More than 400 New York tech executives last week signed a letter opposing President Donald Trump's order restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. Goldman Sachs' CEO issued a strong statement condemning the move. Other executives chimed in.

But that doesn't mean those business leaders are eager to enlist in any major effort to mobilize resistance to Trump and his agenda, just as they won't oppose Mayor Bill de Blasio's re-election effort this year or Gov. Andrew Cuomo's next year. Here's why:

As Andrew Ross Sorkin noted last week in The New York Times, the vast majority of corporate comments on the immigration action were narrowly focused and carefully avoided direct criticism of the president. During the campaign in the fall, Sorkin wrote that every CEO he met with told him they feared a Trump presidency, but that he could count on one hand the number who would say so publicly.

The primary obligation of the nation's top business leaders, after all, is to benefit their companies, and getting on the wrong side of a president, mayor or governor is not the way to do that. So tech leaders made nice with Trump after his election, and auto-company executives have been falling over themselves to find an accommodation with him precisely because his threats to curtail trade with Mexico could hurt their businesses.

Or consider the way the city's real estate industry forged such a strong alliance with de Blasio shortly after his election. No industry is more dependent on local government than real estate, because it needs city approval for virtually all development. The mayor wanted more affordable housing, and the industry came up with a way to do that profitably. Both sides are now deeply intertwined.

It has always been that way. When David Dinkins defeated Ed Koch in the 1989 Democratic primary, executives who had supported Koch rushed to finance Dinkins' general election campaign because they assumed he would win, even though Rudy Giuliani represented an alternative more compatible with their industry. Virtually no businesspeople supported Michael Bloomberg's 2001 campaign, even though he was one of their own, because they didn't think he would be elected.

Only twice did business groups in New York mobilize against an incumbent. The first came in 1993, when they supported Giuliani because they believed the city's crime and fiscal crisis could ruin its future. A year later they opposed Mario Cuomo's effort for a fourth term for similar reasons.

Executives will do the same against Trump only if they come to believe the very future of the country is at stake. It would be a big step, and it wouldn't be taken quickly—only if they believe they have no choice. 

More than 400 New York tech executives last week signed a letter opposing President Donald Trump's order restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. Goldman Sachs' CEO issued a strong statement condemning the move. Other executives chimed in.

But that doesn't mean those business leaders are eager to enlist in any major effort to mobilize resistance to Trump and his agenda, just as they won't oppose Mayor Bill de Blasio's re-election effort this year or Gov. Andrew Cuomo's next year. Here's why:

As Andrew Ross Sorkin noted last week in The New York Times, the vast majority of corporate comments on the immigration action were narrowly focused and carefully avoided direct criticism of the president. During the campaign in the fall, Sorkin wrote that every CEO he met with told him they feared a Trump presidency, but that he could count on one hand the number who would say so publicly.

The primary obligation of the nation's top business leaders, after all, is to benefit their companies, and getting on the wrong side of a president, mayor or governor is not the way to do that. So tech leaders made nice with Trump after his election, and auto-company executives have been falling over themselves to find an accommodation with him precisely because his threats to curtail trade with Mexico could hurt their businesses.

Or consider the way the city's real estate industry forged such a strong alliance with de Blasio shortly after his election. No industry is more dependent on local government than real estate, because it needs city approval for virtually all development. The mayor wanted more affordable housing, and the industry came up with a way to do that profitably. Both sides are now deeply intertwined.

It has always been that way. When David Dinkins defeated Ed Koch in the 1989 Democratic primary, executives who had supported Koch rushed to finance Dinkins' general election campaign because they assumed he would win, even though Rudy Giuliani represented an alternative more compatible with their industry. Virtually no businesspeople supported Michael Bloomberg's 2001 campaign, even though he was one of their own, because they didn't think he would be elected.

Only twice did business groups in New York mobilize against an incumbent. The first came in 1993, when they supported Giuliani because they believed the city's crime and fiscal crisis could ruin its future. A year later they opposed Mario Cuomo's effort for a fourth term for similar reasons.

Executives will do the same against Trump only if they come to believe the very future of the country is at stake. It would be a big step, and it wouldn't be taken quickly—only if they believe they have no choice. 

A version of this article appears in the February 6, 2017, print issue of Crain's New York Business.

Sign up for our FREE daily email newsletter. A summary of the day's top business and political headlines from the newsroom of Crain's New York Business.

More Newsletters ›

Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.