Politics used to be about governing and generating policy. Today, it’s also about shaping culture and reaffirming tastes.

Make no mistake, commerce has always had political ties. Two-thirds of consumers make loyalty-related purchase decisions based on their social and political values.

But when elected officials weigh in on brands, culture, and commerce in today’s always-on, multiplayer climate, they’re doing far more than shaping public sentiment; they’re driving market shifts. A Senator’s tweet about a boycott, a President’s offhand remark about a restaurant chain’s rebrand, or even a State Department nod to Taylor Swift can ripple through the economy, impacting stock prices, consumer behavior, and cultural credibility in real time.

The significant difference between the past and present is that these sweeping statements are no longer confined to the book of law or the game of politics. Brands are increasingly in the spotlight. And commerce is the new stage for debate.

Politicians are no longer neutral cultural participants. They are their own unique hybrid of critic, thought leader, and analyst. And now, they have massive megaphones that amplify their policy talking points through a vast network of digital underlings. 

In our First 100 Days Member Brief, we hypothesized that commerce would become a policy lever. New cultural debates and news moments indicate that our hypothesis is gaining traction. Cabinet-level conversations now blur the lines between economic strategy and cultural direction. What you buy, how you buy, and why you buy are all political fodder. 

Politicians are the new cultural critics, and their impact is felt in four areas: 

• Influencing consumer behaviors due to political values alignment
• Shifting economic sentiment based on party loyalties 
• Commentary legitimizes and delegitimizes brands, thereby swaying tangible business decisions 
• Shaping the future existence of public and private organizations

The Values Connection

Consumers are feeling the squeeze of financial instability and the stress of cultural conflict. In these uncertain times, consumers rely on brands for comfort and stability. Edelman research confirms this hypothesis, noting that amid financial struggles, 76% worry about the impact tariffs and trade wars will have on their ability to access and consume the products on which they rely. 

This close-knit relationship means consumers depend on brands to enhance their physical, mental, and emotional lives. 

There is an intimacy, even co-dependency, that impacts consumers’ daily behaviors. As a result, when the brands they love act or speak against their political values, it creates an incredible tension that leads to boycotts and immediate market impact. Target experienced this firsthand when executives walked back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives that were once integral to the brand’s core. Its supplier diversity team was rebranded as “supplier engagement.” It formally concluded its Racial Equity Action and Change (REACH) initiatives. It withdrew its sponsorship of Twin Cities Pride. And despite these walkbacks, the retailer attempted to capitalize on Pride Month with an exclusive merchandise line. Consumers and faith leaders have only doubled down on their boycotts, creating significant opportunities for competitors like Costco to step in.

The Social Network Effect

Gone are the days when civil servants only participated in public discourse during election cycles. Every moment presents an opportunity for them to prove their relevance and value to constituents, which means election cycles are now continuous loops of communication and co-creation.

The White House is creating and amplifying memes on Instagram. Political nominees turn to social media creators and podcasters to drive political dialogue. And these new media figures are gatekeeping the conversation while shaping broader perceptions of political figures. 

Presidential candidates fly across the country and spend hours with Joe Rogan and Alex Cooper, and indie media founders and creators have the power to sway elections and create political movements. Their vast social presence and always-on content creation cycles forge parasocial relationships with listeners and viewers, helping shape their beliefs and behaviors. 

For the first time, social media has overtaken TV as Americans’ top news source, according to The Reuters Institute, with younger groups (social and digital natives) driving the shift. During the 2024 presidential election, we found this shift flourish. Through social media, consumers discovered podcasters like Rogan, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens, making them influential voices in their voting decisions.

Although the Pew Research Center found a relatively even split between consumers who trust and distrust political information shared on social media (51% of Americans claim to distrust political information on social media actively), there is some nuance along party lines. For example, Republicans (45%) give more credence to political content they find on social media than their Democratic (38%) counterparts. 

The recent assassination of political advocate and media figure Charlie Kirk has illustrated just how profound this influence is. Live video footage of the act bypassed traditional news media and went viral online, turning a current event into a disturbing meme that only intensified political divides. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have condemned the violence. Still,  the current administration is seeking vengeance, especially towards cultural and commercial figures they believe are speaking improperly about the situation.

Jimmy Kimmel’s recent suspension (and reinstatement) among ABC affiliates powerfully illustrates how commerce influences culture and, more specifically, free speech. As we noted in The Senses: 

“There’s no need to censor when you can threaten revenue. Control commerce, and you control culture. Slow the flow of money, and the speech will take care of itself.”

The line between news and meme is now measured in milliseconds because political moments are instantly remixed into cultural artifacts. A speech is participatory because it becomes a soundbite in real-time; just as a tragedy becomes a trending clip as it is livestreamed. Every upload refracts through the outrage economy, where attention itself is a currency. Politicians no longer have to wait for a press conference, they can trade in virality as events unfold.

