US labour watchdog halts Apple cases after group’s lawyer picked for top job

Regulatory Capture and the Apple/NLRB Cases

• Commenters highlight the apparent conflict of interest: a lawyer currently defending Apple before the NLRB is nominated as NLRB general counsel, and Apple’s cases are then frozen.
• This is framed as an extreme example of regulatory capture and “fox guarding the henhouse,” consistent with a broader pattern under the current administration.
• Some note that even if technically legal, it destroys confidence that labor regulators can act independently.

Escalating Corruption and “Banana Republic” Comparisons

• Many argue US corruption is no longer subtle: it resembles a kleptocracy where offices are filled with people motivated to shield corporate and political wrongdoing.
• Others counter that the US has always had a revolving door, but agree the brazenness and lack of shame are new.
• Some see one silver lining: corruption being “out in the open” may eventually provoke backlash; others think it’s open precisely because elites believe there will be no consequences.

Apple, Trump, and Fiduciary Duty

• The thread digs into Apple’s apparent closeness to the administration: donations to the inauguration, high‑profile appearances, and now regulatory relief.
• Defenders say corporate leaders are “in a tough spot,” obligated by fiduciary duty to protect shareholders (e.g., tariff relief), even via distasteful political donations.
• Critics call this a rationalization for bribery, arguing Apple is powerful enough to resist and choosing not to is active support, not reluctant pragmatism.
• There’s disagreement about how binding shareholder-interest law really is and how often it meaningfully constrains CEOs.

Big Tech and the Republican Party

• One side claims current policy is extremely big‑tech‑friendly: anti‑regulation, weakening labor protections, and actions like the TikTok ban that help US incumbents.
• Others argue there are also anti–big tech moves (e.g., rhetoric on Section 230), and that forced breakups or bans set dangerous precedents even if they benefit US firms short term.
• Several see an emerging pattern where big tech helps design regulation to entrench its own moats.

Public Complicity, MAGA, and Polarization

• Many lament that a large portion of the electorate supports or tolerates this system, often for cultural or racist reasons rather than policy outcomes.
• The difficulty of admitting “I was wrong,” social identity, personalized propaganda, and cult dynamics are all cited as reasons support may never collapse, even as life worsens.

Broader Consequences

• Some foresee allies and markets slowly “de-risking” from the US, and warn that such cronyism will harm innovation, startups, and long‑term stability.