INTRODUCTION
In a rapidly globalizing financial environment, the participation of leading U.S. CEOs in the 2025 Saudi Arabian investment forum — dubbed by critics as “MAGA in the Desert”—raises urgent questions about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and democratic accountability. As figures such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink prepare to attend the Future Investment Initiative (FII) conference in Riyadh, their decision has sparked a firestorm of debate across political and legal circles in the United States. Central to this debate are competing interpretations of fiduciary duty, corporate ethics, foreign policy alignment, and the First Amendment’s boundaries with international expression.
Held against the backdrop of increasing U.S.-Saudi economic entanglement, this event draws parallels to the now infamous 2018 FII forum held shortly after the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. While many CEOs pulled out of that forum in protest, the 2025 version suggests a growing desensitization to the kingdom’s human rights record. “When financial capital moves faster than moral accountability, democratic norms suffer collateral damage,” observes Dr. Farah Sayeed, professor of international law at Georgetown University.
The controversy also surfaces broader legal tensions. At stake are the constitutional protections U.S. corporations enjoy when engaging in international speech, the policy consequences of reinforcing autocratic soft power, and the extent to which American business leaders must align with national diplomatic stances. Does corporate participation in forums hosted by authoritarian regimes violate or dilute U.S. law or policy? Are there statutory limitations or fiduciary thresholds CEOs must consider? And what precedent does this set for the private sector’s entanglement with foreign regimes?
This article provides an in-depth, scholarly exploration of the constitutional, statutory, and policy issues raised by American CEO participation in high-profile foreign investment summits in authoritarian nations. It places the 2025 Saudi conference within the context of U.S. law, international human rights frameworks, and corporate governance mandates, seeking to balance the constitutional freedoms of expression and association against evolving expectations of democratic corporate responsibility.
LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
First Amendment Protections Abroad
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution broadly guarantees freedom of speech and association. In Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), the Supreme Court held that the government may restrict entry of foreign nationals without violating the First Amendment, but left open the extent to which American citizens’ speech rights extend in international contexts. Corporate speech has since been recognized under Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), affirming the right of corporations to engage in political expression.
Still, such rights are not limitless. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) (22 U.S.C. §6111 et seq.), individuals or entities acting on behalf of foreign principals must disclose lobbying and political activities. Although merely attending a conference does not constitute lobbying, the statute has been broadly interpreted in high-profile investigations.
U.S. Sanctions and Trade Law
Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. §§1701-1708), the President may regulate commerce in response to foreign threats. U.S. companies are barred from doing business with entities on the Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list. While Saudi Arabia as a nation is not under broad U.S. sanctions, individual entities and persons connected to human rights violations are listed.
In 2018, Congress invoked the Global Magnitsky Act (22 U.S.C. §2651 et seq.) to sanction 17 Saudi nationals for their role in Khashoggi’s murder. These sanctions do not bar forum participation per se, but raise ethical and reputational concerns for any U.S. entity seen to be engaging with sanctioned individuals.
Corporate Fiduciary Duties
Under Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), which governs most Fortune 500 companies, corporate officers and directors owe duties of care and loyalty to shareholders (DGCL §141). Engaging in ventures that may pose reputational risks or align a firm with human rights violators can expose boards to shareholder derivative suits, as seen in Marchand v. Barnhill, 212 A.3d 805 (Del. 2019).
Legal scholar Benjamin Sachs of Harvard Law School notes: *”While courts rarely second-guess boardroom diplomacy, growing ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scrutiny means that corporate travel to politically charged events is increasingly a legal, not just PR, liability.”
CASE STATUS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
While no active litigation surrounds the 2025 Saudi investment forum, there are ongoing legislative efforts in Congress to strengthen transparency in foreign engagements. The bipartisan “Corporate Accountability in Foreign Affairs Act,” introduced in April 2025, would require public companies to disclose attendance at forums hosted by nations designated as authoritarian under the State Department’s Human Rights Practices report.
The Act also mandates that such disclosures include potential ESG risks, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) empowered to enforce compliance. Public comments on the Act reflect a divided sentiment: while civil liberties groups caution against encroachments on First Amendment freedoms, investor watchdogs argue that disclosure enhances shareholder knowledge and long-term financial health.
Public legal commentary has also emerged from organizations like Human Rights Watch and the Brookings Institution, with the latter publishing a March 2025 policy brief stating: *”If American corporate leadership legitimizes autocratic investment strategies without due scrutiny, the regulatory vacuum may become a geopolitical liability.”
VIEWPOINTS AND COMMENTARY
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
From a liberal standpoint, the optics and substance of the Riyadh summit are problematic. Critics argue that participation by U.S. CEOs not only lends credibility to a repressive regime but also undermines American foreign policy principles.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) stated in a press release: *”Corporate executives cannot have it both ways: championing democracy at home while dining with despots abroad. We need laws that align market incentives with democratic values.”
