Is corporate silence on Trump tariffs really golden?

US President Trump sent global markets into chaos this week following his 'Liberation Day' tariffs (and subsequent 90-day 'pause' for most countries). Despite this, many worldwide corporations have largely been silent on his economic policy—was this the right decision?

The tariffs have not come as a surprise to many PR and public affairs professionals. In the aftermath of Trump’s victory in the US presidential election last November, PRWeek spoke to several PA pros who warned of the likelihood of trade tariffs to follow.

“These tariffs were heavily signposted in advance—while we didn’t have the detail, the expectation management that they would happen soon was there,” explains Mo Hussein, president UK, for Edelman’s public and government affairs.

“Yes, they have been in a state of flux and subject to change, but corporations are less likely to be in shock and surprise mode and more in risk management and mitigation mode.”

“While these policies directly impact bottom lines, most executives have retreated to the shadows. Why?” asks Gavin Megaw, managing partner at communications agency, Hanover. “The deafening silence” on escalating tariffs is “striking” and “isn’t accidental,” he adds.

Megaw believes one reason could be that companies are afraid of the consequences if they speak out on Trump and his tariffs. “Companies face a complex calculus: public opposition risks political retribution, while support alienates global partners and consumers. The polarised environment transforms every statement into potential ammunition for either side,” he says.

Many corporations have learnt painful lessons about “wading into politically charged waters” he adds. “Unlike climate initiatives or social justice, where stakeholder alignment often exists, tariffs create impossible trade-offs between domestic manufacturing interests, global supply chains and consumer pricing concerns.”

Robin Brant, a former BBC News political correspondent and associate director at The PHA Group, adds that it is also hard to plan comms strategies ahead of Trump’s policy decisions.

“It’s very difficult to calibrate your comms when the Firestarter is prone to popping up on Truth Social daily and intermittently sounding off on Air Force One.”

However, he credits car manufacturer Jaguar Land Rover as one of the few companies to publicly respond to the impact of Trump’s tariffs. 

The US President initially announced a 25% tariff on cars imported to the US. In response, the British manufacturer said it was taking short-term action such as “pausing” shipments to the US as it worked “to address the new trading terms” with its business partners. 

“Jaguar Land Rover has opted for the ‘watch what I do, not what I say’ approach by freezing exports to the US,” says Brant. “But in this febrile political climate, just 10 weeks into Trump 2.0, no one wants to become a lightning rod.” 

State of flux

The tariffs may not be all doom and gloom for businesses, according to Hussein, who suggests their imposition could be a positive move for some firms and their bottom lines.

“The impact of these tariffs is complex and varies across industries, corporations and global supply chains,” he says. “While some corporations will face increased costs, others may benefit by facing less competition, creating a mixed response.”

Nonetheless, he concedes that the “uncertainty” does make it more difficult for businesses that operate across multiple markets to “adopt a quick or unified stance on the issue.”

Megaw agrees, adding that timing is the main factor to consider. He thinks some business leaders may be waiting for the right moment to speak out.

“With tariff policies in flux, premature positioning risks being caught on the wrong side of rapidly shifting economic realities,” he warns. 

Comparing the current situation to the “unprecedented” times of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dom Pendry, group managing director at Manchester-headquartered agency Citypress, argues that it is essential that comms teams take a short-, medium- and long-term approach to their response.

“The question every communications team is being asked at the moment is: ‘How do we respond to the demand for certainty from our shareholders and stakeholders?’” he says.

Pendry admits that, while comms teams cannot act as “fortune tellers,” being unencumbered by divisional bias and targets means they play a “vital role in the provision of a dispassionate and data-led assessment of the world around them.” 

Calculated restraint 

With governments around the world scrambling to assess the impact and possible retaliatory measures, these tariffs are seen as a politically sensitive issue tied to national policies and politics, warns Hussein.

So, is staying silent the right approach in this instance? Is it a safer comms move?

“It depends,” says Megaw. “For companies with diversified supply chains and pricing power, quiet adaptation may suffice. For those facing existential threats, targeted advocacy through industry coalitions offers protection in numbers. 

“The most sophisticated players are communicating selectively, engaging policymakers privately while preparing stakeholders for various scenarios. In this environment, strategic silence is not abdication, it is calculated restraint while navigating treacherous waters,” he adds.

Strategic silence and a “wait-and-see approach” can work, adds Hussein, particularly when business positions are still unclear or when tariffs have unpredictable effects. 

“But if business interests are significantly affected, taking a proactive stance, publicly or privately, perhaps through advocating for modifications or for domestic policy mitigations, can help shape the debate, align with key stakeholders and even drive possible policy change,” he adds.

Ultimately, the decision to engage and speak out will depend on a corporation’s specific circumstances, risk tolerance and long-term strategic goals. 

Corporations will want to “consider” and “assess the impact” on and possible reactions from their various audiences, including investors, customers, employees, or policymakers, before taking a public position, says Hussein.

Brant agrees that corporate comms pros are currently operating behind the scenes. While he concedes that “keeping your counsel makes sense,” he warns that saying nothing is also “dangerous.”

“Ministers from Keir Starmer down are trying their best to be judicious and press the case for a deal. At the same time, away from the cameras, corporations and trade bodies are vigorously lobbying for support and help. It is also crucial to talk to your people, calmly but honestly. A void is even worse at these times,” Brant warns. 

“Some industries, some corporations are more exposed than others. Reassurance is important, but it must be realistic, and the reality of how the global economy looks as spring arrives is this: hope for peace but prepare for (trade) war.”

Going forward, Pendry says it is vital for comms advisors to try to restore a sense of order, get ahead of the risks, and force colleagues to establish “meaningful” mitigation strategies. 

“Now is the time to work out what might come next and clarify how the company should respond to reassure customers, suppliers, shareholders and employees,” he says.

Just as during the pandemic years, Pendry says the way to navigate reputation and market volatility through unprecedented times is for comms teams to stay “agile through the storm,” while “reassuring your people, customers, investors and others by resolutely defending the company’s values, purpose and strategy throughout.”

“This is a confrontation between nations and their governments,” explains Brant. “They are doing the talking. Or rather, Trump talks and everyone else listens.”