U.S. Corporate CEOs' Mild Opposition to Trump's Policies: Analysis of Impacts on Business Environment and Investment Strategies

I will now provide you with a systematic and comprehensive analysis report based on the collected data.

The “mild opposition” attitude of the U.S. corporate CEO group toward the Trump administration’s policies is emerging as a prominent feature of the U.S. business environment in 2026. This policy game relationship not only reflects the complex interaction between enterprises and the government, but also has far-reaching impacts on business decisions, regulatory expectations, and market sentiment. Based on the latest market data and industry research, this report systematically analyzes the multi-dimensional impacts of this phenomenon on the business environment and investment strategies.

According to the latest November 2025 survey by The Conference Board of 1,732 C-suite executives (including 771 CEOs)[1], uncertainty has become the most worrying external factor for U.S. corporate CEOs:

• 42.9% of U.S. CEOs
  rank uncertainty as the external factor with the greatest negative impact on their business
• 42.5% of North American CEOs
  hold the same view
• Globally,
  35.9% of CEOs
  believe uncertainty in their operating regions has a negative impact on their business

This data indicates that business leaders are viewing uncertainty as a persistent, even structural, feature of the business environment, rather than a short-term disruption.

Survey data shows that trade policies and corporate tariff issues are core concerns for business leaders[1]:

In addition, the ongoing legal dispute over the legality of the “Liberation Day” tariffs (imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA) before the Supreme Court has further increased the difficulty of corporate planning[1].

The banking industry has expressed the most explicit opposition to the Trump administration’s policies. Bank executives including Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, have raised warnings about the following policies[2][3]:

• Trump has proposed a temporary 10% cap on credit card interest rates
• Jeremy Barnum, CFO of JPMorgan Chase, stated that this policy “is bad for everyone”
• Mark Mason, outgoing CFO of Citigroup, warned that credit restrictions could lead to a “significant economic slowdown”
• Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase all reported that credit card spending increased in the fourth quarter, while credit card delinquency rates declined

Noel Dixon of State Street pointed out: “Credit card revenue accounts for 16% of the average interest income of the financial industry, which is not an insignificant amount.”[3]

• The criminal investigation into Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has raised concerns in the banking industry
• Dimon warned: “Anything that weakens the independence of the Federal Reserve is not a good idea”[3]

Despite policy differences, there are maintained communication channels between corporate CEOs and the White House. The case of Jim Farley, CEO of Ford Motor, is representative[4]:

• Farley stated that the relationship with the government is good, and “the White House will always answer the phone”
• He also emphasized that the government needs to take more actions to address China’s threat to the U.S. auto industry
• Farley is seeking progress on tariff reductions and North American trade policies

This reflects the “constructive engagement” strategy adopted by corporate CEOs in policy games—expressing different opinions while keeping communication channels open.

Corporate CEOs’ policy opposition is often realized through collective actions of industry associations:

• Major banking institutions jointly issued a statement opposing the credit card interest rate cap proposal[3]
• Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce continue to exert influence in policy-making
• George David Banks, former climate advisor to the Trump administration, heads the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), seeking “bipartisan solutions that span the 180-degree political swing”[5]

Trade policy uncertainty has a profound impact on supply chain decisions:

Although tensions with trading partners such as China have led to supply chain vulnerabilities, most enterprises still maintain dependence on Chinese supply chains due to the significant time and capital investment required to establish alternative solutions[1].

Enterprises are responding to tariff cost pressures by raising prices:

• 34.4% of CEOs expect to raise product prices due to tariffs[1]
• Enterprises face a trade-off between cost pass-through and demand stability
• The evolution of the Consumer Price Index will be a key observation indicator

Corporate CEOs are enhancing their scenario planning capabilities:

• Preparing for multiple possible policy outcomes (including restricted tariff authority or new tariff introductions)
• Maintaining strategic flexibility against the backdrop of potential changes in the trade landscape
• Establishing contingency plans to address policy uncertainty[1]

Market performance in early 2026 shows that investors are re-evaluating the importance of policy impacts:

Market risk appetite is spreading from large-cap stocks to small-cap stocks, reflecting increased confidence in earnings expansion[6].

