In a move that has stirred both intrigue and controversy across the business and political landscapes, the Trump administration has reportedly developed a confidential corporate evaluation system—dubbed the "corporate loyalty scorecard"—ranking hundreds of U.S. companies and trade associations according to their support for the administration’s legislative agenda. The system, first reported on August 16, 2025, by outlets such as Axios and Forbes, evaluates 553 (or, in some reports, 533) companies, placing them into distinct tiers based on their advocacy for President Donald Trump’s signature legislative effort, the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill."
The existence of the scorecard, though not officially confirmed by the White House, has been corroborated by internal communications and unnamed officials, according to The Daily Beast and Yahoo. The system’s criteria are multifaceted: it takes into account public endorsements, social media activity, press releases, participation in White House events, advertisements, and even advocacy efforts for administration priorities like infrastructure and tax reform. Companies are then categorized as "high," "medium," or "low" supporters—or, in some reports, as "Strong," "Moderate," or "Low." The goal, as one senior official told Axios, is to "see who really goes out and helps vs. those who just come in and pay lip service."
Among those ranked as "high" or "good" partners are some of the most prominent names in corporate America: Uber, DoorDash, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Airlines for America, AT&T, Cisco, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and the Steel Manufacturers Association. These companies have been especially active in promoting the administration’s agenda. For instance, Delta and United have publicly supported a $12.5 billion investment to upgrade Air Traffic Control systems, a move prompted by a recent airline crash at Reagan National Airport, as reported by Forbes.
Uber’s CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, has also thrown his weight behind the administration, donating $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund and publicly backing the "No Tax on Tips" policy included in the megabill. Similarly, Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins has extended his support for Trump’s bill, particularly the provisions on corporate tax reform. Not to be outdone, Apple has reportedly committed $600 billion to domestic manufacturing, a move expected to create tens of thousands of jobs and which, according to Forbes, has likely earned the tech giant a favorable spot on the scorecard.
The scorecard’s dynamic nature is a key feature. As one White House official explained to Forbes, the grading system can change: "The dynamic scorecards incorporate the support of present and future administration initiatives." In other words, companies that ramp up their advocacy for the administration’s tax bill or other policies may see their ratings improve, while those that pull back could slip down the ranks.
Yet, not all companies are basking in the administration’s good graces. Tech giants such as Amazon, Meta, and Google are reportedly under scrutiny for reducing their focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives—areas targeted by the Trump administration. Meanwhile, major financial institutions like Bank of America and JPMorgan are being watched after declining to serve Trump as a customer. The implication is clear: public and private stances on administration priorities are being closely monitored, and the scorecard is a tool to track and respond to those positions.
According to Yahoo, the scorecard is not merely a symbolic gesture. It is reportedly being used to influence federal contracting decisions, regulatory approaches, and public endorsements. This structured approach to government-business relations is, in the words of Forbes, "a notable development in U.S. governance," reflecting the Trump administration’s penchant for close engagement with private sector actors.
The reaction to the loyalty scorecard has been sharply divided. Critics argue that the system risks pressuring companies to align with the administration’s agenda at the expense of independent, market-driven decision-making. There are also concerns about transparency and due process: with the scorecard’s existence shrouded in secrecy and its criteria subject to change, some fear it could be wielded as a tool for political favoritism or retribution. "The lack of transparency surrounding the process has raised questions about due process and the potential for the scorecard to be used for political purposes," Yahoo reported.
Defenders of the initiative, on the other hand, see it as a pragmatic tool for aligning corporate interests with national priorities, especially in sectors critical to economic growth and technological advancement. As reported by The Daily Telegraph, supporters argue that the scorecard enables the administration to quickly identify which companies are actively supporting its agenda and to tailor its outreach and engagement accordingly.
Some analysts have drawn comparisons to past practices where political alignment influenced administrative decisions, but they note that the Trump administration’s approach is more formalized and systematic. "The structured nature of the system has drawn comparisons to past practices where political alignment influenced administrative decisions, but it appears to be more formalized and systematic," observed Yahoo.
Despite the attention and debate, the full impact of the loyalty scorecard remains unclear. Without official documentation or public data, it is difficult to assess exactly how the rankings have influenced policy implementation or corporate behavior. However, there is little doubt that the initiative has changed the tenor of government-business relations, making political loyalty a more explicit—and, perhaps, more consequential—factor in the calculus of America’s largest companies.
As the Trump administration continues to press forward with its legislative and regulatory agenda, the role of corporate supporters and detractors is likely to remain a central, and perhaps contentious, element in the unfolding story of U.S. governance. Whether the loyalty scorecard represents a shrewd alignment of public and private interests or an overreach of political influence into the corporate sphere is a debate that is unlikely to subside any time soon.
For now, the scorecard stands as a symbol of the evolving—and sometimes uneasy—relationship between political leadership and corporate America, one where support for the administration’s priorities may open doors, and dissent may carry new risks.
