The White House Loyalty Scorecard: Blurring the Lines Between State and Market
September 11, 2025
The White House has confirmed reports that the West Wing created a scorecard rating 553 companies on how strongly they have supported President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” and other policy initiatives.
The scorecard, deemed a “loyalty rating system”, rates companies on their perceived support for the Government’s agenda and also takes into account social media posts, press releases, video testimonials, advertisements and attendance at White House events. Based on these criteria, companies are classified as strong, moderate or low supporters.
Whilst the US Government continues to oppose ESG initiatives and “woke capitalism”, the scorecard itself is a an ESG rating system, assessing company’s social commitments and perceived political alignment. A White House senior staff member commented that the ranking “helps us see who really goes out and helps vs. those who just come in and pay lip service.”
Examples of “good” companies cited in reports has included Uber, DoorDash, A&T amongst others. At the same time, various CEOs have publicly supported Trump’s policies and initiatives, including leaders of major Tech firms Microsoft, AMD, Meta Platforms, Alphabet, Apple Oracle, and OpenAI publicly backing Trump.
The rating system could have significant implications for companies and who the US government will do business with as an assessment as “disloyal” may have implications for public funding, public criticism from the government and could force companies and their CEOs into self-censorship and avoiding speaking out in order to achieve a higher rating.
However, some business leaders have struggled with the uncertainty of the Trump administration and how to navigate the political environment. On 7th August Donald Trump called for Intel CEO Lip-Bu to immediately resign stating he is “highly conflicted” over alleged ties to Chinese semiconductor firms. Intel has had performance struggles in recent years, underperforming both the S&P500 and competitors such as NVIDIA. In response, CEO Lip-Bu Tan wrote an open letter to company employees reaffirming his commitment to the company and pushing back against “misinformation”.
However this political conflict appeared to have been settled just a few weeks following the announcement that Intel and the Trump Administration had reach an agreement for the US Government to make an $8.9bn investment in Intel in exchange for a 9.9% stake in the firm, taking the total investment provided by the government to $11.1bn. The funding forms part of previously awarded and unpaid grants from the CHIPS and Science Act and is aimed at boosting the US national security and technological leadership in the face of global competition, particularly from China.
Noticeably, whilst the government’s ownership will be passive, with no board representation or governance rights, it includes a voting agreement whereby “the government also agrees to vote with the Company’s Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions.” Accordingly, the transaction will act as a shield and entrenchment device for management with approximately 10% of the voting rights to be always cast in favour of the board which raises governance concerns for minority shareholders in raising concerns via a vote. The deal and rating system raises concerns whether it sets a precedent for government intervention in publicly listed companies, blurring the lines between state and market.
You can read more of our articles by clicking here.
Last Updated: 11 September 2025