By John Q. Hosedrinker McDonald’s finding itself in the eye of a political storm following Donald Trump’s visit is a glaring example of how brands can unwittingly—or perhaps wittingly—become embroiled in political controversies. I’ve always had a love-hate relationship with McDonald’s, but this recent episode has pushed me beyond the tipping point. The announcement from the corporation claiming it does not endorse political candidates feels like nothing more than a desperate attempt to distance itself from a decision that has alienated many of its customers.
It’s baffling that McDonald’s would let a franchise owner turn their restaurant into a stage for a political event. The optics of Trump cooking fries in a McDonald’s, regardless of the intentions behind it, create an undeniable association between the brand and his divisive persona. When a franchisee facilitates such a spectacle, it sends a loud and clear message: they’re aligning the powerful symbol of the golden arches with a figure whose policies many find repugnant. Without repercussions for the franchisee, it’s hard to separate the corporation from this political identity.
The nature of fast food culture seamlessly intertwines with social branding. People choose where to spend their money based on values and beliefs. The fact that McDonald’s remained silent and allowed this event to unfold speaks volumes. Nothing says “we don’t endorse” like an iconic figure from one political side strutting around a fast-food outlet for a photo op. Their attempt to walk this tightrope of neutrality is disingenuous, almost mocking to those who genuinely care about the implications of such endorsements.
I can’t shake the feeling that McDonald’s, through its internal choices—like fighting unions and underwhelming wage increases—has already positioned itself politically. By simply maintaining the status quo and turning a blind eye to what’s happening within their franchises, they are effectively voicing their support for the very policies that harm workers. Their message of being “not red or blue” seems empty when weighed against their corporate actions and the very real consequences those actions have on employees and communities.
Even as a long-time customer, this incident has led me to rethink my dining choices. My conversation with my child about skipping McDonald’s wasn’t just born of personal disdain for the company’s political antics; it was a moment laden with values. It’s hard to rationalize supporting a company that aligns itself with a figure who represents so much that I oppose. The idea that my money would support a franchise linked to harmful policies and divisive rhetoric is something I simply cannot accept anymore.
I’m aware of the jokes and the memes circulating about how Trump’s photo op at McDonald’s is just another elaborate prank aimed at galvanizing his base while infuriating the opposition. But seeing a fast-food giant dragged into this quagmire feels like a slap in the face to those who work hard to make ends meet. The irony is not lost on me: here’s a corporation that has an internal hotline for welfare sign-ups yet continues to endorse a system that prioritizes profits over people.
While McDonald’s claims to be politically neutral, their actions have sparked a lot of anger and disappointment in their customer base—people like me who once adored their convenience and offerings. Allowing their brand to be associated with a political figure known for such controversial stances reflects poorly on their corporate ethics. Without a clear stance against exploitation, I now view the restaurant as a symbol of all that is wrong with corporate America today.
The reality is that brands need to recognize that silence in the face of political action can often be construed as complicity. It’s a stark reminder that brands like McDonald’s are not just selling burgers; they’re also selling their values and the political climate that comes with them. I doubt I’m the only one who feels betrayed and frustrated, and I somehow doubt that McDonald’s will truly understand the implications of this controversy until significant consumer action takes place.
Ultimately, the disconnect between McDonald’s corporate rhetoric and their apparent political affiliations has left a bitter taste in my mouth. As I consider how to move forward in my choices, I am reminded that my spending reflects my values. McDonald’s might not officially endorse Trump, but their inaction and the allowance of such events speak volumes. It’s a mistake for them to think they can distance themselves from this mess—it’s too late.