Civil society organizations, including Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), have warned that such forums are designed to whitewash human rights abuses through economic soft power. Legal scholars like Professor Aziz Rana of Cornell Law School have argued that: *”Private sector diplomacy erodes the democratic accountability of U.S. foreign relations, creating an unregulated shadow of global influence.”
There is also concern over ESG violations. A 2025 report by the Center for American Progress highlights how participation in events sponsored by repressive states can contravene ESG frameworks, potentially leading to litigation from activist investors.
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Conservative voices, by contrast, largely defend CEO attendance on grounds of economic realism and constitutional freedom. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) remarked: *”American enterprise should not be hamstrung by ideological litmus tests. The free market is our best ambassador.”
Think tanks like the Cato Institute argue that corporate participation can act as a moderating influence on authoritarian regimes. In a recent publication, Cato fellow Doug Bandow wrote: *”Engagement, not isolation, paves the path to liberalization. Economic interdependence may achieve what sanctions cannot.”
Originalist constitutional scholars also defend the First Amendment implications. Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA writes: *”To deny U.S. executives the right to attend foreign forums absent illegal conduct is to flirt with compelled silence and association infringement.”
From a corporate governance standpoint, conservative jurists emphasize the business judgment rule, as articulated in Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984), asserting that courts should not second-guess executive discretion in global ventures unless clear breaches of fiduciary duty occur.
COMPARABLE OR HISTORICAL CASES
Several precedent cases and scenarios offer instructive parallels to the current controversy:
- 2018 Saudi Investment Forum and Khashoggi Murder: The mass withdrawal of U.S. executives in 2018, following the state-sanctioned killing of Jamal Khashoggi, marks a high-water moment for corporate moral standpoints. “It was a rare moment when Wall Street aligned with human rights,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, former executive director at HRW.
- South Africa Divestment Movement (1980s): U.S. corporate withdrawal from apartheid-era South Africa under legislative and shareholder pressure laid the foundation for modern ESG activism. The Sullivan Principles emerged as a voluntary code to guide ethical business operations.
- Russia’s 2022 Ukraine Invasion Fallout: Following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, hundreds of U.S. firms exited the Russian market. Legal scholars like Professor Harold Koh noted: *”Corporate exit, when synchronized with state sanctions, becomes a powerful instrument of diplomatic leverage.”
These historical examples illustrate how corporate engagement with authoritarian regimes often prompts legal and moral backlash, especially when misaligned with U.S. foreign policy or public sentiment.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND FORECASTING
In the short term, CEO participation in the 2025 Riyadh conference may bolster U.S.-Saudi economic ties, particularly in emerging tech sectors. However, it also risks legitimizing autocratic governance models and undermining American democratic signaling abroad.
In the long term, failure to regulate or at least disclose such engagements may erode public trust and investor confidence. Legal reforms such as the Corporate Accountability in Foreign Affairs Act may become pivotal in institutionalizing ethical transparency.
Scholars at the Brookings Institution warn: “The U.S. cannot afford a bifurcated diplomacy in which corporate actors act in defiance of national values.” Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation argues that regulatory overreach may chill innovation and distort market incentives.
The SEC’s evolving ESG disclosure guidelines, combined with shareholder activism, suggest a trend toward formalizing ethical benchmarks for foreign engagement. Courts may soon be asked to adjudicate fiduciary disputes arising from controversial international involvements, especially if returns diminish or reputational harms escalate.
CONCLUSION
At its core, the controversy over U.S. CEO attendance at the 2025 Saudi investment forum reveals a profound tension between economic globalization and democratic accountability. While no laws currently prohibit such participation, the ethical, constitutional, and fiduciary questions it raises are anything but settled.
The debate spans partisan divides, touching upon constitutional freedoms, global market dynamics, corporate governance, and international human rights. As such, it reflects the evolving complexity of modern capitalism in an ideologically fractured world. “In an age of moral ambiguity, the law must guide what markets will not restrain,” concludes Dr. Martha Sutton, senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Moving forward, legal scholars and policymakers must confront a pressing question: Should American corporate influence abroad be tethered to the values enshrined in its Constitution?
FOR FURTHER READING:
- New York Post: https://nypost.com/2025/05/06/business/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-and-larry-fink-slated-for-saudi-conference-next-week/
- The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/03/us-ceos-saudi-arabia-investment-forum-ethics/678901/
- Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/commentary/engagement-not-isolation-right-us-corporate-diplomacy
- Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/american-business-and-autocracy-whats-at-stake/
- Brennan Center for Justice: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/corporate-power-and-democratic-accountability