Trump's resurgence in power has led former critics and skeptics to adapt to a new 'normal'

12 Janaury, Kathmandu. In various sectors of American society, individuals who previously distanced themselves from Trump or opposed him are now looking to strengthen their relationships or offer gestures of reconciliation.

In the weeks and months following Donald Trump's unexpected election win in 2016, leaders in business and technology began to shift their positions to the left, implementing strategies and policies aimed at counteracting his impact on the nation.

Media organizations confronted their perceived responsibility in facilitating Trump's election and committed to providing rigorous and fearless coverage of him and his administration.

Meanwhile, Democrats, energized by a grassroots movement of "resistance," prepared for what they anticipated would be their most significant battle. This stands in stark contrast to the period leading up to Trump's second term.

Executives are increasingly modifying their policies and adopting a more conciliatory stance, seemingly in an effort to resonate with Trump’s base. Leaders from several prominent media organizations seem to be adjusting their reporting to adopt a less confrontational tone. Meanwhile, Democrats, lacking a robust opposition, have opted for a cautious approach toward a president with whom they have considerable prior experience.

“A senior aide to a Democratic senator remarked, ‘We should regard him as a typical president, as this is the new norm for presidential leadership in America.’”

This change in strategy is significantly influenced by Trump’s recent electoral success. Unlike in 2016, when his victory was perceived as an anomaly, he has now decisively won key swing states and garnered the popular vote. His triumph followed significant events such as the January 6 Capitol insurrection and his subsequent criminal charges—challenges that many thought would be insurmountable.

Additionally, much of the opposition to him seems to have waned after nearly a decade of conflict. As a result, Democrats recognize the need to be more strategic in their responses.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., known for his prominent role as a key opponent of Trump during the former president's initial term, expressed to NBC News, “My mission is to be purposeful. Avoid getting distracted by the absurd. Focus instead on how issues, such as the idea of invading Greenland, relate to practical concerns like the rising cost of eggs.”

Meanwhile, Trump is enjoying a favorable reception. His inaugural committee has generated such significant funds that it has exhausted its supply of incentives for contributors, according to The New York Times. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, which had previously banned Trump from its platforms following the Capitol riot in 2021, has contributed $1 million to his inaugural fund. Additionally, Amazon recently announced plans to release a documentary about Melania Trump on its Amazon Prime service, with the incoming first lady serving as an executive producer. Puck News reported that Amazon secured the rights to the project for $40 million.

On Tuesday, Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged the political landscape's shift back towards Trump as his company undertook several initiatives aimed at aligning with conservative interests. In a similar vein, Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos expressed a positive outlook regarding Trump's potential anti-regulatory policies should he secure another term. Additionally, in recent weeks, five of the largest banks in the country have announced their exit from a climate coalition established during the pandemic, marking a significant retreat from environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) efforts that have faced considerable criticism from conservative circles.

A Democrat from Pennsylvania expressed concern, stating, “Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it is a little concerning that everybody sort of just said, ‘We've got to give this guy what he wants,’ right? I just don’t know where the backstop is here.”

Trump, however, perceives the situation more favorably.

“Everybody wants to be my friend,” he remarked in December.

NBC News conducted interviews with over a dozen operatives and lobbyists from both the Democratic and Republican parties, allowing many to remain anonymous to discuss the changing dynamics following Trump's victory.

A Republican lobbyist noted that the substantial contributions to Trump's inaugural fund and the retreat from progressive corporate policies stem from executives feeling "terrified" about the implications of the new administration.

“They will act as if they are in control,” the lobbyist remarked, adding, “However, they are quite anxious about being completely sidelined.”

“They are withdrawing from remote work, ESG, and DEI initiatives,” the lobbyist continued, referencing diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. “They are yielding to his influence, rather than the reverse.”

Yielding or embracing.

Meta's recent actions are particularly significant. The company intends to promote Republican Joel Kaplan to head its global policy team, and on Monday, it appointed Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White, a known ally of Trump, to its board. Additionally, Meta revealed it would discontinue its fact-checking initiative, opting instead for a community-driven approach akin to the system employed by Elon Musk’s X. Furthermore, Zuckerberg highlighted the company's decision to move content moderators from the traditionally liberal state of California to the more conservative Texas.

