On August 15, 2025, the Trump White House quietly rolled out a spreadsheet that’s making waves across the business world—a loyalty scorecard, meticulously ranking over 500 of America’s most powerful companies and trade organizations by their perceived allegiance to President Donald Trump’s agenda. The move, first reported by Axios and confirmed by several news outlets, has set off a flurry of speculation, debate, and not a little anxiety among corporate leaders and political observers alike.
The so-called “loyalty spreadsheet” is no ordinary list. According to Axios, it rates 533 companies and trade associations as having strong, moderate, or low support for Trump, with rankings based on a mix of public signals: social media posts, press releases, advertisements, video testimonials, attendance at White House events, and—perhaps most tellingly—financial contributions. The focus, at least for now, is on support for the administration’s flagship “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OB3), a sweeping budget and tax package passed in July 2025 that’s projected to strip healthcare from at least 17 million Americans while slashing taxes for the wealthiest.
But the scorecard isn’t static. As one White House official told Axios, “If groups/companies want to start advocating more now for the tax bill or additional administration priorities, we will take that into account in our grading.” The spreadsheet, described as an “evolving document,” is being circulated among senior staff and used as a reference point whenever lobbyists approach the administration with requests or proposals. It’s a tool for quickly identifying “good partners”—those companies that, in the words of one official, “really go out and help vs. those who just come in and pay lip service.”
Who’s making the grade? Examples of companies rated as strong supporters, according to Axios and The Independent, include Uber, DoorDash, United Airlines, Delta Airlines, AT&T, Cisco, Airlines for America, and the Steel Manufacturers Association. These companies have not only issued statements or run ads in support of OB3, but many have also made substantial financial contributions to Trump’s inaugural committee or other administration priorities. AT&T, Delta, United, Uber, and Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi each contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, while DoorDash chipped in $100,000. Cisco, while not a donor, spoke glowingly of Trump’s election in 2024.
Apple, too, has played the game. CEO Tim Cook donated $1 million, visited the White House to announce a massive $600 billion investment in U.S. artificial intelligence development and supply chain production, and—perhaps most memorably—presented Trump with a glass Apple logo mounted on a 24-karat gold base. The gesture wasn’t lost on the president, a well-known fan of lavish gifts. During the press conference announcing Apple’s investment, Trump declared, “If you’ve made a commitment to build in the US, or if you’re in the process of building in the US, as many are, there is no tariff.” That announcement came as a relief for Apple, which had faced the prospect of heavy tariffs on its mostly overseas-made products.
Other tech giants have scrambled to align themselves with the administration’s preferences, sometimes making dramatic policy shifts. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the company would eliminate its fact-checkers on Facebook, a move welcomed by Trump allies who have long accused the platform of liberal bias. Amazon and Meta both scrapped their diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives—policies that Trump has vocally criticized. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who attended Trump’s inauguration, was among those to secure lucrative AI deals with the administration.
The scorecard’s impact isn’t limited to rewards. Companies that push back against Trump’s agenda have found themselves on the losing end of federal funding decisions or regulatory opportunities. The Telegraph reports that clean energy firms, which heavily criticized OB3’s rollback of green incentives, are likely among those rated low on the list. Trump has also publicly clashed with Wall Street leaders, including Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, and Bank of America executives, sometimes using social media to mock or pressure them. In a recent post on Truth Social, Trump told Solomon to “focus on being a DJ, not bother running a major financial institution.”
In some cases, the administration’s transactional approach has produced unprecedented arrangements. Last week, U.S. chip giant Nvidia agreed to give the federal government 15% of its China-generated revenues as part of a deal to resume exports to Beijing—a move Fortune has characterized as potentially unconstitutional but emblematic of Trump’s willingness to push legal boundaries. Similarly, the White House has floated the idea of taking a stake in Intel using funds from the Chips Act, after Trump criticized Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan over alleged ties to China. Tan, for his part, denied the allegations, met with Trump, and now finds his company in line for possible government investment.
The scorecard even extends to symbolic gestures. Trump has been presented with a set of vintage Olympic medals, a $400 million Boeing jet from the Qatari royal family to serve as Air Force One, and the inaugural Club World Cup trophy from FIFA President Gianni Infantino. Business leaders, for their part, have scrambled to curry favor, sometimes offering the government stakes in their firms or bestowing personal gifts on the president in hopes of avoiding sanctions or securing favorable treatment.
Critics see the loyalty scorecard as a stark example of Trump’s transactional style—a governing philosophy where fealty is rewarded and dissent punished. “Trump has always been a transactional president and isn’t shy about shaking down anyone who he thinks isn’t sufficiently deferential to his whims,” reported Gizmodo. The administration, for its part, argues that the scorecard simply helps ensure that federal support and policy benefits go to companies that are genuinely committed to advancing the president’s priorities.
It’s a far cry from the scandal sparked by President Richard Nixon’s infamous “enemies list” in the 1970s. In the Trump era, such loyalty rankings have become a routine—if still controversial—feature of the political landscape. As the White House continues to update and expand the scorecard, corporate America faces a stark choice: play ball with the administration, or risk being left out in the cold.
For now, the loyalty spreadsheet remains a potent symbol of the new normal in Washington—a world where public praise, policy alignment, and even the occasional gold-plated gift can make all the difference in the corridors of power.
