The ABC Defamation Settlement with Donald Trump: A Masterclass in Corporate Credulity
The decision by Disney CEO Bob Iger to settle a defamation lawsuit with Donald Trump over a news story about a former aide has sent shockwaves through the media industry. While the settlement, reportedly recommended by the company’s general counsel and approved by Iger, is seen as a winnable case by many, insiders are outraged over the seeming lack of willingness to engage in a free speech battle against the president-elect. The settlement has emboldened Trump in his pursuit of retribution against news outlets he dislikes, sending a clear message to CEOs across Corporate America: back down or risk facing Trump’s wrath.
The motivations behind Iger’s decision are unclear, but the timing suggests that Disney is trying to avoid depositions that could reveal embarrassing internal communications. Despite being in a prime position to engage in a high-profile court battle, Disney has seemingly chosen to prioritize avoiding risk over asserting its right to free speech. This retreat from a free speech fight is all the more startling given the company’s ability to afford the best legal representation money can buy and its history of taking stands on controversial issues.
Notably, other CEOs in the tech and media sectors have been eager to establish relationships with Trump, some even making $1 million donations to his inaugural fund. In contrast, Iger appears to be exercising caution, avoiding any potential conflicts with the incoming administration. The ABC settlement serves as an example of the costs of being perceived as openly hostile to Trump, and serves as a warning to companies that would rather avoid drawn-out and potentially costly court battles.
While Iger may not be publicly expressing his fealty to Trump, the settlement sends a clear message about the state of play in Corporate America under Trump. It also raises questions about the viability of any corporate-led Resistance to the president-elect, given the reluctance of company leaders to engage in fights that might alienate him. In the end, Iger’s decision represents a cautious approach, driven by the desire to ensure the long-term success and stability of Disney, a company that has grown increasingly dependent on Trump’s mood swings.
