Why Big Tech is funding Trump's inauguration

Hefty donations from tech companies and leaders to President-elect Trump’s inaugural fund are a sign of Silicon Valley’s shifting relationship with the incoming leader after past tensions.  

While inaugural donations by companies are nothing new, observers suggest the cash, coupled with meetings at Mar-a-Lago, signal several leading technology businesses are trying to improve their standing with the president-elect.  

“Trump likes favors and he likes flattery and these are things that do win him over. And these companies have realized that it’s not enough just to be quiet and on the sidelines,” said Todd Belt, the director of the political management program at the George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management. 

“Donald Trump expects you to be vocal and defending him and active in what he wants to get done,” he added.  

Meta and Amazon each dished out $1 million donations to Trump’s inaugural fund last week, followed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who said he would give the same amount from his personal wealth.  

The move marked a shift for Altman, who has repeatedly donated to Democratic candidates since 2013.  

The OpenAI leader said last Friday that Trump will “lead our country into the age of artificial intelligence,” adding he is “eager to support his efforts” to maintain the U.S.’s edge over foreign competitors in the space.  

In a "Fox News Sunday” interview earlier this month, Altman said he believes Trump will be “very good” at helping the U.S. build the infrastructure needed for artificial intelligence (AI) development.  

While Amazon has contributed to the past two administrations’ inaugural funds, this year’s contribution largely outnumbered the $276,000 it chipped into President Biden’s 2021 inaugural committee.  

In 2017, the e-commerce giant dished out even less — about $57,000 — to Trump’s first inauguration fund, according to campaign finance records.  

“This commoditization of the presidency is highly unusual relative to United States history,” said Daniel Alpert, managing partner at the investment firm Westwood Capital. “It does certainly look like the United States government is for sale.” 

Still, Alpert emphasized businesses and leaders cozying up to an incoming leader has occurred for years, but the support from some with different political views is noteworthy.  

“The only thing that makes them notable is that they come from people who align themselves politically with the other party and who are now having to curry favor with Trump,” he said. “There’s a certain amount of catchup football going on here where people want to erase the impact of any negative things they’ve said.”   

Some of the biggest names in tech have not written out checks for the inaugural fund but have traveled to Florida in recent weeks to meet with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort.  

This included Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos.  

“A bunch of folks ... looked at this and said, ‘Wow, we need to not be seen as the enemy to this new president,’” Alpert said.  

The highly publicized nature of the companies’ donations and meetings also differs from past administrations, Belt noted.  

“What’s a little more unusual is that people are talking more openly about what they want to do and what they want this administration to do, and the quid pro quo seems to be a bit more above board than usual,” he said.  

Trump has had a rocky relationship with several leading technology companies and their executives, including Meta’s Facebook, which Trump once labeled as the “enemy of the people” after the platform banned his account in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.  

His account was reinstated last year.  

The president-elect also took aim at Zuckerberg himself, threatening in July to jail “election fraudsters” including the CEO, if reelected.  

He has since appeared to soften his tone on Zuckerberg, whom he said he likes “much better now” in October.  

For his part, Zuckerberg did not endorse a candidate during the 2024 presidential election and maintained he did not want to play a “significant role” in the cycle.   

Federal campaign finance records show Zuckerberg has donated to congressional candidates in both parties for years but has largely avoided presidential campaigns. Neither Meta nor its CEO donated to Trump’s inaugural fund in 2017 or to Biden’s fund in 2021.  

Bezos also faced scrutiny from Trump, who went after Amazon and The Washington Post, in his first term. In 2019, the e-commerce giant alleged in court it was not picked for a Pentagon contract due to Bezos’s past criticism of Trump.  

In October, Bezos stopped the Post from publishing an endorsement after the newspaper’s editorial board drafted an endorsement of Vice President Harris. The move quickly sparked controversy as political observers expressed concern Bezos was attempting to court Trump.  

Despite past tensions, political experts predicted Trump will likely not hold a grudge against the tech leaders as they attempt to mend fences for the sake of their businesses.   

“There’s nothing Donald Trump likes more than a story of somebody who was against him and then saw the light and came to his side,” Belt said.  

Some observers pointed to tech billionaire Elon Musk’s new closeness with Trump, suggesting this may have spurred Silicon Valley’s increasing political involvement.  

Musk, who owns the social media platform X, Tesla and SpaceX, spent at least $250 million to help elect Trump. His bet appears to already be paying off as he co-leads Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE, panel.  

The panel is tasked with slashing government spending and regulations, and Musk’s role has raised conflict-of-interest concerns he could treat his businesses with an unfair thumb and suppress competitors. He maintains he will not bring any biases to the role.  

“I think voters understand and in some ways accept some high-level corporate involvement in the Oval Office,” political strategist Basil Smikle told The Hill. “But what is different about what we’re seeing now is that corporate leaders seem to have not only more access than normal but also more authority over more areas of government than you would expect them to have.  “ 

“It’s becoming not just more noticeable to the voter but also raises a lot of questions about just how much access they have to the president and how much influence they may have over him,” he added.