Imagine a world where governments must lobby businesses to maintain a rules-based system. In that world, governments will have to explore whether they can better manage the increased risk that is coming our way.

In recent decades and the last few years, the balance of influence between the private sector and government has primarily been one-sided. Companies, trade bodies, investors, and multinational corporations have invested heavily in lobbying efforts to secure policies that benefit their commercial interests. This dynamic has been simple: The private sector has lobbied the public sector.

Yet, here we are, one month into a new and more aggressive ‘America First’ environment. Donald Trump and his new administration are pretty direct in letting the world know they will leverage their geopolitical and economic strength to reposition the US and its corporations as the apex nation.

Remember, it was just last month when Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that private view out loud when he stated, "We're going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more."

That statement was about how they and other US companies will encourage the new administration to target nations with their own laws to align with a more American view of the world and one in which they are not taxed. This would create a new world order in which allies ‘kowtow’ to America.

Yet, this aggressive redesign by the new US administration creates risk for its own trade and economy. Pushing too hard could result in international companies pivoting away if they feel they can predict the unpredictable nature of the new administration, which is leveraging punitive and uncalled-for tariffs on allies.

The Trump administration's 'America First' strategy, characterised by its aggressive ‘shock and awe’ trade policies and unpredictable geopolitical manoeuvring against its allies, presents significant risks to global economic stability. This approach may hinder rather than foster the desired economic growth. In this blog post, I’ll look into the evolving dynamics of government relations and policy advocacy in a multipolar world. I’ll analyse the historical role of corporate lobbying, examine the potential fallout of the Trump administration's controversial trade policy decisions, and offer actionable strategic communications recommendations for international governments, US and multinational corporations, and global investors to navigate this complex landscape.

The Legacy of Corporate Lobbying

Historically, companies have been at the forefront of influencing policy. With deep pockets and sophisticated lobbying networks, multinationals have secured favourable tax regimes, regulatory relaxations, and trade agreements that have helped shape economic policy worldwide. Yes, they could and would like to have achieved more, but everything is about balance and perception and possible reaction to companies to push the boundaries too hard.

The longstanding tradition of private and sometimes public lobbying has created an environment where private interests often steer public policy, sometimes at the expense of broader national or global welfare.

The Multipolar Shift and Changing Geopolitics

A single superpower or market like the US no longer dominates the global economic order. While its economy and influence are huge, so is its level of debt. Many international businesses want to take advantage of the opportunities in the US. But suddenly, with the rhetoric and actions of the new administration, they see risk—tariffs and possible punitive behaviour against them.

This rhetoric risks shifting eyes to what were once emerging markets, further confirming the multipolar environment that we have entered into. Because no friend likes to be kicked, which is why nations are joining together in trade networks like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and other ASEAN markets whose economies and consumer middle classes are growing, a fact that was confirmed by the Asian Development Bank in a report, just five years ago that confirmed that Asia had 54% of the world’s middle classes, with projections indicating it is likely to have 65% in 2030.

Just last month, the World Economic Forum ran an article looking into the challenges of geopolitics for businesses. In its article entitled ‘Why businesses need “geopolitical muscle” in a multipolar world’, it presented the case as to why companies need to understand geo-politics, a subject I have written about before. At the same time, The Economist Impact Unit published an article in which it asked if the world economy can weather the storms of 2025, sharing some great data and insight.

How America Is At Risk Of Losing Friends and Alianating Allies

The current geopolitical environment is marked by heightened uncertainty, which significantly impacts business confidence and investment decisions. While some US companies may benefit from preferential treatment under the 'America First' agenda, this approach risks alienating international partners and disrupting global trade flows. This uncertainty creates a volatile landscape for multinational corporations and investors who rely on predictable trade policies and stable global markets for long-term growth.

Yet, the irony of ‘America First’ is that according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for 2022, U.S. multinational enterprises (MNEs) generated a total worldwide value added of $7.0 trillion. Of this, $5.3 trillion (approximately 75.7%) was produced by U.S. parent companies domestically, while $1.6 trillion (approximately 24.3%) was generated by their majority-owned foreign affiliates.  

In the context of the S&P 500 companies, Reuters ran a story with data from Apollo Global Management that states that more than 41% of their revenues are derived from international markets. In the note, the firm adds that:

“This leaves these [US] firms vulnerable on two levels. First, sub-par growth in many key economies and trading partners such as China, Canada and Europe should, all else being equal, cause demand for U.S. goods to weaken. And second, revenues accrued abroad will now be worth significantly less in dollar terms than they would have a year ago.”

This enacted ‘shock and awe’ policy will likely have private critics in the business community. These are those waiting for the damage to be done and for people to feel the pain before they privately work on influencing any policy.

At the same time, retained investors might suddenly adopt more activist measures if they feel that their investment or cost-of-living situations are not improving.

The Imperative for Private, Strategic Communications

Recent threats from Trump and his administration to penalise international governments that allegedly  ‘punish’ US firms complying with their national laws highlight a new challenge.

When international governments seek to influence US companies—especially those exercising their version of free speech—they risk public confrontation and retaliatory measures. This situation underscores the necessity for engagement and strategic communications that is private.

