Anticipatory obedience

“Anticipatory obedience” is a term coined Timothy Snyder, a historian of eastern and central Europe. In On Tyranny, Snyder wrote, “Don’t hand over the power you have before you have to. Don’t protect yourself too early … by mentally and physically conceding, you’re already giving over your power to the aspiring authoritarian.” It describes the act of aligning one’s actions with perceived expectations before any specific directive is issued.

Given the obvious bending of the knee to the new president before he takes office, what of this fealty is normal political behavior, and what can be considered dangerous preemptive obedience?

Every new administration brings with it a predictable lobbying dance. CEOs across industries adjust their playbooks, aligning their priorities with the incoming leadership. It’s pragmatic: tax codes, trade policies, and regulatory stances can shift overnight. Companies don’t survive by ignoring the government—they engage, adapt, and advocate where necessary. It’s part of the messy business of capitalism functioning alongside democracy.

Hosting fundraisers, hiring lobbyists, or adjusting messaging to fit the national mood are all standard behavior. But the dance is turning into a bow. Instead of navigating policy changes with resilience, leaders are preemptively yielding to try to keep themselves and their companies from becoming a target.

The danger is not just in the concessions themselves but in what they enable. This president and those around him have shown a willingness to blur the lines of accountability. When Meta, for example, ends fact-checking and shifts content moderation policies without explicit direction, it’s no longer standard engagement—it’s deference. And deference, in this context, normalizes the erosion of democratic principles.

CEOs who align too closely with authoritarian instincts risk becoming complicit in weakening democratic norms, even if they tell themselves they’re just playing the game. They signal that democratic guardrails are optional.

The inauguration on January 20 will likely bring a bigger wave of public gestures from corporate leaders. But the real test will come in the weeks and months that follow.

Will companies continue preemptively adjusting their policies to not cross some unpredictable line?

Will tech platforms become even more pliable, tailoring their rules to avoid conflict with the new administration?

The risk isn’t just policy shifts—it’s the creation of a new norm where private institutions bends reflexively to power, amplifying the instincts of a leader who thrives on personal loyalty.