10 Ways Donald Trump’s Influence Has Waned in 2026

In 2025, Donald Trump’s return to the White House sent shockwaves through corporate America, prompting a wave of appeasement and fear. But by 2026, a subtle yet significant shift has occurred. From ABC’s defiance over Jimmy Kimmel to law firms standing their ground, the president’s intimidation tactics are losing their edge. Here are ten key developments that show how and why the landscape has changed.

1. ABC Resists Firing Jimmy Kimmel

After the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Trump demanded that ABC fire Jimmy Kimmel for a morbid joke about Melania Trump. In 2025, the network might have caved—but not in 2026. ABC and its parent company Disney have only indicated they are “discussing” the incident, taking no action. The contrast with September 2025, when Kimmel was abruptly pulled off air after an FCC chair complaint, is stark. Disney has learned that Trump’s grievances are fickle; ignoring them often works better than capitulating.

2. Disney’s Corporate Calculus Shifts

Disney’s reluctance to fire Kimmel marks a broader corporate pivot. In early 2025, companies like Amazon and Meta rushed to donate to Trump’s inauguration fund and cut DEI programs. But by 2026, the returns on such appeasement have diminished. Trump’s threats—like boycotts or FCC retaliation—no longer carry the same weight. Disney now weighs the backlash from firing a popular host against the risk of angering a president whose attention span is short. The result: a quieter, more calculated resistance.

3. Trump’s WHCD Demands Fall Flat

Following the attempted shooting at the 2026 WHCD, Trump issued two demands: resume construction on his “militarized ballroom” and fire Jimmy Kimmel. The first is tied up in court, but the second has been met with public indifference. Media outlets, once quick to comply, now treat such demands as noise. The president’s ability to bend the news cycle around personal grievances has weakened, as journalists and executives alike realize that most of his threats are bluster with little follow-through.

4. Legal Settlements No Longer Guarantee Compliance

In 2024, ABC settled Trump’s defamation lawsuit for $15 million after George Stephanopoulos’s inaccurate “rape” remark. A year later, CBS paid $16 million over a 60 Minutes edit and also canceled Stephen Colbert’s show. But these settlements were strategic—CBS needed FCC approval for a merger. By 2026, Trump’s legal tactics have lost their shock value. Networks now see settlements as business costs, not signs of surrender. They prep legal defenses and refuse to roll over for every lawsuit.

5. Amazon and Meta’s Appeasement Fizzles

Amazon and Meta once led the race to please Trump—donating to his inauguration, cutting DEI, and producing a $40 million documentary on Melania. But by 2026, these moves look like panic rather than strategy. Neither company has seen lasting benefits; Trump still attacks them on social media. More importantly, employees and investors are pushing back against overt political pandering. The result is a cooling of the “proactive appeasement” phase, with companies now adopting a wait-and-see approach.

6. CBS and Paramount: A Costly Lesson

Paramount’s $16 million settlement over a 60 Minutes edit, coupled with the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s show, was widely seen as a surrender to Trump. But the context matters—Paramount needed FCC approval for an $8 billion merger. In 2026, executives look back at this as a cautionary tale. They now realize that bowing to Trump’s demands rarely ends the pressure; it only invites more. The Colbert cancellation hurt ratings and morale. Future negotiations are likely to include firmer boundaries.

7. Law Firms Fight Back

Trump used executive orders to target law firms like Paul, Weiss—suspending security clearances and restricting access for representing Democrats or working on January 6 cases. In 2025, some firms settled. But by 2026, resistance is growing. Law firms are forming coalitions, filing lawsuits, and arguing that Trump’s actions are unconstitutional. The legal elite, once intimidated, now see that fighting back can win in court. The administration’s overreach has galvanized the legal community rather than silencing it.

8. Universities Stand Their Ground

Trump’s executive orders also targeted universities over DEI programs and alleged anti-Semitism. In 2025, many scrambled to comply. But a year later, academic institutions are pushing back. They cite academic freedom and legal challenges. Some have even refused to cooperate with administration inquiries, betting that public opinion and court rulings will protect them. The shift mirrors the broader cultural change: Trump’s threats no longer trigger instant surrender, partly because his political capital is waning after midterm losses.

9. Cultural Normalization of Ignoring Trump

The biggest change in 2026 is cultural: the media and public have grown accustomed to Trump’s outrage. His daily tirades, once dominating headlines, now receive muted coverage. Networks no longer break into programming for his press conferences. Satirists like Kimmel mock him without fear. The constant state of crisis has become background noise. This normalization reduces his ability to single out and punish enemies, as the public simply tunes out.

10. Corporate Courage on the Rise

Overall, 2026 marks a turning point. The fear that paralyzed Amazon, ABC, and law firms in 2025 has dissipated. Companies now realize that Trump’s retaliation is often performative, and that caving creates more problems than it solves. From resisting the firing of Kimmel to fighting executive orders in court, a new playbook is emerging: ignore, delay, or fight back. The president may still be powerful, but the automatic deference is gone.

Conclusion: Donald Trump’s ability to intimidate has not vanished, but it has fundamentally changed. The wave of capitulation that followed his 2025 election has receded, replaced by a more measured, strategic response. ABC’s handling of Jimmy Kimmel, the legal pushback from firms and universities, and the public’s growing indifference all signal a new equilibrium. Whether this lasts depends on the next election cycle and the courts—but for now, the fear factor has a crack in it.