I have never experienced anything on LinkedIn that generated this level of reaction.
I joined the platform on 28 January 2004. For more than two decades, I have posted regularly — almost daily — primarily on business strategy, publishing, entrepreneurship, and market development. From time to time, I publish longer business-oriented articles.
They receive engagement. But nothing remotely comparable to the response triggered by my recent piece on politics.
The volume of comments — supportive, critical, and hostile — has been unlike anything I have encountered on the platform before.
That raises an interesting question.
LinkedIn presents itself as a professional network. Yet the algorithm appears largely agnostic to subject matter. It rewards activity: comments, reactions, debate, friction. Political content — particularly polarising political content — generates precisely that.
Business analysis, however relevant, rarely produces the same emotional velocity.
If engagement intensity determines visibility, then the system structurally amplifies controversy over technical substance.
Is that professional?
I leave that question open. What follows is the article that triggered the response.
Over the past weeks, I have posted comments on LinkedIn expressing strong criticism of Donald Trump and the political movement surrounding him. The reactions have been instructive. Many people have engaged positively. Some have disagreed. A few, however, have argued that comments like mine simply do not belong on LinkedIn.
I disagree – and I believe the reasons matter.
Let me begin with the substance. My comments have included statements such as:
“The bigger problem is that Donald Trump is so easy to manipulate. Stoke his ego or promise him money; he will do anything for you. Criticise him, and he’ll get blinded by the urge for revenge. These are not exactly presidential qualities.”
And:
“Trump may well be the worst president the U.S. could have chosen: a pathological liar driven almost entirely by vanity, demanding constant attention and admiration, devoid of empathy, mean, and measuring everything in money.”
These are sharp formulations. They are intended to be. But they are not random insults. They are political judgments grounded in publicly documented behaviour: false statements, personal financial entanglements, retaliatory conduct against critics, admiration for authoritarian leaders, and patterns of communication centred on personal grievance and loyalty.
You may disagree with my conclusions. That is perfectly legitimate. But to claim that such commentary has no place on LinkedIn is a different argument – and one I believe is misguided.
Politics Is Not Separate from Professional Life
LinkedIn is often described as a “professional platform.” That is true. But politics shapes the professional environment more than almost any other force.
Trade policy determines supply chains. Regulation determines business models. Immigration policy shapes labour markets. Security policy shapes geopolitical risk. Sanctions affect markets overnight. Cultural politics influences talent attraction and retention. And the credibility of democratic institutions underpins investor confidence and long-term stability.
When the President of the United States — still the most powerful political office in the world — acts in ways that raise concerns about truthfulness, stability, or susceptibility to manipulation, that is not a purely private matter. It is not partisan gossip. It has direct and material consequences for business leaders, entrepreneurs, publishers, investors, and professionals worldwide.
To pretend that politics stops at the office door is naïve. Professionals do not operate in a vacuum. We operate within political systems. Discussing the quality of leadership in those systems is entirely legitimate on a professional network.
Strong Language Is Not the Same as Illegitimacy
Some critics have not objected to political discussion as such, but to the tone of my remarks. They consider them too blunt.
Here we enter an important distinction: civility versus clarity.
I have not attacked private individuals. I have not incited harassment. I have not used slurs. I have not called for harm. I have expressed a forceful evaluation of a public officeholder and a political movement.
In democracies, leaders must tolerate scrutiny — and sometimes harsh scrutiny. The higher the office, the higher the scrutiny. If we demand polite euphemisms when discussing behaviour that we believe undermines democratic norms, we risk replacing honest debate with sterile neutrality.
Professionalism does not require blandness. It requires responsibility. Responsibility means grounding claims in observable behaviour and accepting counterarguments in good faith. It does not require self-censorship simply because the topic is uncomfortable.
LinkedIn Is Not a Sanctuary from Disagreement
Another argument I have encountered is that LinkedIn should be a “safe space” free from polarising content.
But safety in professional discourse does not mean insulation from ideas. It means protection from abuse, harassment, and threats. Those are already addressed by LinkedIn’s policies.
In fact, LinkedIn provides robust mechanisms for handling objectionable content. If you dislike a comment, you have several options:
Offer a counterargument. Democracy thrives on argument. If my analysis is flawed, challenge it. Provide evidence. Offer a different interpretation.
Ignore it. No one is compelled to engage with every post.
Report it. If you believe a comment violates platform rules, LinkedIn has clear reporting procedures.
What we should not do is attempt to impose informal censorship simply because a viewpoint is strongly expressed.
A professional network should be robust enough to handle disagreement.
The Larger Issue: Cultural and Democratic Divergence
My comments have also addressed something beyond one individual: the sustained support for him among a significant portion of American voters.
This is not an attack on individuals. It is an observation about political reality. When 30–40% of a population consistently supports a leader whom many Europeans perceive as undermining democratic norms, it signals a cultural divergence that affects alliances, trade relationships, and shared assumptions about governance.
From a European business perspective, that divergence is not abstract. It affects regulatory predictability, diplomatic cooperation, and long-term strategic planning.
To discuss this openly is not anti-American. It is analytical. It is recognition that transatlantic alignment cannot be taken for granted.
If anything, avoiding the topic would be intellectually dishonest.
Professional Integrity Includes Speaking Up
As professionals, we often pride ourselves on leadership. Leadership includes the willingness to articulate concerns when we see systemic risks.
Silence may feel comfortable. It avoids friction. It protects short-term harmony. But long-term trust in professional communities depends on authenticity.
If I believe that a political leader’s documented behaviour reflects traits that are dangerous in positions of power, I will say so. If I believe that the persistence of such support signals deeper cultural fractures, I will say so.
Others are free to disagree. That is the point.
The Responsibility That Comes with Voice
With freedom of expression comes responsibility. I accept that responsibility. I stand by the need to base arguments on facts, to avoid personal harassment, and to engage respectfully with critics.
But I also stand by the principle that professionals are citizens. We do not surrender that role when we log into LinkedIn.
If we want a professional platform that reflects reality rather than a curated illusion of consensus, we must allow room for serious political discussion — including sharp criticism of those who wield power.
Democracy does not weaken when professionals speak plainly. It weakens when they decide that some truths are too inconvenient to express.
I choose engagement over silence.
