President Trump’s Second Year: How the Administration Will Impact Media, Advertising, and Technology | Behind the Numbers

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Behind the Numbers: an EMARKETER Podcast

Episode: President Trump’s Second Year: How the Administration Will Impact Media, Advertising, and Technology
Date: January 30, 2026
Hosts & Guests: Marcus (Host), Garjo Sevilla (Senior Analyst, Tech & AI), Jeremy Goldman (Senior Director of Content)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Behind the Numbers takes an in-depth look at the evolving impact of President Trump’s second term (specifically, his administration’s second year) on the technology, AI, media, and advertising industries. Host Marcus is joined by analysts Garjo Sevilla and Jeremy Goldman, who break down the current landscape, regulatory changes, and the new realities that marketers, media owners, and tech companies are facing under the administration's policies.

---

Tech & AI Under Trump: 2025 and Looking Forward to 2026

(00:54 – 16:08)

Key Discussion Points & Insights

• U.S. Dominance & Government Involvement in AI Hardware

  • The administration has solidified its relationship with big tech, particularly in the AI hardware space.
  • U.S. companies like Nvidia, AMD, and Intel remain at the forefront, but the government has intervened heavily, including attempting a bailout of Intel and seeking a 10% stake in the company.
  • Export licensing and new regulations have been introduced, particularly limiting where high-end AI chips can be sold. Lower-performance versions have been created to skirt export restrictions, especially with China.
  • Quote [03:58]
    "The administration’s relationship with big tech seems to have solidified around a number of things... The US government, I think, attempted to bail out Intel... As for Nvidia and AMD, they got into export licensing to a certain extent." — Garjo Sevilla

• Supply Chain Constraints, Obsolescence & Environmental Impact

  • Ongoing high demand causes persistent supply constraints, with Nvidia holding a dominant market position.
  • Creation of limited-performance chips for export as a workaround, compared to "selling last year's model" (05:00).
  • Rapid chip cycles mean older chips quickly become obsolete, less energy-efficient, and require more cooling, placing strain on local communities and resources.
  • Quote [10:46]
    "Old older chips tend to consume more energy... That's a wider impact than just the business. That's communities that you're sort of stepping on, impacting." — Garjo Sevilla

• Future Projections for 2026

  • Expect more international deal-making, possibly opening new avenues for U.S. tech firms abroad, but not resolving shortages.
  • Growing concerns about ROI on major AI investments—investors are now "asking where’s the return on investment for all this, for all the AI money that we're spending?" (11:43)
  • The administration is likely to continue oversight and be involved in deal-brokering, limiting independent tech company operations.

• AI Regulation & State-Level Initiatives

  • Federal regulation on AI is loosening, favoring acceleration over constraint, in contrast to the stricter approaches under previous administrations.
  • Model releases and competition are accelerating, but no major federal regulatory frameworks are yet in place.
  • California is poised to continue as a leader at the state level, especially in privacy, notably concerning minors’ data.
  • Quote [13:28]
    "There’s a loosening towards allowing AI to be a bit more—to accelerate the development of AI... Unlike in the Biden era where, you know, they were really looking to clamp down certain aspects of…development." — Garjo Sevilla
  • Quote [15:25]
    "California will continue to push the envelope…We’ve also seen states actually pushing the envelope on things like privacy around minors and their data." — Garjo Sevilla

---

Media & Advertising in Year Two: Navigating Power & Uncertainty

(16:11 – 27:07)

Key Discussion Points & Insights

• Media Environment: Regulatory Leverage & Cultural Flashpoints

  • The administration has taken a "thumb on the scale" approach, leveraging regulatory bodies like the FCC in unprecedented ways.
  • Notable incidents, such as Jimmy Kimmel’s temporary cancellation and digital resurgence, illustrate the volatility and shifting platforms for controversial media figures.
  • Quote [16:58]
    "There's been a lot of... thumb on the scale type maneuvering by this administration... A lot of that has been shaped by power moves and power brokering behind the scenes." — Jeremy Goldman

