Trump vs CEOs: Elon Musk, Apple's Tim Cook to Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon - Full list of prominent Corporate executives whom Donald Trump has publicly blasted
U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday criticized Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon for the bank's take on the potential impact of tariffs on the economy, as the president's tiff with corporate America's bigwigs widens. Trump had last week demanded that Intel's CEO Lip-Bu Tan resign immediately in what was a rare presidential attempt to determine who leads a company, and the president has been vocal about his complaints concerning corporate policies and operations since he took office in January.Here are some prominent CEOs and businesses that Trump has publicly criticized:
DAVID SOLOMON, CEO, GOLDMAN SACHS
Trump criticized Solomon in a post on Truth Social. Goldman Sachs Economics Research in a note published on August 10 said that U.S. consumers had absorbed 22% of tariff costs through June and their share will rise to 67% if the recent levies follow the same pattern as the earliest ones. However, Trump responded that it was mostly "companies and governments, many of them foreign, picking up the tabs", and that "David Solomon and Goldman Sachs refuse to give credit where credit is due."
LIP-BU TAN, CEO, INTELTrump's demand for the Intel CEO's departure came after Reuters reported exclusively in April that Tan invested at least $200 million in hundreds of Chinese advanced manufacturing and chip firms, some of which were linked to the Chinese military."The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem," Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform.Tan responded to Trump late on Thursday, saying he shared the president's commitment to advancing U.S. national and economic security and that the Intel board was "fully supportive of the work we are doing to transform our company."
ELON MUSK, CEO, TESLA The billionaire tech CEO spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting Trump's re-election, a move investors who bid up Tesla stock expected to benefit Musk's empire.Trump and Musk, however, had a falling out early in June after Musk criticized Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill, because it is projected to increase federal debt.Trump responded to Musk's attack on Truth Social, threatening to cut federal subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies and saying the billionaire "just went CRAZY" after losing the EV mandate in the bill.By early July, Trump messaged, "Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at (Musk's contracts)?" Days later, Musk announced the formation of a centrist America Party. The President responded to Musk's move, calling him a "train wreck."
ADRIAN MARDELL, FORMER CEO, JAGUAR LAND ROVER Trump criticized Jaguar's rebranding effort in August, calling the campaign "woke" and "stupid," and linking it to the departure of the company's CEO.The remarks from Trump came as the British carmaker, now owned by India's Tata Motors, announced the retirement of CEO Adrian Mardell, who spent more than three decades at the company.Jaguar last year unveiled a new logo and visual identity as part of a broader brand refresh aimed at repositioning itself as an all-electric automaker, a move that drew sharp online backlash and criticism from brand loyalists.
TIM COOK, CEO, APPLE Trump has repeatedly targeted Apple and its boss, Cook, for making U.S.-sold iPhones outside the country and has threatened company-specific tariffs.In May, Trump recalled after a meeting in the Qatari capital Doha, that he had confronted Cook about shifting production to India, amid the company's plans to make most of its iPhones sold in the U.S. at factories in India by the end of 2026.Trump had said in a social media post that he told Cook "long ago" that "I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else."Trump threatened Apple in May with a 25% tariff on products manufactured overseas. Apple is already reeling from Trump's tariff war, warning that tariffs would add $1.1 billion in costs in the July-September quarter after costing the company $800 million in the June quarter.Earlier this week, though, Trump announced Apple would invest an additional $100 billion in the U.S., raising Apple's total domestic commitment to $600 billion over the next four years. Cook also gave Trump a U.S.-made souvenir with a 24-karat gold base.
JEFF BEZOS, CEO, AMAZON.COM Trump called Bezos in April to complain about a news report that said the company planned to display prices showing tariffs' impact on ecommerce giant Amazon.com. However, Amazon said it had only briefly considered listing import charges for some goods in April following Trump's tariff announcement but dropped the plan as the White House accused the company of a "hostile political act." Trump later told reporters that Bezos had solved the problem "very quickly" and was "very nice."
BRIAN MOYNIHAN, CEO, BANK OF AMERICA JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE Trump alleged BofA CEO Brian Moynihan and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon discriminated against him and his supporters. In January, Trump accused both Moynihan and Dimon of not providing banking services to conservatives, echoing Republican complaints about the industry."What you're doing is wrong," Trump said, in a video address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Trump did not cite evidence or specifics of any wrongdoing, in a question-and-answer session with corporate leaders and CEOs assembled on stage.He also referenced JPMorgan's Dimon. "You and Jamie and everybody, I hope you're gonna open your bank to conservatives." Trump said in an interview with CNBC earlier in August, "When I called him (Moynihan) after I was president to deposit a billion dollars plus and a lot of other things, more importantly, to open accounts, he said, 'We can't do it. No, we can't do it.'" Both lenders have denied the allegations of "debanking" on multiple occasions.
