By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump White House has created an internal “OB3” scorecard to rank 553 companies and trade associations based on their support for the president’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The scorecard assigns ratings of strong, moderate, or low based on public and private actions, including social media engagement and attendance at White House events. Companies such as Uber, DoorDash, and United Airlines have received high marks for their enthusiastic backing. This internal document, which is currently circulating among senior staff, will expand to include support for other administration priorities, and companies can still improve their ranking through increased public advocacy.
Read the original article here
White House Creates Secret List of Biggest Corporate Enemies is, in a nutshell, a pretty alarming development, isn’t it? It seems the Trump administration, according to reports, wasn’t just governing but also keeping score. A secret list, dubbed the “OB3” scorecard internally, was apparently compiled to rank companies and trade associations based on their support for the president’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” The level of support was gauged through various metrics – social media activity, press releases, advertising spend, attendance at White House events, and even video testimonials. It categorized organizations as strong supporters, moderate supporters, or low supporters. The implication? Well, it sure looks like a system designed to reward loyalty and punish those who didn’t fall in line.
The whole concept of a “secret list” targeting corporate entities raises some serious questions. It suggests a climate where businesses might feel pressured to align with the administration’s agenda to avoid being labeled as an “enemy.” This isn’t exactly the picture of a free and open market, is it? The concern is that it could stifle dissent, discourage independent thought, and potentially lead to unfair treatment of companies that don’t toe the line. This isn’t just about politics; it’s about economic liberty and the fairness of the business environment.
This isn’t the only concern here, the list itself could be seen as a weaponized tool. Think about it, if you’re a company on the “bad” side of this list, you could potentially face repercussions, whether directly or indirectly. It could impact your access to government contracts, influence regulatory decisions, or even affect public perception. The flip side is that businesses who are deemed to be on the “good” side would be the recipients of favorable treatment. It’s not hard to imagine a system like this incentivizing a kind of corporate cronyism, where access and opportunity are determined by political allegiance rather than merit.
The existence of such a list, along with the metrics used to measure support, also sparks some interesting debate. It appears that the White House was actively monitoring how these corporations were expressing their support for the administration’s goals. It wasn’t just about what they said; it was about how enthusiastically they said it. This means the administration was attempting to control the messaging and public relations strategies of huge corporations. This sort of involvement seems to blur the lines between government and business, which is an important concern for many people.
The reaction from many has been one of concern and a sense of déjà vu. The idea of an “enemies list” immediately brings up comparisons to the Nixon administration, a period marked by political paranoia and abuse of power. It raises the fear that this is a tactic for silencing opposition and punishing those who dare to challenge the administration. Moreover, the hypocrisy of some political actors is also highlighted. The same people who might typically advocate for limited government and free markets are now seemingly accepting this intrusion into the corporate world.
And what about the corporations themselves? There’s a feeling that they may be somewhat complicit in this situation. If these companies had shown more resolve, they might have resisted the pressure to align with the administration’s agenda. But the reality is that many large corporations have a complicated relationship with the government, often prioritizing their own interests over principles. Some may be hesitant to push back for fear of repercussions. Others may see this as an opportunity to curry favor and gain an advantage.
The potential consequences of such a list are also worth considering. It could exacerbate political divisions, further erode trust in government and business, and undermine the principles of a free and open society. The creation of the list would also be an invitation for companies to spend more money on lobbying and political influence, therefore, further corrupting the system. The long-term effects are concerning.
Ultimately, the creation of this secret list is a symptom of a much larger problem. It points to a growing trend of authoritarianism, political polarization, and the erosion of democratic norms. It is a warning sign that the principles of transparency, accountability, and the rule of law are under threat. As people say, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.