Skip to content

19 May, 2025

  • Saved Articles
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • leadership on AI

      How to get ahead on AI leadership

      The question isn’t how AI will change business—it’s whether leaders can harness it to drive...

    • canada tariffs

      Corporate governance to the fore in Canada

      As Canada responds to the tariff conditions set by the US, companies need to take...

    • AI will transform

      4 ways AI will transform board dynamics

      Opportunities and challenges are arising from the integration of artificial intelligence into corporate governance.

  • Comment
      • View all
    • leadership on AI

      How to get ahead on AI leadership

      The question isn’t how AI will change business—it’s whether leaders can harness it to drive...

    • canada tariffs Corporate governance to the fore in Canada

      As Canada responds to the tariff conditions set by the US, companies need to take...

    • meritocracy Fairness makes for meritocracy

      Favouring actions over persuasion, boards can take small yet extremely effective steps to improve diversity,...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • financial sanctions Tariffs chaos drives boardroom focus on resilience

      Business leaders will prioritise the resilience of their organisations in the face of economic upheaval...

    • ai boards Corporate world has a ‘huge appetite’ for artificial intelligence

      AI could change boardrooms to the extent that directors’ duties would change too, a panel...

    • EU non-financial reporting reforms are an ‘opportunity’

      Firms can take advantage of the delayed implementation of CSRD and CSDDD to take stock...

  • Board Careers
  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Board Advisory & Corporate Services
    • Director Reference Guide: Fostering the board-CEO relationship

      This Board Agenda Director Reference Guide on fostering the board-CEO relationship provides practical advice to...

    • Forvis Mazars AI 2025

      Performance Pulse: Are UK businesses prepared for AI?

      Forvis Mazars measured the AI preparedness of more than 300 UK businesses: 97% say they're...

    • Parker review cover

      Improving the Ethnic Diversity of UK Business, Parker Review update 2025

      The 2025 Parker Review update report, supported by EY. Over the past year, significant progress...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Careers
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology

Twitter CEO takes on Trump over tweets that ‘violate company rules’

by Gavin Hinks

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s decision to fact-check and flag the president’s more egregious tweets is a stark reminder that corporate reputation is a governance issue.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Image: Frederic Legrand COMEO/Shutterstock

Last week news outlets were filled by stories of Twitter’s clash with Donald Trump over the president’s tweets. While somewhat overtaken by recent events, the collision highlights how corporate leaders have felt compelled to step in to the political arena to both defend corporate reputation and, as commentators often observe, fill the void left by political actors.

The conflict began with Twitter’s decision to add warning labels to three of President Trump’s tweets. The first two, on 26 May, involved adding a “fact checking” warning to claims made by the president that postal ballots would lead to voter fraud. The next involved a declaration attached to the now notorious Trump tweet in which he proclaimed that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”. Twitter’s label said the president’s message “violated” the social media site’s rules about “glorifying violence”.

Trump was furious and responded with an executive order “cracking down” on social media sites with amendments to a key piece of US legislation, section 230, the law which absolves platforms of liability for the content users post.

That it is an urgent governance issue is underpinned by the capital structure of Twitter compared with Facebook

The amendments will affect other sites too, including Facebook, whose founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has argued fervently that it should not be the role of platforms to censor users.

The episode leaves Twitter in a compelling face-off with the president and a demanding corporate governance issue for its chief executive Jack Dorsey—and his board—to handle.

That it is an urgent governance issue is underpinned by the capital structure of Twitter compared with Facebook. As corporate governance expert Professor Richard Leblanc points out, Facebook has a dual-class share structure giving Zuckerberg enormous power. Twitter does not, making Dorsey more accountable to his board.

But the intervention also places Dorsey in the realm of “activist CEO”—a company leader making a stand on political or social issues.

CEO activism on the rise

The US has seen much of this in recent years as elected leaders remained silent or swung away from core political concerns. “As the global challenges keep piling up, CEOs are becoming the bullhorns of democracy,” wrote US academics Caroline Kaeb and David Scheffer in June last year.

Examples are numerous. Following school shootings in 2018, many retailers took guns off their shelves and distanced themselves from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, chief executives from all over the world boycotted a conference in Saudi Arabia billed as the “Davos in the desert”. May last year saw the leaders of 13 US companies help found the CEO Climate Dialogue as part of an effort to shift government policy on the environment.

While most activist CEOs make moves on issues somewhat removed from their company operations, Twitter’s intervention was about the way its own services are used

Netflix became the first company to join legal advocacy groups in challenging the state of Georgia’s efforts to curtail female reproductive freedoms. Elsewhere, Nike famously featured the football player Colin Kaepernick in an advertising campaign. Kaepernick had outraged some in the US with his refusal to stand for the national anthem in protest at police brutality against African-Americans.

Trump tweet flagged by Twitter
Twitter’s Trump warning.

These are all conscious decisions. While moves such as these are risky, they can pay off. Despite provoking a backlash, the “buzz” surrounding Nike and Kaepernick was estimated to be worth $163m in marketing value. Though, marketing benefits are not the only reason. Companies are allowed to do the right thing, not least because their employees and customers will reflect the diversity within society.