DOUG MCMILLON, CEO, WALMART
Trump said in May that Walmart and China should "eat the tariffs" and not burden American shoppers, after Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said the retailer could not absorb all tariff-related costs because of narrow retail margins."Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain. Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year, far more than expected," Trump said in a social media post.While Trump did not call out McMillon personally, he publicly criticized Walmart for attributing its price hikes in May to tariffs imposed by his administration.
Q1. Who is Apple CEO?A1. Apple CEO is Tim Cook.
Q2. Who is Walmart CEO? A2. Walmart CEO is DOUG MCMILLON.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
India warns Pakistan of ‘painful consequences' to any misadventure
New Delhi: India on Thursday warned Pakistan of 'painful consequences' in the event of any misadventure, responding to 'war-mongering and hateful comments' from Pakistan's civilian and military leadership—particularly army chief field marshal Asim Munir's nuclear threats. On Tuesday, Shehbaz Sharif promised to 'teach India a lesson' if it interferes with Pakistan's water supply. (Representative photo) External affairs ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, while addressing a weekly media briefing, subtly alluded to India's military response during Operation Sindoor when commenting on recent aggressive rhetoric from Pakistan, including statements by Munir, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and defence minister Khawaja Asif. 'We have seen reports regarding a continuing pattern of reckless, war-mongering and hateful comments from Pakistani leadership against India,' Jaiswal said. 'Pakistan would be well advised to temper its rhetoric, as any misadventure will have painful consequences, as was demonstrated recently.' He added that it is a 'well-known modus operandi of the Pakistani leadership to whip up anti-India rhetoric time and again to hide their own failures.' Since last week, Pakistan's leadership has escalated its rhetoric over issues ranging from threats to use nuclear weapons to the possibility of war if India restricts the flow of cross-border rivers amid the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. Munir, elevated to field marshal following four days of hostilities with India in May, reportedly told the Pakistani diaspora in the US last week that Pakistan could use its nuclear weapons to take down India and 'half the world' in case of an existential threat, and would use missiles to destroy Indian dams on shared rivers. Also read: Outcome of India-Pakistan conflict: Much to be pleased about, much to learn On Tuesday, Shehbaz Sharif promised to 'teach India a lesson' if it interferes with Pakistan's water supply. 'I want to tell the enemy today that if you threaten to stop our water, keep this in mind—you cannot snatch even one drop from Pakistan,' he said. At a related event on Wednesday marking Pakistan's response to Operation Sindoor, Sharif announced the creation of an 'Army Rocket Force Command' to enhance missile combat capabilities. A senior official told Reuters that the force, meant for conventional conflict, 'is obvious that it is meant for India.' Asif stated over the weekend that any violation of Pakistan's sovereignty would provoke a 'swift, surefire and proportionate response.' Meanwhile, former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari described India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty as an 'attack,' affirming that Pakistan would not back down if forced into war. India initially responded to Munir's nuclear threats by warning that such rhetoric sparks doubts about Pakistan's nuclear command-control integrity, given its military's proximity to terrorist groups. The ministry reiterated that India will not succumb to nuclear blackmail. Also Read: Pakistan took 48 hours to admit intrusion, refused to take back body initially: BSF Following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack by The Resistance Front (a proxy for Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba), India applied punitive diplomatic and economic measures, including suspending the Indus Waters Treaty and launching Operation Sindoor on May 7. Four days of hostilities followed, ending with a mutual understanding on May 10. Jaiswal also rejected a recent ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which instructed India to 'let flow' waters of western rivers under the Indus Waters Treaty. 'India has never accepted the legality, legitimacy or competence of the so‑called Court of Arbitration. Its pronouncements are therefore without jurisdiction, devoid of legal standing, and have no bearing on India's rights of utilisation,' he said. He added that India rejects Pakistan's 'selective and misleading references to the so-called 'award.'' Referring to India's June 27 statement that the Indus Waters Treaty 'stands in abeyance,' Jaiswal noted it was a sovereign decision motivated by 'Pakistan's continued sponsorship of cross‑border terrorism, including the barbaric Pahalgam attack.' India has not participated in arbitration proceedings since Pakistan challenged components of the Kishanganga (330 MW) and Ratle (850 MW) hydropower projects under the treaty. While the World Bank appointed both a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration in 2016, India only recognized and engaged with the neutral expert, rejecting the Court of Arbitration.
