Tim Cook has faced mounting criticism for his friendly interactions with President Donald Trump throughout this administration. Critics across social media and news outlets label his White House visits, positive public statements, and diplomatic gestures as “sucking up,” “bending the knee,” or evidence that Cook personally supports Trump’s policies. Any attempt to explain the business reasoning behind these actions gets dismissed as “making excuses for billionaires” which could not be further from the truth. This reaction, while understandable given the current political climate, fundamentally misunderstands what Cook’s job actually requires him to do.

When you become the CEO of a publicly traded company, you take on a legal obligation called fiduciary duty. This means Cook is legally bound to act in the best financial interests of Apple’s shareholders. Every decision he makes, every handshake he offers, and every gift he presents must serve that singular purpose. It’s not about personal politics or friendships. It’s about protecting and growing the value of the company he leads.

Apple faces unique vulnerabilities under the current administration. The company depends heavily on supply chain manufacturing in China and other countries that Trump has targeted with tariffs and trade restrictions. When Trump threatens 100% tariffs on semiconductor chips or demands American manufacturing, Cook can’t simply ignore these pressures. Apple’s stock price, employee jobs, and investor returns hang in the balance.

Cook gave Trump a customized glass plaque with a 24-karat gold base during an Oval Office news conference, moments before Trump announced that Apple will invest an additional $100 billion in U.S. jobs and suppliers. This wasn’t simply a friendly gesture between two powerful men who happen to like each other. This was a calculated business move designed to secure favorable treatment for Apple in an increasingly hostile regulatory environment.

Consider what Cook accomplished through this visit: he secured exemptions from devastating tariffs that would have made Apple products significantly more expensive for consumers. He negotiated breathing room for Apple’s global supply chain operations. He protected thousands of jobs and billions in shareholder value. The $100 billion manufacturing commitment, while substantial, represents a strategic investment that allows Apple to maintain its current operations while gradually diversifying its production footprint.

Critics also try pointing to Cook’s past statements to argue he’s betrayed his own principles. In 2016, he told Business Insider that “companies should have values like people do,” emphasizing Apple’s commitment to privacy, environmental responsibility, and human rights. People see this quote alongside his current diplomatic approach with Trump and conclude that Cook has fundamentally changed as a person. But this misses a crucial distinction between corporate values and political positioning.

Cook’s past statement about company values remains true today. Apple continues to champion privacy through features like App Tracking Transparency, maintains environmental commitments with carbon-neutral goals, and stands behind human rights initiatives like opposing anti-LGBTQ legislation. These values don’t disappear when Cook shakes hands with politicians he may personally disagree with. They exist in a different sphere entirely from the relationships required to protect Apple’s business interests.

This isn’t new behavior for Cook, nor is it unique to his relationship with Trump. Cook regularly meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping, even attending $40,000-per-plate dinners and Beijing summits where he makes similarly diplomatic statements about partnership and cooperation. Apple creates special lunar new year AirPods for Chinese markets, with custom engravings celebrating the yearly cultural theme. Nobody calls this pandering or suggests Cook has abandoned his principles when he tailors products specifically for Chinese consumers or meets with their authoritarian leader to protect Apple’s business there.

The real issue isn’t Cook’s character or political beliefs. The problem lies in a system where corporate leaders must court political favor to protect their businesses from arbitrary policy decisions. When a president can threaten entire industries with punitive tariffs based on personal whims, CEOs have little choice but to play along. This dynamic exists regardless of which party holds power, though the current administration has made these relationships more transactional and public than usual.

Corporate leaders navigate this reality every day. They donate to political campaigns across party lines, attend White House dinners with presidents they may personally disagree with, and make public statements that serve their business interests rather than their private convictions. Cook has been dubbed the “Trump Whisperer” for his ability to strike deals and maintain a good rapport with the president. This reputation didn’t develop because Cook admires Trump’s policies, but because he’s exceptionally good at protecting Apple’s interests in a challenging political environment.

What we’re witnessing is capitalism functioning exactly as designed. Public companies exist to generate returns for shareholders. CEOs who fail to maximize those returns get fired by their boards of directors. The system incentivizes behavior that prioritizes profits over principles, regardless of the personal beliefs of the individuals involved. If Cook wasn’t capable of this he would not be CEO of Apple.

This creates an uncomfortable truth: separating Cook the person from Cook the CEO becomes almost impossible in practice. His public actions reflect his professional obligations, not necessarily his personal values. When he speaks positively about policies that benefit Apple, he’s doing his job. When he presents gifts to politicians who can help or hurt his company, he’s fulfilling his fiduciary duty. Other than that we know very little about who Cook really is.

The anger directed at Cook would be more accurately focused on the structural issues that create these dynamics. Why should any president have the power to arbitrarily impose trade barriers that can destroy companies overnight? Why do we accept a system where access to favorable policies depends on personal relationships and symbolic gestures? Why have we normalized the expectation that business leaders must perform political theater to protect their companies?

Corporate executives didn’t create this system, but they must operate within it. Cook’s behavior reflects the constraints and incentives built into American capitalism, not his personal political preferences. Until we address those underlying structures, we’ll continue to see CEOs making uncomfortable compromises all around the world.

The next time you see a business leader offering praise or presents to a politician, remember that you’re watching the system work as intended. Your frustration is valid, but it should be directed at the system that makes such performances necessary, not at the individuals who have little choice but to participate in them.