• Linear vs. Digital and the Rise of Direct-to-Platform Talent

  • Linear/legacy media faces increased risk of regulatory action, while digital platforms provide alternative outlets for talent, shown by both Kimmel and Tucker Carlson.
  • Quote [18:30]
    "If you're a media owner, you have to think about this is the regulatory environment that you have to play ball in... There's a lot of unpredictability tied to that." — Jeremy Goldman

• Advertising: Agility, Brand Safety, and Contingency Planning

  • Real-time monitoring and agility are vital—advertisers must plan for "full pivot" scenarios if platforms or personalities face sudden regulatory or cultural backlash.
  • Programmatic channels enable quick spend shifts in response to unrest or brand safety threats.
  • Quote [20:31]
    "Brand safety matters... Just because something is difficult to manage doesn't mean it's not worth doing. And having those contingency plans in place—it's a really good point." — Jeremy Goldman

• Mergers, M&A, and Favoritism

  • The administration appears open to media consolidation, which could drive further M&A activity. Companies may make "concessions to play ball" as deals are brokered and scrutinized by regulators.
  • Expect to see further consolidation driven by the administration's pro-business stance.
  • Quote [23:23]
    "There are going to have to be some concessions that are made to essentially play ball with this administration... Are we seeing more consolidation from a media standpoint?" — Jeremy Goldman

• CEO Diplomacy & Public Silence

  • CEOs of major media/advertising companies are now acting more like diplomats, refraining from political commentary and aligning strategies with the realities of doing business under the administration.
  • Quote [24:46]
    "I think what you're going to see more and more is certain people change a little bit about what they say or maybe refrain from public commentary... It's not necessarily a political thing... This is who my partner is for the next few years." — Jeremy Goldman

• Tariffs, the Supreme Court, and Ad Spend

  • Pending Supreme Court decisions about Trump's tariffs have major implications. If tariffs are struck down, categories like consumer goods ("CPG") could see higher ad spending due to lower prices and increased demand.
  • Quote [26:06]
    "If demand slows because products become more expensive, which they largely do under a tariff regime, we think ad spending will go up if there aren't tariffs in place..." — Jeremy Goldman

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On Export Controls:
  "Another thing they did which was unusual was they created lower performing AI chips that sort of fall under the limitations so that those could be sold to China and other markets."
  — Garjo Sevilla [05:00]

• On Brand Safety:
  "Just because something is difficult to manage doesn't mean it's not worth doing. And having those contingency plans in place... Be thinking about, if something does happen, where are the places that something could occur?"
  — Jeremy Goldman [20:31]

• On CEO Diplomacy:
  "I think what you're going to see more and more is certain people change a little bit about what they say or maybe refrain from public commentary, especially when they have some business that they think is in front of the administration."
  — Jeremy Goldman [24:46]

---

Important Timestamps

• AI Hardware and Export Policy: 03:58 – 06:46
• Discussion of Ongoing Chip Supply Chain Issues: 08:10 – 10:46
• Regulatory Forecasts & State vs. Federal Action: 13:15 – 15:58
• Media/Advertising Under Regulatory Pressure: 16:58 – 18:30
• Advertiser Agility & Programmatic Spend: 20:31 – 22:00
• Media Mergers and CEO Strategies: 23:23 – 26:06
• Tariff Impacts on Ad Budgets: 26:06 – 27:07

---

Tone & Style

The episode blends EMARKETER’s signature analytical, data-driven approach with a conversational, occasionally witty tone. Analysts approach high-level policy and business challenges in digital media and technology with detail and careful speculation, while also acknowledging unpredictability ("I will make a bold prediction that's not bold at all...") and using illustrative, everyday comparisons (e.g., AI chips compared to "last year’s model" cars).

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers a nuanced analysis of how Trump’s administration is shaping the digital landscape, particularly in AI hardware, regulatory frameworks, and the media environment. Both Garjo and Jeremy agree: oversight is here to stay, the tech supply chain will remain constrained for the foreseeable future, and media/advertising professionals must plan for a volatile environment with agile contingency strategies. Key regulatory developments, state-level privacy pushes, and possible Supreme Court decisions on tariffs hang in the balance as major determinants of the year ahead.

