Last week, on August 7, 2025, Apple CEO Tim Cook appeared at the White House and presented Donald Trump with a custom-made glass plaque on a 24-karat gold base, engraved with Trump’s name and the words “MADE IN USA.” At the same event, Apple announced $100 billion in investments in U.S. manufacturing — and confirmed that it had received an exemption from large semiconductor tariffs.

The internet’s reaction was largely unanimous, but I took a short pause to think. I thought about it, and I still can’t find a way this event could look good overall. Certainly, “good” is a concept that depends on context and other factors. Such flattery from Cook toward Trump is probably good for Apple itself, its shareholders, and its employees, whom the company provides with jobs, etc. But the timing and circumstances looked too conspicuous: a gift, gold, an economic concession. It seemed less like a coincidence and more like a calculated exchange — a modern echo of transactional politics that calls corporate integrity into question. Where “transactional politics” ends and corruption begins, I won’t claim to say.

Return to feudal flattery

In the Middle Ages, gifts to rulers were not merely tokens of gratitude — they were public declarations of loyalty, often rewarded with land, titles, or other privileges. Cook’s gesture looked the same: a ceremonial pledge of allegiance in exchange for favor, only now the “privilege” is measured in billions saved on tariffs.

Perhaps Tim Cook was never bullied in school and didn’t learn the important lesson that a bully — I can’t think of a good translation — even if they leave you alone, it’s only temporary. Yes, you can promise a factory and then slowly build it over five years, hoping for a change in power, but bullies rarely abandon their chosen target.

Corruption in plain sight?

When a CEO gives a head of state a lavish, gold-adorned symbol and immediately afterward gains a significant economic benefit, a simple but serious question arises: is this just business as usual, or corruption dressed up in corporate gloss? Even if it doesn’t technically break the law, the perception of buying influence can be just as damaging to public trust.

All these scenes (especially against the backdrop of the Oval Office’s wall-to-wall gold décor) most resemble the lives of Third World dictators — and the United States, it seems, is hurtling in that direction. The moral image Apple spent many years building is collapsing at about the same speed.

A dilemma for Apple users

Apple’s customer base is broad and politically diverse — but far from all of it supports Trump. For many users who oppose his policies, this gesture may seem like a signal that the brand they’ve invested in is supporting a leader they reject. This could erode loyalty and push them toward competitors that avoid political displays. The difference is, Tesla owners who lost respect for Musk over the past few years have many alternatives in other EV brands, but escaping the Apple ecosystem and moving to Android is much harder. Still, reputationally, Cook’s actions clearly harm Apple.

Conclusion

This wasn’t just a gift. It was a performance with deep historical parallels, signaling loyalty to power in exchange for material gain. And for a company that positions itself as principled and progressive, it’s a dangerous signal — one that could cost more than any tariff exemption.