$1M Knee Pads
The phrase "life imitates art" has traditionally been a bit more high-minded than our current best efforts to replicate Idiocracy one electrolyte at a time. But, well, here we are. This week's case in point: the $1 million donations to Trump's inauguration fund. To be fair to Tim Cook (I'll be less fair in a bit), he's just the latest in a string of tech CEOs to make such a donation. But the fact that all of them have coalesced around this number is well, something. And one can't help but be reminded of another film in the high-brow pantheon of cinema: Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.
After Dr. Evil outlines his plan to steal a warhead and hold the world ransom for... yes, $1 million, his number two, Number 2, interjects:
And that was in 1997. Nearly 30 years later,1 it's even less money, relatively speaking. Of course, the point here, in the real world, isn't actually the money – though I would just note that as President, Trump will have access to thousands of warheads... – but what the money signals. That is, fealty to the new President.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "fealty"? I meant "unity", which is the rationale Cook is apparently giving for the donation, "sources" told Axios' Mike Allen. That's speaking to the unity of the country, which, fair enough, I guess. But really, the most interesting element is the unity amongst these CEOs in all somehow deciding to give the exact same amount of money. Clearly, there was either direct coordination here – a sort of, "how much money do you think we should all give so this isn't some sort of bidding war?"2 – or indirect by way of the first such donation from Mark Zuckerberg at Meta.
But token amount of money aside – and, to be clear, this is essentially couch cushion money for both the companies and CEOs involved here – this donation is not some sort of "great American tradition" as Cook is said to be trying to frame it. Certainly not for Apple itself.3 And while other tech companies have given money to other inaugurations in the past, notably to President Biden's day four years ago, these $1M checks are above and beyond anything done historically from these companies.4
Look, there are many reasons why I'm not the CEO of a trillion-dollar company. But certainly on that list would be that I don't think I could make such a donation. Easy for me to say not being anywhere close to that position and decision, of course. But still, if you take a step back and take into account all we know, or at least think we know about these individuals and companies, do we really believe any of them are truly comfortable with these donations? Perhaps a couple of them are, but I would not put Tim Cook on that list.5 Come on, obviously most of these companies and individuals as proxies are writing these checks because they feel like they have to. In the name of unity, yes. Unity in that they're all in the same bad predicament.
But actually, Apple, it seems, is in a bit better of a situation than any other company not run by Elon Musk. And that's all because of Tim Cook. Not due to this check, but because of the legwork he's done with Trump in the past. He's savvy in such ways, without question. But I just refuse to believe that he feels good about this payment. Even Trump and politics aside, just the optics of it are beyond bad. There's a reason why it's a headline around the world – and it's not a good one. No matter the rationale, it looks like a fealty payment! And presumably there's a very real reason it's coming from Cook himself and not Apple. And that reason is to try to mitigate the blowback both from employees and from the public towards the company.
Again, Apple has not done such a donation in the past – which just makes the "great American tradition" rhetoric more comical – so why is Cook doing this now? Again, the generous view is that this is an effort to signal to the incoming administration that they aim to "play nicely" and work together towards shared goals, etc. But of all the companies here, the Trump administration should already know that about Apple – again, thanks to the previous work that Cook has put in! He's "Tim Apple" for a reason! So this payment just seems excessive. And pandering.
It also doesn't seem like an accident that Cook was the last of these CEOs to get in line here,6 with just two weeks to go until inauguration day. One has to imagine this decision was eating at him. But ultimately, he didn't want to do anything – by not doing something – that would put Apple at a disadvantage. He's choosing to "play the game on the field", as it were.
I might just point out another classic American tale where life may yet again imitate art: If You Give a Mouse a Cookie... he's going to want more than $1M.
One more thing: I very nearly centered this post around everyone's favorite Apple go-to rhetorical exercise: what would Steve Jobs do, were he still alive?
I'm firmly in the camp that he would not give such a donation, either personally or on behalf of Apple. Granted, I did not know Jobs, only met him one time, and so this is based solely on the reporting and anecdotes of others. But everyone is well aware that he was nothing if not stubborn when it came to certain things. And so while yes, you could certainly make an argument that paying the $1M is the prudent thing for Apple to do here, one could also imagine Jobs steadfastly refusing to do so, regardless of the downsides. See also: the Apple options backdating scandal.
Honestly, I just have a hard time believing Jobs would work well with Trump at all. So it's probably in the best interest of Apple – and certainly Apple's shareholders – that Cook is now in charge in such a time.
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 Here's where I'll note that while an exact year in the 1960s is never given in the first Austin Powers film, in The Spy Who Shagged Me, he travels back to 1969. If we presume that's also the year of the first film, that means 28 years have passed before the present day in 1997 at the time. Again, it has now been 28 years since 1997. Said another way, in a new Austin Powers film using the same time schtick, he would be transported to 2025 from 1997. Let that sink in...
2 I like the imagine this conversation took place in a shitposting group chat for trillion dollar company CEOs...
3 Yes, yes, he's probably talking about the inauguration itself in such terms, but still -- that's been the case for Apple's entire existence, why not donate in the past? Why is this inauguration different? Another rhetorical question!
4 Though shout-out to Amazon for their... $57,746 -- lol -- given to Trump in 2017.
5 I also wouldn't put Mark Zuckerberg on that list, FWIW, despite his almost absurd attempts to bend over backwards to get into Trump's favor. Again, to him, he may not personally like it, but he's the ultimate pragmatist, and this is the cost of doing business.
6 Though any word on Google or any key affiliates? NVIDIA or Jensen Huang? Microsoft? Surely they must have something to offer to the plate being passed around here? There are deals to be done!