---

For further details and the full report, listeners are encouraged to visit EMARKETER's website (Pro Plus subscribers).

Transcript

[Jeremy Goldman]

Foreign.

[Marcus]

It's Friday, January 30th. Garjo and listeners, welcome to behind the Numbers new Marketer video podcast. I'm Marcus, and joining me for today's conversation, we have Gargio Sevilla, our senior analyst for tech and AI based in New York. Hello, sir.

[Garjo Sevilla]

Hey, Marcus. Happy to be here.

[Marcus]

Thank you for joining us. We'll be joined by Jeremy Goldman a little bit later to talk about media and advertising. But Gaja is here to give us the. The AI and tech angle. We'll get to our topic in a second. We start, of course, with the fact of the day.

[Jeremy Goldman]

All right.

[Marcus]

What is the tallest dinosaur in the world? What was the tallest dinosaur was likely the Sauroposeidon, which could reach fifth. Speaking of tall dinosaurs, my chair just started to lower by itself. So now I'm really speaking of tall diets. The sorrow Poseidon, unlike myself, who is now a foot smaller because of this old computer chair, could reach 55 to 60ft tall. That's four times taller than the giraffe. Ganjo giraffes are impressive enough. If I saw one of these, I think I'd black out. Four times taller than a giraffe. It could stick its head through the sixth floor window of the building. So next time your six floors up, look out. That's how tall. That's how tall they are. Yeah. You'd be nauseous, wouldn't you? To tall. I guess tall people aren't more nauseous than people who are close to the ground. Wembanyama's gotta feel more nauseous than most people, right? When you fall, it just takes forever. So what are you gonna say?

[Garjo Sevilla]

I think it probably gets annoying when the smaller dinosaurs start bumping into it just because it's so big, right?

[Marcus]

You think so? Yeah, but it's also. So it's the tallest. It's. That's big, but it's not that. So the heaviest. I found that as well. The heaviest dinosaur considered widely considered to be the Argentinosaurus, a massive titanosaur with estimates placing its weight between 70 to 100 tons. That would be the weight of 15 African elephants combined. Or nearly 60. 60 cars. It's the weight of nearly 60 cars. They might not notice. That sounds like a horrible time to be around, doesn't it?

[Garjo Sevilla]

Yeah. Was it vegetarian? Because how did it.

[Marcus]

Good question.

[Jeremy Goldman]

Yeah.

[Marcus]

I don't know.

[Garjo Sevilla]

Yeah.

[Marcus]

How. Yeah.

[Garjo Sevilla]

How could you on a veggie? How many fields do you eat a day?

[Marcus]

No one did not hear anymore. Ruined the planet. They just ate everything. I don't know if it was, was it an asteroid? We'll never know. Anyway, today's real topic, President Trump's second year, how would the administration impact media and advertising? But first, technology. All right, so we're going to start with how the administration impacted tech and AI in 2025 and then we'll look at how it impacted it this year. I was saying to Garja before, I don't really like look backs, but I think when an administration, if you do look back at the last year, it gives you a pretty good idea of how the next couple of years are going to go. Looking back on other things, I don't think it could be as interesting because things can fluctuate quite a lot. But I think with an administration you kind of get a sense of how they're intending to govern. So what stood out to you with regards to the impacts made to tech and AI in 2025?