Economic Times
18 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump is aiming for Pakistan-style compliance from India, but his plan is not working
Synopsis Amidst rising tensions, the US-India trade relationship faces turbulence as Trump's administration imposes tariffs, allegedly to pressure India on geopolitical issues like Russian oil imports. India views these actions as an infringement on its sovereignty, resisting demands to compromise on agriculture, patent laws and military sourcing. India's refusal to play a compliant role, unlike Pakistan, frustrates Trump. "Trump wants a vessel like Pakistan. India refuses to behave like one." That blunt assessment from Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), captures the essence of the US-India trade saga: it's less about economics than geopolitics. While headlines focus on tariffs and trade deficits, the underlying story is about power, leverage and sovereignty. Speaking to Economic Times, Srivastava explains, "Washington expects compliance, and India is not yielding." Trump, who is set to meet Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, has long framed tariffs as a tool to 'fix trade deficits,' but India's case suggests a different motive. On August 7, the US announced it would raise tariffs on Indian goods from 25% to 50%, citing Delhi's purchase of Russian oil. India called the move 'unfair' and 'unjustified,' with the new rate set to take effect on August 27. The White House framed the tariffs as a way to cut Russia's energy revenues and pressure Vladimir Putin toward a ceasefire. With this increase, India becomes the most heavily taxed US trading partner in Asia, joining Brazil which faces similar steep tariffs amid tense bilateral relations. The economic stakes for India are high. In 2024, India exported $87 billion worth of goods to the US. According to US Census Bureau data for May 2025, imports from India stood at $9.43 billion, while US exports to India were $3.82 billion, resulting in a US goods trade deficit, or an Indian surplus, of roughly $5.6 billion. If the 50% tariffs remain in place, nearly all of India's annual exports to the US could become commercially unviable. Meanwhile, the US continues to run a $45.7 billion goods trade deficit with India, yet these tariffs disproportionately affect Indian exports compared with goods from other Srivastava, the message is clear: 'Trade deficit is just for the namesake. It's about forcing countries to fall in line with a geopolitical agenda.' India imports roughly 20% of its GDP in goods, spanning petroleum, machinery and electronics, yet Washington appears less concerned with trade imbalances than with pressuring India to compromise on and dairy have emerged as key sticking points in India-US trade talks, which collapsed earlier this month. On August 7, Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared, 'India will never compromise on the well-being of its farmers, dairy producers and fishermen.' New Delhi has consistently resisted US pressure to open these sectors, arguing that doing so would threaten millions of small farmers. Historically, India has kept agriculture largely off the table in trade agreements to safeguard domestic to Srivastava, US demands extend far beyond tariffs: opening government procurement, diluting patent laws that could make medicines costlier, limiting future digital taxes, and shifting military sourcing to the US. 'Even if we open agri and dairy, no trade deal will happen with this. Not a trade issue. They want you to open your government procurement, dilute patent laws, commit to never charge digital tax in future, buy military from the US, the list is endless,' he adds, 'Trump imposed 50% tariffs on Brazil partly over politics and partly because Brazil asked Twitter to remove anti-Brazil content. Records show India generates even more such requests, so he could use that as an excuse too. He can conjure unlimited reasons to impose tariffs if he's unhappy. My sense is he doesn't want a partner in India, he wants a vassal. India refuses to play that role; it insists on an equal partnership. That's the basic problem.'The US approach to Russian oil imports is uneven. China, Russia's largest crude buyer, faces no comparable tariff threats, while India is under heavy pressure. 'Even if the US demanded zero imports from Russia, India's imports would fall anyway due to economic circumstances,' notes Srivastava. European and US bans on petroleum products derived from Russian crude are already reducing India's imports, independent of Washington's selective approach reflects a broader pattern in US trade policy. Brazil, for example, faced a 50% tariff despite running a surplus with the US, largely over political disagreements including its stance on Venezuela and former President Bolsonaro. Venezuela itself is under secondary sanctions for buyers of its oil, though some firms, like Chevron, have received exemptions. These cases suggest that political alignment often outweighs economic between Russia and the US has dropped roughly 90% since the Kremlin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, though last year the US still imported $3 billion worth of Russian goods, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the European Union, a partner in sanctions against Russia, imported $41.9 billion (36 billion euros) of Russian goods in 2024, Eurostat data the US pressures India to cut Russian oil imports, market forces and global regulations are already reshaping trade flows. Europe and US bans on petroleum products ensure India's imports will decline regardless of Washington's actions. Srivastava cautions, however, that the US may find new reasons for tariffs, keeping India under continuous has built a buffer against such pressures. Exports constitute roughly 20% of GDP, compared with 90% for Vietnam, a country far more vulnerable to US-imposed shocks. 