 |
| Photo: Jason Leung, Unsplash |
Action, Anxiety, and the Search for Leverage
At a time when many Americans feel deeply unsettled by reports of aggressive immigration enforcement and the conduct of ICE operations, marches and protests can feel morally necessary—and politically invisible.
Crowds gather. Statements are issued. Hashtags trend. And yet, the machinery of policy often keeps moving.
Now a New York University business professor and entrepreneur is arguing for something different: an economic response.
Appearing on CNN with Michael Smerconish on Feb. 7, Scott Galloway offered a blunt thesis: Political leaders—especially this administration—may respond less to public protest than to market pressure. If that is true, he argues, then citizens who want to signal opposition to immigration enforcement practices should consider a form of targeted economic strike.
The Companies That Anchor the Modern Economy
His idea centers on subscription-driven companies, what he calls “ground zero,” including companies such as Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, and others whose valuations depend heavily on recurring revenue growth.
He also points to what he calls a broader “blast zone” of consumer-facing companies tied to the logistics and infrastructure ecosystem around enforcement.
The logic is straightforward: Forty percent of the S&P 500, Galloway says, is concentrated among roughly 10 companies whose market value depends heavily on subscription growth.
He has even created a new website, Resist and Unsubscribe, urging people to target the subscription services that provide revenue to some of the leading tech companies. Doing that, he says, will make a meaningful dent in their market value, which will get the president's attention.
"So if you cancel your Open AI subscription, which I did, that's $240. They're raising money at 40 times revenues, so you're effectively taking $10,000 out of their market capitalization," he said.
"These are the firms he listens to. This is what the market listens to. This is the fastest, biggest ROI way to have a big impact and send the strongest signal with the least amount of consumer disruption."
Galloway argues that political leaders who track markets closely are more likely to notice market movement than protest turnout. It's a familiar argument, in effect asking us to treat consumption as a political instrument.
"It feels good to be doing something. You know, instead of hectoring from the cheap seats and being indignant and looking at memes or the Obamas, I want to send a message. When they say, "Dad, what did you do in the war?" You know, I tried to have an impact on the companies and send a strong signal to the Trump administration. And I think this is a fairly easy, nondisruptive way to have a big impact on these companies and send a very strong signal to the Trump administration."
“Thirty to forty percent margin expansion — which is Latin for layoffs.”
But he has a larger point: Galloway says the record stock market highs are not necessarily evidence of broad economic health. Much of recent market growth, he argues, has come from margin expansion, often through layoffs, financial engineering such as stock buybacks, and productivity gains driven by artificial intelligence. “The Dow loves efficiencies, margin expansions, and layoffs, but it doesn’t love labor,” he says.
To him AI is “corporate Ozempic”: growth without adding labor.
If that trajectory continues, the political power of markets may only increase relative to the political power of workers or voters.
The ethical debate around Galloway’s proposal is real. Boycotts have a long history in American civic life—from Montgomery to farm labor movements to anti-apartheid campaigns. But broad economic strikes have rarely worked unless they were tightly targeted and sustained. Galloway wants to translate protest into something measurable by corporate and political leadership: lost recurring revenue.
Who Do Institutions Actually Listen To?
Critics will argue that corporate boycotts can produce collateral damage to workers who had no role in policy decisions. But Galloway’s argument raises a larger question about our system: What happens when citizens believe institutions respond more quickly to stock indexes than to public demonstrations?
The real power of his argument may not be the unsubscribe movement itself. It may be the question it forces us to confront.
If markets are where power listens most closely, what does meaningful democratic participation look like in a market-driven era—and does it really matter?
- John Strauss, 2/7/26