Analysts point out that the investment mantra for 2026 is shifting from the traditional “Don’t Fight the Fed” to “Don’t Fight the White House”[7]. This shift reflects:

• Significant impact of policy statements on specific sectors (such as credit card companies, Nvidia, etc.)
• Government policies have become an important source of market volatility
• Investors need to closely monitor policy trends to grasp market directions

• Defense and geopolitically sensitive assets (actions against Venezuela led to rises in oil stocks)
• Corporate sectors benefiting from tax cut extensions
• High-quality enterprises with pricing power to cope with tariff costs

• Credit card issuers (affected by interest rate cap policies)
• Tech enterprises highly dependent on exports to China
• Import-dependent enterprises directly impacted by tariffs

Based on the current environment, professional institutions recommend the following[6]:

1. Develop an investment strategy that matches your risk tolerance and liquidity needs
2. Rely on a complete financial plan to avoid letting short-term fluctuations sway long-term decisions
3. Focus on the fundamentals of corporate earnings growth, rather than pure policy event shocks

1. Tariff Policies:
   Track actual tariff rates and trade negotiation progress
2. Tax Policies:
   Seize opportunities for corporate earnings growth brought by tax cut extensions
3. Federal Reserve Policies:
   Monitor the pace of interest rate cuts and their cross-impacts with inflation and the job market

1. Government shutdown risk (funding expires after January 30)
2. Legal uncertainty of tariff policies
3. Potential escalation of geopolitical conflicts

1. Normalization of Policy Games:
   The mild opposition of U.S. corporate CEOs to Trump’s policies reflects the normalization of policy games between enterprises and the government, and this interaction will continue to affect the business environment.
2. Uncertainty Dominates Decision-Making:
   Uncertainty has become the top external concern for corporate CEOs, with 42.9% of CEOs ranking it as their primary worry, significantly impacting long-term business planning.
3. Need for Investment Strategy Adjustment:
   The traditional “Don’t Fight the Fed” is evolving to “Don’t Fight the White House”, and investors need to pay greater attention to the impact of policy trends on the market.
4. Strong Market Resilience:
   Despite policy uncertainty, the market showed a strong rebound in 2025 (the S&P 500 rebounded more than 40% from its April low), and the fundamentals remain constructive.

• Short-Term:
  Focus on policy risk events (such as government shutdown, tariff legal rulings) and maintain portfolio flexibility
• Mid-Term:
  Seize opportunities from tax cut extensions and corporate earnings growth, and focus on high-quality enterprises with pricing power
• Long-Term:
  Adapt to the environment of policy uncertainty, enhance scenario planning capabilities, and build investment portfolios that are resistant to policy shocks

• The Trump administration’s aggressive foreign policy may bring geopolitical risks
• Legal uncertainty of tariff policies may trigger market volatility
• Regulatory policies such as credit card interest rate caps may affect the profit model of the financial industry
• Challenges to Federal Reserve independence may impact monetary policy expectations

[1] The Conference Board. “Uncertainty Top of Mind for CEOs in 2026.” January 2026. https://www.conference-board.org/research/ced-policy-backgrounders/uncertainty-top-of-mind-for-ceos-in-2026

[2] Connor Hart. “Bank CEOs Carefully Push Back on Trump’s Credit-Card Rate Cap.” The Wall Street Journal. January 16, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/banks-ceos-carefully-push-back-on-trumps-credit-card-rate-cap-975a461b

[3] Politico. “The Trump-Wall Street honeymoon is over, as risks mount.” Morning Money. January 15, 2026. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2026/01/15/the-trump-wall-street-honeymoon-is-over-as-risks-mount-00730457

[4] Sasha Rogelberg. “Ford CEO Jim Farley says the White House will ‘always answer the phone,’ but needs Trump to do more to curtail China’s threat to America’s autos.” Fortune. January 16, 2026. https://fortune.com/2026/01/16/ford-ceo-jim-farley-white-house-will-always-answer-phone-tariffs-trade-policy-china/

[5] E&E News. “Ex-Trump climate adviser takes reins of business group.” January 6, 2026. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2026/01/06/ex-trump-climate-adviser-takes-reins-of-business-group-00712959

[6] U.S. Bank. “Stock market under the Trump administration.” January 9, 2026. https://www.usbank.com/investing/financial-perspectives/market-news/stock-market-under-trump.html

[7] Joe Rennison. “Stock Investors’ Strategy for 2026: ‘Don’t Fight the White House’.” The New York Times. January 16, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/16/business/stock-market-trump-policy.html