'Vietnam will suffer more. We will suffer, but we will absorb it properly. Country will bounce back. All we need to do is not to surrender,' Srivastava US consumers will also feel the impact of tariffs. About 90% of prescriptions in the US rely on generics imported from India. While the total trade value may be under $10 billion, disruption affects the majority of prescriptions, potentially raising prices significantly. Companies may eventually source alternatives over three to four months, but the immediate effect is inflationary.'Indian exports will suffer, but we need to consider whether it's better to endure this and use it to push delayed reforms, like diversifying exports, rather than falling into a bad deal. This isn't really about trade; it's about surrendering sovereignty,' Srivastava Srivastava, Trump's broader strategy is political theatre. 'Basically, he wanted to hit China. He couldn't, so he has to show his domestic voters that he is a big man, that a bully can show strength by hitting someone. He couldn't hit China, so let's hit India, that's the only thing.'With China, Trump launched a trade war over the large trade deficit, but Beijing hit back by restricting supplies of critical materials, he noted. 'India hasn't used those levers, which is why Washington expected Delhi to yield immediately.'India's refusal to play a compliant role, unlike Pakistan, frustrates Trump. At the same time, India maintains strategic autonomy, engaging with Russia on defence, limiting deep Chinese investment to marketing and distribution, and managing relations with the US on equal footing. 'We are a big country, big economy, and so we have to have workable, good relations with everyone, without being in anybody's camp,' Srivastava pre-Galwan, Chinese investment has been superficial. 'China doesn't invest in deep manufacturing. They will not supply any technology. They will invest in marketing of cars, garments, two, $5 billion here and there, but we don't want that. So we have to evaluate very carefully,' he says.'We can have targeted strategic relationships, like with Russia for defence, but moving closer to China is complicated. There's the border dispute and a $100 billion trade deficit,' he export-oriented economy, diversified supply chains and robust domestic market allow it to absorb short-term shocks while resisting long-term concessions. 'All we need to do is not enter into any relationship that costs us the medium or long term,' Srivastava takeaway is clear: Trump's tariffs are less about trade and more about leverage. Every tweet, every tariff threat, every demand is a political signal designed to demonstrate strength to domestic voters. 'Every day he abuses us on Twitter. That shows India has entered his mind,' Srivastava response emphasises sovereignty, resilience and strategic foresight. "Trade deal is not a trade deal. It's about bargaining for your sovereignty. And India is not bargaining."
Economic Times
18 minutes ago
- Economic Times
India requests UK to fast-track process to operationalise trade pact: Commerce Secretary
Synopsis India has urged the UK to expedite the approval of the free trade agreement, aiming for its swift implementation. Signed on July 24, the agreement awaits UK Parliament's approval. Once operational, it will grant zero-duty access to Indian exports, offsetting potential disadvantages faced in the US market due to tariff differences. iStock Representative image. New Delhi: India has requested the UK to fast-track the approval process of the free trade agreement so that it can be implemented as early as possible, Commerce Secretary Sunil Barthwal said on Thursday. The India-UK comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA) was signed on July 24. It needs approval from UK Parliament for implementation. He said if in the next six months, the India-UK trade agreement gets operationalised, it will immediately provide zero duty access to Indian exports in Britain, so any disadvantage from tariff differential that the Indian exports may face in the US would get covered in the UK. "We have also requested the Uk to fast-track so that it comes into force as early as possible," Barthwal told reporters here. On July 24, India and the UK signed a landmark free trade agreement, which, starting next year, will see 99 per cent of Indian exports enter the UK duty-free, while reducing tariffs on British products such as cars and whisky in the Indian market. While India has opened its market to various consumer goods, including chocolates, biscuits, and cosmetics, it will gain greater access to export products such as textiles, footwear, gems and jewellery, sports goods, and toys. Also, Indian companies, such as TCS and Infosys, operating in the UK won't have to make social security contributions for up to three years for employees who move from India.