It may help that despite corporate scandals and the financial crisis of 2008, trust in politicians is lower than it is in company leaders. The 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer found that while 51% of those polled for the survey trusted CEOs, only 42% trusted heads of government. A huge 87% said stakeholders were more important than shareholders to long-term company success while 92% of employees believe it is important for CEOs to speak out on social issues.

However, it is worth noting that Twitter’s situation is different in quality to the CEOs in many of the examples cited here. What makes Dorsey’s position so unique is that while most activist CEOs make moves on issues somewhat removed from their company operations, Twitter’s intervention was about the way its own services are used.

In short, the company’s reputation was at stake. A CEO and a board cannot ignore that indefinitely.

“Twitter is a teachable moment for board discussions with management on pushing back when politicians take steps that harm the reputation and goodwill of the company,” says governance expert Leblanc.

Twitter’s action may well prompt other CEOs to take similar stands, especially when political actors play fast and loose with the truth. “A company CEO would never have the unlimited speech that bad political actors have. There should be greater accountability for political speech,” adds Leblanc.

Social media law

Mark Zuckerberg now has his own leadership concerns after staff and civil rights leaders chose to protest against his refusal to follow Twitter’s lead. Whether there is enough momentum to force a change of heart remains to be seen.

The law is not enough for boards in social media firms to steer a clear path through the complex questions raised

But the fact that Facebook and Twitter are at odds over an issue so critical to the functioning of contemporary society means Section 230 probably needs be reformed, according to Leblanc. As it stands the law is not enough to help boards in social media firms to steer a clear path through the complex questions raised by freedom of speech, fake news and the needs of a functioning society in general.

Outside social media, other corporate leaders will be watching what happens. Twitter’s example may give them courage to chart their own course into activism.

In the end, the way social media companies respond to content may come down to governance structures, as mentioned earlier. Carum Basra, a policy adviser at the Institute of Directors, says: “Ultimately, for many of these entities it will be for their boards to determine where to draw the line in terms of what is acceptable.

“However, some of these firms have governance structures that concentrate power in the hands of one or two individuals; more boardroom challenge might be what is needed.”

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • Ethics, 'shareholder wealth' and Twitter drove companies to quit Russia
    September 9, 2022
    social media boycott campaign

    Cutting ties with Russia after social media boycott campaigns was ‘woke-wash’ for some companies, research suggests.

  • Good governance boosts companies' CSR performance
    July 5, 2021
    Board members looking at corporate reports

    Study concludes that “corporate board reforms... appear to have a positive spillover for non-financial stakeholders”.

  • Twitter drops due diligence bombshell
    August 11, 2022
    Twitter Elon Musk

    The high-profile lawsuit brought by Twitter against Elon Musk raises an issue close to all board members’ hearts.

  • Twitter's sale to Elon Musk leaves stakeholder governance high and dry
    November 16, 2022
    Twitter stakeholders

    The company’s failure to consider in advance those affected by the deal does not bode well for stakeholder governance, write academics.

For thoughtful journalism, expert insights on corporate governance and an extensive library of reports, guides and tools to help boards and directors navigate the complexities of their roles, subscribe to Board Agenda

CEO activism, corporate reputation, Donald Trump, Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, reputational risk, social media, Twitter

Search


Follow Us

Boardroom Intelligence

Stay in the know and register for free to receive our essential Boardroom Intelligence Briefing featuring:

  • Top governance headlines, expert opinion & boardroom insights, exclusive whitepapers & strategy guides, delivered to your inbox every week – Sign up here

 

Most Popular

Featured Resources

wef global risks 2025

The Global Risks Report 2025

The 20th edition of the Global Risks Report reveals an increasingly fractured global...
Supply chain management cover

Strategic Oversight in Supply Chain Management: A Guide for Corporate Boards 2025

Supply chains have become complex, interdependent and opaque and—according to research...
OB-Cyber-Security

Cyber Security: What Boards Need to Know

Maintaining firewalls, protecting servers and filtering malicious emails rarely make...

The IA’S Principles Of Remuneration 2024 2025

This guidance from the Investment Association is aimed at assisting remuneration...
Diligent 2024 leadership tech cover

Leadership, decision-making & the role of technology: Business survey 2024

This research report by Board Agenda and Diligent sheds light on how board directors...

Director Reference Guide: Navigating Conflict in the Boardroom

The 'Director Reference Guide' on navigating conflict in the boardroom provides practical...
Nasdaq 2024 governance report cover

Nasdaq 2024 Global Governance Pulse

This Nasdaq survey gathered data from more than 870 board members, executives, and...

Becoming a non-executive director (4th edition)

Board composition is the subject of much debate, while the role of the non-executive...
art & science brainloop new cover

The Art & Science of Creating an Effective Board

Boards are coming under more scrutiny and pressure than ever before from regulators,...
SAA First time NED guide

First Time Guide for Non-Executive Directors

The role of the non-executive director has never been more vital: to advise, support,...

Register Free

By registering you will be able to access one premium article each month, selected partner newsletters and content, plus updates about our events and podcasts. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Board Advisory & Corporate Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
|

Copyright © 2025 Questor Media Group Ltd.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap