In a rare glimpse into the unfiltered thoughts of America’s corporate elite, more than 100 chief executives gathered at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute recently voiced deep concerns about the direction of U.S. economic policy under a potential second Trump administration. Far from the polished public statements often issued by business leaders, these private discussions revealed a stark consensus: tariffs, immigration crackdowns, and other proposed measures are seen as detrimental to long-term growth, prompting many to withhold investments in domestic manufacturing and infrastructure.

The forum, organized by Yale’s School of Management, served as a confidential sounding board where CEOs could speak freely without fear of political backlash. According to reporting from Yahoo Finance, a striking 62% of participants indicated they have no plans to increase U.S.-based investments, citing tariffs as a primary barrier that raises costs and disrupts supply chains.

Tariffs as a Silent Killer for Business Expansion

This reluctance stems from firsthand experiences with existing trade barriers, which have already inflated import prices and complicated global operations. One anonymous CEO likened the situation to “shooting ourselves in the foot,” arguing that while protectionism might appeal politically, it erodes competitiveness in key sectors like technology and automotive. The discussions highlighted how tariffs not only burden consumers but also deter foreign talent and capital, elements critical for innovation-driven economies.

Immigration policies drew equally sharp criticism. Executives worried that aggressive deportation plans and visa restrictions would exacerbate labor shortages in industries reliant on skilled workers, from software engineering to agriculture. As detailed in a related piece from Yahoo Finance, the consensus was that such measures undermine America’s appeal as a global hub, potentially shifting investment to more welcoming markets like Canada or Europe.

Echoes of Broader Economic Anxieties

Beyond tariffs and immigration, the CEOs expressed alarm over what they perceive as an erosion of institutional stability. Pressure on the Federal Reserve and a drift toward state capitalism were flagged as risks that could unsettle markets and investor confidence. “We’re worried Trump is eroding America’s future,” one participant told Yahoo Finance, encapsulating a sentiment that contrasts sharply with public endorsements from some business figures.

These views align with broader surveys and analyses. For instance, a Fortune report on the same gathering noted that while a minority of CEOs see short-term gains from deregulation, the majority anticipate long-term damage to supply chains and workforce diversity. This divergence underscores a growing rift between corporate pragmatism and political rhetoric.

The Ripple Effects on Global Strategy

Strategically, many executives are already pivoting. Discussions revealed plans to diversify operations abroad, with Asia and Latin America emerging as alternatives to mitigate U.S.-specific risks. This shift could accelerate de-globalization trends, but at the cost of American jobs and innovation leadership. Insights from AOL Finance, which covered similar sentiments, suggest that without policy adjustments, the U.S. might see a net outflow of capital.

Yet, not all feedback was uniformly negative. A few CEOs praised potential tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks as boosters for certain industries, like energy and finance. However, even these optimists cautioned that the overall policy mix could lead to inflationary pressures and market volatility, as echoed in analyses from the Yale forum.

A Call for Policy Recalibration

The underlying message from these closed-door talks is a plea for balance: protect American interests without isolating the economy. As one executive put it in the Yahoo Finance account, it’s time to “Make America into America Again” by restoring collaborative, forward-looking governance. For industry insiders, this signals a pivotal moment where business leaders may increasingly influence policy debates, albeit from the shadows.

Ultimately, these revelations challenge the narrative of unwavering corporate support for protectionist agendas. They highlight a sophisticated calculus where short-term political gains are weighed against enduring economic health, urging a reevaluation of strategies that could shape the next administration’s approach.