Public figures, including retail executives, now face a daunting question: how and whether to participate in the discourse. In a recent LinkedIn post, Gap Inc. CEO Richard Dickson noted that Kirk’s assassination prompted him to reflect on how his company shows up as a platform for constructive discourse. He used it as an opportunity to talk about a new internal forum, Courageous Conversations, where “our teams come together to explore complex topics, bridge divides, and take action.” 

While Dickson said this moment was a catalyst for the brand to take positive action, others noted that the timing aligned conveniently with a trans Old Navy employee being doxxed and the brand being called out by a popular right-wing influencer. A few weeks prior, GAP was lauded for its Katseye ad, which many declared was diversity and female empowerment on full-display: a perceived positive departure from AEO’s “Good Jeans” ad that many deemed exclusionary rage bait.

The impact of one decision and one social post swayed the court of public opinion so quickly that it felt like digital whiplash.

The New Political Feedback Loop 

Consider how quickly political commentary has become consumer guidance. From TikTok bans to brand boycotts, politicians position themselves as arbiters of cultural value and taste. President Trump has used his Truth Social account not only to share timely updates on policy and global relations but also to share off-the-cuff reviews on what’s happening in entertainment and commerce. 

When Cracker Barrel unveiled its new, modernized brand, the social media stratosphere erupted in uproar. Within the marketing world, there were productive conversations about design aesthetics and style, and whether commerce brands, in particular, have veered too far into sleek and modern, ultimately teetering into one-dimensional and stale. This category of brand critique has become increasingly mainstream, with Instagram and TikTok users contributing to conversations led by CMOs and brand strategists. However, President Trump’s contribution transformed the multiplayer dialogue into a game of political persuasion. His barrage of messages evolved from accusatory to hopeful, with his final messages sounding more like those of a marketing YouTuber and hype man than those of the President of the United States. 

The heat was too much for the nostalgic brand to take. Not only was Cracker Barrel reverting to its old logo, but it was also stalling all restaurant remodeling efforts. CEO Julie Felss Masino continues to face criticism for the decision, including from the chain’s co-founder, who said she was “throwing money out the window” with the branding fail. There is supposedly now pressure for her to step down from her post.  

For many, this was a collective win for the people. An example of how social media can drive tangible change and democratize corporate decision-making, so it actually benefits the people. But as we explored in The Senses, hidden political strings were being pulled beneath the surface.

The Government Becomes a New Shareholder

Politicians are no strangers to storytelling. As master orators and wordsmiths, they use new media channels to persuade and convince, stoking the new outrage machine (social media) to do its bidding. The implications of these realities are indeed jarring, yet we all have grown relatively jaded due to how prevalent social media manipulation and misinformation have become. 

What is even more jarring, however, is how political figures reimagine capitalism’s relationship with the state. In August, we outlined how the federal government’s 10% stake in Intel (the equivalent of 433.3 million primary shares of its stock) was far more than a CHIPS Act handout; it represented the government’s tentacles seeping deeper into the free market, something on which even Congressional Republicans found themselves divided.

“The same politicians who rail against government overreach are suddenly faced with the reality that China's state-backed semiconductor ambitions require an American response that transcends traditional conservative ideology,” wrote Future Commerce chief Phillip Jackson. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed that Intel was just the first company of many, pointing to pharmaceuticals and supply chains as the next viable targets. 

In September, President Trump made even more business headlines after officially approving a deal that allowed TikTok to maintain its US operations—a Big Tech game of chicken with retailers, marketers, and advertising players holding their breath for nearly a year. Through the new deal, a US-based joint venture primarily owned by American investors, including Oracle, Silver Lake, and MGX, will take over TikTok’s US operations from ByteDance. Oracle will oversee the app’s security operations, including the algorithm, and will continue to provide cloud computing services to the firm. The company’s board will also consist of one ByteDance executive and six to-be-determined Americans. 

To some, this would eliminate the security concerns that validated the platform’s initial ban, but Representative John Moolenaar, chair of the House Select Committee on China, recently noted that the licensing agreement to use the TikTok algorithm would raise “serious concerns.”

"I think anytime you have (China) with leverage over the algorithm, I think that's a problem," he said, although he admitted he was still waiting to be briefed on more details on the deal. "I just believe you have to have a new algorithm, and I don't know that you can reprogram. I would say it's still very much a work in progress." Trump’s order initially stated that the algorithm would be retrained and monitored by the US company’s security partners.

When Policy Shapes Commerce

Politicians are wielding their influence to regulate, ridicule, or redefine what we consume. With social media as their weapon, even a single comment can significantly shape demand, alter consumer sentiment, and bring brands down a completely different path.  

Politicians speaking into commerce can legitimize or delegitimize categories overnight. They can amplify cultural moments that brands either ride or get swept under. And in some cases, they can dictate whether a stock surges or nosedives.

In this era, brands can no longer rely solely on pre-planned ads and corporate communications to respond. They must employ more active listening and agile response plans that keep pace with the new speed of political discourse. Survival may now depend on cultural agility. Not just operational efficiency.