The Case for Private Engagement

• Avoiding Public Backlash: Publicly confronting US enterprises risks provoking the administration into punitive measures that could destabilise market confidence. Instead, private, discreet channels allow international governments to present their perspectives without inciting defensive responses. We’ve already seen reactions by Vice President J.D. Vance to public comments made by Ukraine President Zelensky.

• Mitigating Retaliation Risks: Given the administration’s warnings, US firms must take the risk of overt reality action, preserving the integrity of cross-border business relationships and trade.

Strategic Communications and Private Lobbying Recommendations

International governments and US businesses must adopt a proactive and strategic approach to policy advocacy to create a more stable and predictable global economy that benefits all stakeholders. This requires a nuanced understanding of geopolitical risk and effective strategic communications to navigate the complexities of a multipolar world. Here are some key recommendations for international governments and US stakeholders to effectively engage with multinational corporations and investors:

Establish Confidential Dialogue Channels

• Private Advisory Panels: Form non-partisan advisory panels comprising senior figures from private equity firms, venture capital, pension funds, and Wall Street. These panels should serve as conduits for confidential discussions focusing on mutual economic interests without public fanfare.

• Discreet Government-to-Enterprise Engagement: Develop secure, private channels for dialogue between international governments and US companies. This will allow for candid discussions about regulatory concerns, market stability, and shared long-term objectives without exposing either party to unnecessary political risk.

Leverage Data-Driven Messaging

• Robust Economic Analysis: Utilise independent research and detailed economic data to illustrate how unpredictable policy environments can undermine business confidence and investment returns. Data-driven messaging helps build a compelling, non-ideological case for stability.

• Case Studies and Comparative Data: Present evidence from other markets that have successfully navigated similar geopolitical challenges. Comparative case studies can underscore the benefits of stable, predictable policy environments and the risks of rapid policy shifts.

Tailor Engagement Strategies for Different Stakeholders

• Targeted Briefings: Organise bespoke, confidential briefings for different segments of the investor community, such as Private Equity firms, VC investors, and pension funds, to demonstrate how a stable policy framework benefits their specific interests.

• Sector-Specific Communication: Develop messaging that resonates with particular industries, highlighting how aggressive, carefully managed policy advocacy can protect and enhance their competitive position in the global market.

Encourage Shareholder Activism and Corporate Accountability

• Facilitate Collective Action: Create platforms that enable shareholders to unite and demand accountability from corporate boards, ensuring that companies uphold the commitments made during election campaigns. Collective shareholder pressure can be a potent force for maintaining a policy environment favouring long-term growth.

• Transparency and Accountability Measures: Advocate for increased transparency in corporate engagement with government policies. This could include mandatory reporting on how companies are influenced by—or respond to—policy shifts and executive orders.

Craft a Non-Ideological, Long-Term Narrative

• Focus on Economic Benefits: Emphasise that the push for policy stability is not ideological but a pragmatic, data-backed strategy to safeguard economic growth and global competitiveness. As I have said before, it is imperative to include ‘America First’ messaging in corporate narratives now more than ever.

• Consistent, Clear Messaging: Develop a unified narrative that outlines the economic risks of erratic policy decisions and the benefits of a measured, predictable approach. This narrative should be communicated consistently across all private channels, ensuring stakeholders understand the urgency and the long-term vision.

Mitigate the Risks of Rapid Policy Shifts

• Monitor and Communicate Executive Actions: Establish monitoring systems to track executive orders and policy shifts. Use these insights to provide real-time feedback to US enterprises and international partners, ensuring that rapid policy changes do not surprise businesses.

• Develop Contingency Plans: Work with industry groups and investors to develop contingency plans for sudden policy shifts. These plans should include strategies for maintaining market stability and protecting investor interests during periods of high volatility.

The Shift in Influence: Why Governments Must Privately Lobby Business to Safeguard Global Stability

The traditional paradigm of corporate lobbying is undergoing a profound transformation. In today’s multipolar world, where geopolitical uncertainties and rapid policy shifts are increasingly the norm, the United States faces a significant risk: alienating the very investors and businesses that have underpinned its economic success for decades. President Trump’s controversial remarks—such as his attacks on Ukrainian President Zelensky and his pursuit of Ukraine’s mineral wealth—exacerbate these concerns, adding layers of opportunism and distraction to an already volatile policy environment.

Furthermore, the Trump administration's threats to penalise international governments that publicly attempt to influence US firms underscore the necessity for private, strategic communications. By adopting a discreet yet assertive approach, international governments and US enterprises can safeguard economic interests and promote a stable, predictable policy environment that benefits both domestic and global stakeholders.

To secure sustainable economic growth, governments must establish confidential dialogue channels, leverage data-driven messaging, tailor engagement strategies to key investor groups, and empower shareholder activism. By doing so, they can help US enterprises adopt a more aggressive stance that transcends ideological divides and prioritises long-term prosperity for all.

In an era marked by rapid policy changes and heightened geopolitical tensions, a collaborative, strategic, and private lobbying approach may be the key to navigating these turbulent times and ensuring that the United States continues to be a beacon of economic opportunity on the world stage.