[Garjo Sevilla]

So I mean, the new administrative, well, not new anymore, but the administration's relationship with big tech seems to have solidified around a number of things. And I think the biggest evidence of that, I suppose, is AI hardware. Now, the US still dominates in that area. We have Nvidia, we have amd, you know, we have intel as well. You know, the US government I think, attempted to bail out Intel. They wanted to take a 10 stake in the, in, in that company which, you know, not too far ago was the leading maker of processors. Right. As for Nvidia and amd, they got into export licensing to a certain extent. There was regulation around where their high end chips could go and where they couldn't. And as a result, there's high demand for AI chips everywhere. We know that. I mean, Nvidia just got a backlog of orders to fill. But what we were seeing from the administration, if they're starting to pick and choose how much, where these chips are going to go, which is really unusual if you consider that's usually a decision made by the company and its board. But they've sort of had to throw the line. Another thing they did which was unusual was they created lower performing AI chips that sort of fall under the, under, under the limitations so that those could be sold to China and other, in other markets. So I mean, if you think about it like cars, they sold maybe last year's model and that's just to keep supplies moving. So all of that is very unusual. You hardly see that happen because for these companies, they make money on innovation. The next greatest chip is what they expect to sell out of. That's when you're going into data centers, that's what those are designed for. The latest, most performant AI chips possible.

[Marcus]

So what do you think the landscape in terms of chips would have looked like had this not been mandated?

[Garjo Sevilla]

I think there'd still be supply concerns because there's such high demand. Right. And there's only a handful of chip makers and really it's Nvidia's at the top of that. They would have been able to sell more and to more countries. Right. Without having to worry about, you know, are we getting into a geopolitical situation? Right. So if their job was just to fulfill orders, taking out the politics aspect of it, then I think it would have been better for their bottom line. Right. Because they're there to do business and to profit from it. But instead they've sort of had to work with the administration and figure out a way to please everybody at this point, which can go a long way if you have the backing of the administration. Everything's good there. But at some point that affects your bottom line. Right. Because you could say you could have sold 30, 40% more if you didn't have to play along with the game of who gets to import what supplies.

[Marcus]

You mentioned supply concerns. We've heard this a fair amount when it comes to the AI space. Is this something that we expect? It sounds like it's going to get worse before it gets better. But do you see it getting continually worse, continually worse just because the demand is so high and they can't make these fast enough? Or do you see, is it just because this is a very new space? Once companies get used to developing AI chips, then the supply will catch up with the demand. What's going on here and how long will it last?

[Garjo Sevilla]

I think it's going to get more complicated. A short term view. It's affecting more than just AI hardware. So the price of RAM chips, which is memory, which they also need for data centers, that is escalating at this point where, you know, we're actually seeing the PC market say, you know, the prices are going to go up, but the specs are not, you know, you're not going to get another 16 gigabytes of RAM in the next computer. Right. And that's going to slow down sales. The situation right now is that Nvidia still leads the pack by far. So until there's ample competition, it's, yeah, it's going to remain constrained for, for the foreseeable future.

[Marcus]

And this has, is, this isn't exclusively because of tariffs. This is just the More processing power you need, the more expensive the chip that.

[Garjo Sevilla]

And at the rate that they're, that they're building them, you know, they're promising all these just in the us all these AI data centers. Right. That's, those are sold on the promise that there will be enough chips to populate all that. Those chips are not yet here. You know, they're, I mean for the most part our AI ecosystem is running on current, current generation of chips. Right. And maybe older generation of chips to get to the next level of AGI and advanced AI. They're saying, you know, that they need more power, more energy.

[Marcus]

Yeah. One of our colleague, one of Jacob, Jacob Bourne, who's one of our analysts who writes for AI Tech as well for long form content, he was saying that with the chips one of the problems here is obsolescence. The fact if you bought chips three or four years ago, they're so outdated because the cycles speeding up and speeding up. Is that for you as also that of the major concerns here?

[Garjo Sevilla]

Yes. And old older chips tend to consume more energy, right. They run hotter, they need more water, they need more cooling. The newer generation is higher performance but also takes less energy to run. So that's, they're more sustainable for the long term. And really that's where you want to go. Because AI's power and energy and water demands are really escalating for the communities that have to host these data centers. That's a wider impact than just the business. Right? That's communities that you're sort of stepping on, impacting.

[Marcus]

Yeah. Let's talk about 2026. In what ways do you think the administration is going to impact tech and AI this?

