like a fool by overcommitting.

The group’s concerns extended well beyond just tariffs and trade. Over three‑quarters of the respondents said that the president’s pressure on Jerome Powell to cut interest rates is damaging America’s interests. A majority believe Trump has already done lasting harm to the independence of the Federal Reserve, and more than 60% think his politicization of institutions is undermining confidence.

One leader in the investment banking sector questioned how the administration could push an “America First” agenda while simultaneously attacking the Fed’s autonomy—the very institution that sustains trust in the dollar. In his words, preserving the Fed’s independence is central to keeping the US dollar the world’s reserve currency.

Still, the mood wasn’t entirely bleak. These CEOs want America to succeed. When Trump’s policies deliver visible gains, many will praise them. For instance, at the forum, some executives noted that his push for U.S. investment helped draw a $2.5 billion partnership in Kentucky between Apple and Corning. But even so, criticism remains sharp. Executives pushed back against the administration’s moves to take equity stakes in companies (like Intel), demand revenue sharing on China‑sourced chip profits, or enforce “golden share” control in deals such as Nippon Steel’s bid for U.S. Steel. They argued those actions echo state capitalism more than free‑market American ideals.

Many felt that the U.S. is handing China a competitive edge through distraction and unpredictability. Back in March, 85% of CEOs surveyed said that U.S. policy uncertainty is an opportunity for Chinese firms to gain ground. In this recent forum, that view was reaffirmed.

On foreign policy, too, sentiment turned gloomy. Executives said relations with Russia and Ukraine have worsened since Trump’s return, and many fear the diplomatic momentum gained through things like the Abraham Accords in the Middle East may erode.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, these private corporate views echo broader public sentiment: across many polls—Ipsos, Gallup, AP, Emerson, Quinnipiac, Morning Consult—Trump’s approval ratings are unusually low for this stage of a presidency, outpacing the unpopularity of even George W. Bush at comparable points. The public mood favors a return to institutional respect, global alliances, and re‑empowerment of experts in government, science, and economics.

At the Yale CEO forum, in the corridors beyond the closed doors, one remark resonated: when a commenter likened MAGA to Maoism, there was no backlash—only murmurs of consent. That perhaps speaks not just to frustration, but to a deep unease about where things are headed.

Source: FORTUNE