Gov't shouldn’t be run like a business, certainly not like Trump’s

“We need the country to be run like a business” is an adage long invoked by conservative candidates for office, including current Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. The idea may sound appealing to voters tired of inefficiency and bureaucracy, but it ignores the fundamental difference between the missions of government and business.

Businesses exist largely to generate profit, while government exists to serve the common needs of the people, regardless of profitability or any other return on investment. In fact, from a larger perspective government serves needs that businesses can’t reasonably provide. This discrepancy makes the adage “government should be run like a business” not only inaccurate but can also lead to the election of ineffective leaders who champion harmful public policies — like Trump.

The Constitution enumerates several purposes and responsibilities of the federal government: “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Take note that none of these responsibilities is profit driven. Nor do any of these responsibilities align generally with the purpose of business.

As a result, measuring the success of government using the same metrics as we measure the success of a business (such as efficiency and profitability) all but ensures that the core purposes and functions of government are sacrificed for short-term gains, leading to the erosion of public goods and policies that widen inequality.

With that said, there are lessons that can be learned from businesses that can help make our government better — more financially efficient but also more effective at delivering on the promises of the Constitution.

Companies that successfully connect with customers across social, political and geographic boundaries can teach us about navigating diverse communities and promoting active civic engagement and discourse. Corporate marketing campaigns can teach us how to build public support for essential policies and projects. Highly innovative companies and those that are known for developing internal talent can teach us about public education and promoting a culture of productive questioning, listening and learning. And effective corporate executives can teach us lessons about how to best lead, manage and inspire.

But even if we agree that there is value in bringing successful business principles to government, Donald Trump is far from the ideal candidate to champion this model. Despite his claims of business acumen, Trump’s track record reveals a history of failed ventures and mismanagement.

Take, for instance, his social media company, Truth Social. Billed as a conservative alternative to mainstream platforms like Twitter, Donald Trump promised massive returns for those who invested in the platform. Instead, Truth Social has been run into the ground, with its revenues smaller than a single small grocery store.

According to SEC filings and internal investor presentations, of the $130 million in revenue that Trump said the company would generate in 2023, the actual revenue in 2023 was just $4.1 million. That means that after costs, the company lost $58 million.

This year hasn’t fared any better. Instead of the $835 million in revenue Trump promised, the company has seen a 30% decline from 2023. Meanwhile, costs have skyrocketed by more than 600%, placing the company on the hook for more than $300 million in losses so far this year.

As a result, Truth Social stock has lost 53% of its value in the past six months. By comparison, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq composite index have risen by almost 5% during that same timeframe and the S&P 500 has climbed nearly 7%. These stark contrasts make it clear that Trump’s business leadership is not the model of success he often portrays.

Trump’s failings as a business leader aren’t limited to Truth Social. His companies have filed for bankruptcy multiple times, his university was shut down after being sued for fraud, and several of his real estate projects have gone bust.

His notable bankruptcies include Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, Plaza Hotel, Trump Castle Hotel and Casino, Trump Entertainment Resorts and THCR. Other failed businesses include Trump Shuttle, Trump University, Trump Vodka, Trump Mortgage, GoTrump.com and Trump Steaks. This list doesn’t even count the many times lenders had to refinance Trump’s credit after his businesses underperformed. Nor does it consider the many small businesses Trump left high and dry after defaulting on his loans. Incidentally, all of these failures were listed in SEC Filings for DJT Media (Truth Social), so MAGA can’t say this is made up. Trump himself admits he’s a serial business failure.

Successful business leaders invest in people and cultivate talent. They create environments where innovation can thrive, and they lead with vision and purpose. But Trump’s leadership style — marked by chaos, self-interest and a disregard for expertise — runs counter to these principles. His presidency was defined by constant turnover, with key positions left unfilled for long periods or staffed by inexperienced individuals. He promoted division and sowed distrust, both within the government and among the American public. Far from creating a space for innovation or diverse perspectives, Trump’s leadership stifled progress and fostered a toxic political climate.

Meanwhile, under the leadership of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the economy has been on a steady path of recovery and growth. Despite facing significant challenges, inflation is down, gas prices are down, oil production is at an all-time high and starting next week, interest rates will begin to drop.

Electing a leader based on imaginary business success who views government solely through the lens of profitability not only undermines democracy but also puts the very principles of governance at risk. If we truly want to bring successful business practices to government, we should be looking to leaders who understand the importance of long-term investment, collaboration, growth and innovation. Trump, with his history of bankruptcies, failed businesses and erratic leadership, is not that leader.