[Garjo Sevilla]

I mean there could be different levels to this. I think there'll be more deal making country to country. I suppose that could open avenues for US tech companies to sort of expand with the blessing of the administration. But that's not going to solve the current shortages. Also, you know, the worries about overspending on, on AI. Right. Which, it's, it's, it's, it's an industry wide thing, but I think it's a global concern because you know, right now a lot of investors are like, so where's the return on investment for all this, for all the AI money that we're spending? Right. So I think that's going to continue to be a topic. But yeah, maybe you know, again more deal making and possibly depending on how things go, which is, you know, unpredictable in day to day perhaps, you know, the path to, to China might, might open up A bit as a negotiating lever, you know, you don't really know, but it's, it's not going to be business as usual in the sense that these companies can operate without the oversight. Right. So I think that's just going to continue for sure.

[Marcus]

Tell me a bit about regulation and legislation. Anything that you're paying attention to there to there. In terms of this administration in 2026.

[Garjo Sevilla]

I think the one thing to look out for maybe is AI regulation. So from what we've seen in the past years, there's a loosening towards allowing AI to be a bit more to accelerate the development of AI. So less on restricting the ethical aspect of it, but more on pushing for the innovation, which of course, most AI companies are embracing because, you know, it, it is, after all, very competitive. So, you know, although no frameworks have actually been put into, into place, unlike in the, in the Biden era where, you know, they, they were really looking to clamp down certain aspects of it, of, of development. I think it's, you know, we're seeing the results of that too. Right. Fast, faster model releases. Not all of them to backtrack, but definitely that's translating to competition accelerating at the faster pace. I think that's the biggest thing we need to look out for. And as for the rest of tech regulation, it depends. A lot of those cases are still being observed, being studied, but no major moves have been made. From what I've seen, we've seen California.

[Marcus]

Lead the pack a lot of the time when it comes to regulation. Do you expect to see something coming out of California in terms of breaking away from the other 49 states and trying to develop something? A lot of the time they're developing the data privacy rules. A lot of the time they're developing something more akin to what's happening in Europe. You don't expect that to be going on this year for AI?

[Garjo Sevilla]

I think so. I think California will continue to push the envelope and clearly a lot of the companies are from there, so there's an enforcement angle to that. We've also seen states actually pushing the envelope on things like privacy. Around minors and their data as well, and that I think that will continue. So it's likely going to be at that level more than at a federal level.

[Marcus]

Yeah, yeah. That's all we've got time for for the first half. Gajo, thank you so, so much for joining me. We're going to talk about media and advertising with Jeremy, but Gajo will let you go. Thank you so much.

[Garjo Sevilla]

Thanks again. Nice talking to you. Again, take care.

[Marcus]

We are now joined by senior Director of content living in New York, Jeremy Goldman. Jeremy, thank you for joining the show.

[Jeremy Goldman]

Yeah, I'm excited for this.

[Marcus]

Absolutely. And so we've asked you to join because you wrote the section of the report looking at the second term, second year, second term of President Trump's administration and its impact on a bunch of different spaces. We just covered the impact on tech and AI. You wrote the impact on media and advertising. And so similar to Gajo, we ask you to start by looking back into 2025. And I was saying to Garjo before as well, it's because with an administration, you get a good sense of how they're intending to govern based on that first year. And so what stood out to you the most in terms of the Trump administration's impact on media and advertising in 2025?

[Jeremy Goldman]

There's been a lot of, I want to say, kind of like thumb on the scale type of maneuvering by this administration realizing that there can't be a third Trump term. So how do you really think a little bit in terms of, like, what is your legacy? And a lot of that has been shaped by power moves and power brokering, let's say, behind the scenes. You know, we saw a lot of that this year with some of the furor over some of Jimmy Kimmel's comments that then caused him to get kind of canceled, taken off air, and then, you know, returned to air and some of the strength that the FCC has to enforce some powers in a way that it hasn't before. So I think that in a weird way that actually we've talked a lot about Linear being on the decline in some ways, like, that could be like an yet another headwind for linear is worrying about what it says, you know, in a way that digital platforms don't.