“A veteran tech industry lobbyist remarked that at the beginning of Trump’s first term, the prevailing sentiment on the left was to avoid normalization. That perspective has shifted,” they noted.

“This issue extends beyond just tech companies; it reflects broader societal, cultural, and political dynamics,” the lobbyist continued. “It signifies a form of surrender or acceptance.”

Eight years ago, many leading technology executives viewed Trump as a mere curiosity. Their meetings with him were largely superficial and intended for appearances. However, the dynamics soon deteriorated. Trump openly criticized Bezos and his ownership of The Washington Post, while Zuckerberg also became a frequent target, notably last year when Trump threatened him with “life in prison” for any actions he deemed illegal during the campaign. Recently, both Zuckerberg and Bezos, along with Apple CEO Tim Cook, Alphabet and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and former Alphabet President Sergey Brin, have engaged in private discussions with Trump.

A source close to Trump indicated that tech leaders like Zuckerberg and Bezos are now “wise to cooperate” with him in ways they did not eight years ago.

“They recognize that the anti-Trump faction has lost, and they understand that if they don’t maintain a cordial relationship with him, he may seek to undermine them,” the source stated. “It’s likely a combination of apprehension and an acknowledgment that circumstances have shifted.”

A Republican operative within Trump’s circle characterized corporate America’s approach to the 2024 election as the opposite of its reaction following the 2016 election.

“It’s evident that culturally, [Meta] and other firms feel empowered to stand up to activists now,” the operative remarked.
Intense conflicts have emerged within several prominent news organizations, including The Washington Post, as they grapple with the implications of Trump's potential return to power.

Despite the editorial staff at The Post drafting an endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris, the publication chose not to back any presidential candidate, a decision that faced significant criticism and was reportedly influenced by Jeff Bezos, just two weeks prior to the election. Recently, Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes resigned from the paper after her illustration, which portrayed Bezos and other corporate leaders submitting to Trump, was not published. The editorial page editor explained that the cartoon was rejected due to its similarity to a recent column, asserting that the decision was not indicative of any negative influence.

The owner of the Los Angeles Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, caused a stir last year by terminating the editorial board's planned endorsement of Harris, leading to several resignations. He has since suggested the implementation of a "bias meter" to assess the opinions published by the paper, aiming to guide it towards a more moderate stance.

Similarly, broadcast and cable networks have experienced their own share of upheaval. ABC agreed to pay $15 million to resolve a defamation lawsuit involving Trump. Meanwhile, MSNBC's "Morning Joe" hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, known for their critical views on Trump, visited his Mar-a-Lago resort for a meeting after the election. Both incidents attracted some backlash. Although ABC did not provide details regarding its settlement decision, Scarborough and Brzezinski have characterized their meeting with Trump as a valuable reporting opportunity that benefited their audience.

It remains uncertain how to proceed.

Democrats are currently navigating a complex landscape. Numerous state leaders indicate a willingness to collaborate with the administration on certain issues while simultaneously opposing initiatives they view as detrimental. In Congress, some Democrats have shown a degree of acceptance towards some of Trump's more contentious Cabinet appointments, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for the Department of Health and Human Services. Additionally, several have supported a Republican-sponsored immigration measure, the Laken Riley Act, which recently progressed in the Senate. This legislation would empower the Department of Homeland Security to detain noncitizens charged with specific offenses.

“There’s a general sense of uncertainty,” remarked a Democratic representative from Pennsylvania. “I haven’t observed any clear readiness among our ranks.”

Prominent Democrats, including Colorado Governor Jared Polis and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer from New York, have even indicated a willingness to consider Trump’s proposals regarding the annexation of Greenland or the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico, contingent upon other prerequisites. Senator John Fetterman from Pennsylvania, who has shown more receptiveness to Trump than many of his peers, announced on Thursday that he plans to meet with Trump, marking the first time a sitting Democratic senator has done so since Trump’s election last fall.