[Marcus]

Interesting, because, yeah, it was taken off the air and then came back opening monologue on YouTube, did record numbers, I think.

[Jeremy Goldman]

Right?

[Marcus]

Yeah. So being taken away from one place, showing up in another, we've seen that, I guess Tucker Carlson left one old legacy media, all of a sudden popped up on digital digital platforms. So it does seem as though there is another place for folks to go. And I think you saw an example of that last year.

[Jeremy Goldman]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, and it becomes really like a fascinating decision about, like, so what do you do? Obviously, you know, you're, you're selling your ad inventory all over the country to people who might have all different political views. And it's very difficult to say, like, you need to be aligned With A versus B or whatever. But if you're a media owner, you have to think about like this is the regulatory environment that you have to play ball in, right? So we kind of saw that a little bit with Paramount and its subsidiary cbs. Think a bit about, well, we have this guidance merger that we want to get through and at the same time there was some furor over a 60 minute segment. So what do you do in that situation? You know, do you try to come to a settlement in order to move forward or do you believe that that's kind of antithetical to your values or whatever and you're not able to do that. And so we really have seen a lot of media players just acknowledge this is the media environment right now. And there's a lot of unpredict predictability, I would say, tied to that. But also a lot of people who are practical capitalists and have to figure out how do you, you know, exist in an environment for a few years, you know, while waiting for whatever next administration you might have to deal with.

[Marcus]

So as an advertiser we talk a lot about as getting as close to real time as possible in terms of looking at how your advertising is doing and trying to, you know, fiddle with the dials and adjust accordingly. Normally those adjustments are relatively small, kind of incremental adjustments in the moment as quickly, as easily as you can. Is it advised? Is it possible for advertisers to be having full blown contingencies? You know, we're putting our dollars here, but if something major happens, it is out of our control because of certain decisions that are being made. Full pivot. This is where the dollars should actually go instead.

[Jeremy Goldman]

Yeah, it's a really good question. I think that there's been kind of like this moment where people said, oh well, you can't have brand safety because you're going to run ads, of course you're going to run ads on social and there's very low levels of brand safety there in relation to some other channels. So what's the point? And I mean, I would actually argue brand safety matters and you are always exposed as you're trying to run ads in different environments. And you don't know necessarily like how brand safe those environments will be or if they're going to, if one particular platform will be out of favor with the administration, things like that. But just because something is difficult to manage doesn't mean it's not worth doing. And having those contingency plans in place, I will say a lot more dollars. You know, per our forecast are moving to programmatic channels, which means that you're able to quickly shift spend in a way that you weren't able to before. So I think it's a really good point. Be thinking about like, if something does happen and also where are the places that something could occur? You know, perfect example is that if you were advertising around Jimmy Kimmel, that was somebody who was making political jokes all the time. So you knew that depending on who you're trying to sell to, that could be a place that promotes a little bit less safety. Right. So it's not like something becomes less brand safe out of the blue. There are hints and you should be willing to move spend around when. When needed.

[Marcus]

Yeah. Let's look at 20, 26. What are some of the things you're expecting to see impacts you expecting to be made from this administration in terms of way it affects media and advertising?

[Jeremy Goldman]

So I would actually kind of lean into what you just said about that agility. I will be make a bold prediction that's not bold at all, which is that we are going to be talking about one or two things that we never thought we would be talk that could be like a little bit of a political football, you know, as evidenced by the fact that. Marcus, did you think that you would be talking about Greenland ever? I think there are a lot of people who thought that, you know, like, you just might never say that.

[Marcus]

And the only reason we talked about Greenland, I think it was a fact of the day, is that on the map it looks bigger than it actually is. I think it's. It's only about the size of the Democratic Republic of Congo, but it actually looks like it's as big as North America. How maps are drawn, it makes it look outsized.

[Jeremy Goldman]

Wow. I didn't want to get us off topic, but like, I thought it's still pretty actually, but I think it's bigger than like Congo. But like, I could be totally wrong. I don't know how big the Congo is.

[Marcus]

Yeah, it's still. It's still very. It looks like. Yeah, because I think Africa as well looks like it's the same size as South America, but Africa is like one and a half times as big just because the way maps are drawn. But Greenland is. It is really sizable, but that's the only time I've talked about it.

[Garjo Sevilla]

And.

[Jeremy Goldman]

But we didn't think that we. We would be speaking about it that much. And I think that I didn't think that I would be writing about Jimmy Kimmel. Having record viewership on a digital platform. Right. And I think that there are going to be certainly, like, a few mergers and acquisitions that haven't been publicly reported on, where there are going to have to be some concessions that are made to essentially play ball with this administration? I think. Absolutely. I can't tell you which companies those are, but I think that that will certainly happen. There's been a lot of signals that this is an administration that's going to look favorably at things like that. And I think that that's one thing to really kind of pay attention to is do we wind up seeing more consolidation from a media standpoint simply because the administration has said that it wants to see that it wants to be seen as very pro business. And if that happens, you know, like, is there, let's say, a platform and that was previously somewhere that you were very comfortable advertising and now you're not? Right.

[Marcus]

Yeah. Is there a specific part of media advertising that you're looking at closer because of this administration? Is there a certain. A certain company, a certain format, certain deal that, you know, deals that are kind of in the works that you're. You're probably paying closer attention to?

[Jeremy Goldman]

So, you know, I would spin that question a little bit and just actually talking about the idea of CEOs being major evangelists of their company, I think what you're going to see more and more is certain people change a little bit about what they say or maybe refrain from public commentary, especially when they have some business that they think is in front of the administration. We've seen a bunch of companies where they had their, you know, leadership give donations to the inauguration of Trump, the second inauguration. And, you know, there were some people who kind of said, like, how can you do this? Because is it aligned with your values or whatever? But if you have, you know, like a certain degree of business in front of the administration, then you're just trying. It's not necessarily a political thing. It's just more so this is who my partner is for the next few years. And I do suspect that people will either say things differently or refrain from saying things at all because they're concerned that it's going to wind up, you know, coming back to bite them to some degree if they have some business in front of the administration.

[Marcus]

Yeah, I think it's a great take, the CEO's role evolving into something more akin to a diplomat, so to speak. Yeah, yeah. Jeremy, anything else you're paying attention to in 2026 in terms of impacts?

[Jeremy Goldman]

Yeah, I will say, I think that as of the time of this recording, we're still waiting to find out about the Supreme Court and Trump's tariffs. And I think that that is a big deal because there are a lot of different advertising categories that we are watching closely that depending on what the Supreme Court says, you could see ad spending go up or go down on a category basis, depending, because obviously consumer goods, that's one example where demand, if demand slows because products become more expensive, which they largely do, you know, under a tariff regime, you know, like we think that ad spending will go up if there aren't tariffs in place. Because though it makes a lot of sense, those CPG firms believe that they're going to sell more of their product and their ad dollars are going to be better spent. So the Supreme Court striking down the tariffs could actually be quite good for a number of different categories. But that's all tbd. So stay tuned.

[Marcus]

Yeah, a lot is. But thank you so much for talking to us a bit about what you expect to see in 2026. That's all we've got time for. So I thank my guests. Again, I'll say thank you first to Jeremy.

[Jeremy Goldman]

This was fantastic. Thank you.

[Marcus]

Absolutely. And of course, thank you to Garjay for joining us earlier. The the whole, the whole piece is on eMarketer.com Pro plus subscribers can check that out. President Trump says second term, if you search that, it will pop up and there's coverage on how it will impact banking, finance stuff, how it will impact retail and some other stuff as well. So check that out. Thank you so much to the production crew, of course, Lance helping run this episode. And thanks to everyone for listening in to Buy Me the Numbers, the Marketer video podcast. Subscribe, follow and leave a rating and review if you can. We'll be back on Monday talking about the three big questions surrounding Netflix at the minute. Happy happiest of weekends.