“It’s premature to pledge cooperation with him at this stage,” the Pennsylvania Democrat stated, adding, “There’s nothing beneficial to be gained from that.”

On Thursday, a video shared on social media featured several Senate Democrats outlining their approach as they prepare for a potential second Trump administration.

“We are not defined by who we oppose,” the senators stated. “We are defined by who we support. … Our mission is to advocate for the American people. We are open to collaborating with anyone who aims to improve lives. However, if Donald Trump and Senate Republicans take actions that harm you, we will stand against them.”

A Republican strategist close to Trump remarked that the Democratic response this time is “100% different” compared to their reaction following Trump’s victory in 2016.

“The resistance is over,” the strategist asserted. “There is no longer a resistance.”

Nevertheless, some Democrats argue that it is premature to dismiss the anti-Trump sentiment before he even assumes office. They believe that once he begins implementing policies, there will be ample opportunities for Democrats and their allies to mount a counter-response.

Amanda Litman, co-founder and president of Run for Something, a grassroots organization focused on progressive candidate recruitment, reported that over 12,000 individuals have expressed interest in running for office since Trump's election victory. This figure is nearly equivalent to the total number of sign-ups in 2017, the organization's inaugural year.

"Much of the significant 'resistance' activity didn't truly begin until Trump assumed office," she remarked. "It seems premature to declare the resistance as either non-existent or finished. I believe it will manifest differently and have a different feel."

Both Democratic and Republican leaders have cautioned against the recent gestures of bipartisanship from Democrats, recalling that after Trump's 2016 win, Chuck Schumer also identified potential areas for collaboration with the incoming administration—an initiative that did not diminish the anti-Trump sentiment.

However, Democrats who experienced Trump's previous transition acknowledged that the current situation is markedly different. They anticipate a broader range of policies where collaboration with Trump and his supporters is more feasible, with the Laken Riley Act being an early illustration of this shift.

"There is a willingness this time that simply wasn't present before," stated a senior aide to a Democratic senator. "This is particularly evident in discussions around immigration."

This individual attributed this change to the nature of the election itself. Democrats perceived the 2016 outcome as an anomaly, whereas the 2024 election is viewed as a definitive loss.

"We need to take a step back for a while until they begin to implement their agenda, and then we can reassess our position," the aide explained. "There seems to be no consensus on what actions Democrats should take at this moment."
Democrats are unlikely to remain passive during initiatives such as Trump’s mass deportation efforts, according to a former senior staff member for Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. This individual noted that while Democrats will strive to collaborate with Trump on issues like China policy, infrastructure, drug pricing, and reshoring manufacturing, they will vigorously oppose mass deportations and any attempts to politicize the Justice Department.

“The party is experiencing a phase of disbelief over their loss,” the individual remarked.

The situation becomes even more complex at the state level, where many prominent Democratic presidential candidates are located. Governors such as Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, Gavin Newsom in California—who has faced Trump’s criticism regarding the wildfires near Los Angeles—Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania, and JB Pritzker in Illinois are navigating a delicate balance.

“We’re all collaborating, of course, but each governor has their own unique challenges,” stated a senior aide to a Democratic governor. “Pritzker is focused on safeguarding democracy, while Gavin Newsom is convening special sessions. Everyone is trying to carve out their own path that showcases their commitment to their state without attracting undue scrutiny.”

Democratic pollster John Anzalone emphasized that this emerging bipartisanship “is beneficial for everyone,” especially at the state level. He commended Whitmer’s comments.

“Whitmer essentially conveyed that Trump cares about Michigan as well, and we will partner with him to achieve what is necessary for the state,” he noted. “It’s crucial to challenge him when he is wrong, but equally important to unite and accomplish our goals.”

This strategy has caused unrest among some left-leaning individuals, who find it hard to accept that Democrats are adopting a wait-and-see stance regarding a president whose actions and governance are well-known.

Ezra Levin, co-founder of the progressive grassroots organization Indivisible, expressed his frustration: “Hearing some Democrats say, ‘Let’s just wait and see’ is unacceptable. We don’t need to wait; we have nearly ten years of evidence and all his campaign commitments to understand his intentions.”