The CEO Who Saw the Future: How Boeing and Kelly Ortberg Quietly Aligned Itself with Trump—and Secured Its Future

By Marvin Moore

Boeing’s public reputation in recent years has largely centered around safety failures, delivery delays, and highly publicized manufacturing missteps. But beneath the headlines, another story has quietly unfolded—one that speaks not to technical failures but to corporate strategy at its most sophisticated. At the center of that story is Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg, who has positioned the company to secure unprecedented long-term financial security by quietly aligning Boeing with Donald Trump’s political resurgence in the year before his return to office.

While other CEOs hesitated to pick sides in America’s deepening political divide, Ortberg made a different calculation: that positioning Boeing as a key industrial partner of the Trump movement could bring strategic, legal, and financial benefits unmatched by any operational maneuver. So far, it appears that wager has paid off—brilliantly.

The First Moves: Labor, DEI, and Internal Signaling

The earliest signs emerged shortly after Boeing resolved a prolonged labor dispute. No sooner had the strike ended than Boeing began dismantling much of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) infrastructure. While framed internally as a realignment of priorities, the timing carried unmistakable political resonance.

In a climate where DEI had become a flashpoint for many conservative and pro-Trump constituencies, Boeing’s shift signaled cultural and ideological realignment—a clear departure from the centrist corporate orthodoxies that many large American multinationals still publicly embrace. The follow-on layoffs that came next remain ambiguous. Officially, they were part of efficiency efforts; unofficially, questions remain as to whether certain reductions carried symbolic weight, reflecting internal recalibrations aligned with the emerging political winds.

Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg has also demonstrated a sharp ability to leverage circumstances to his advantage, skillfully incorporating external events into Boeing’s broader narrative management. A clear example came during the prolonged labor strike, which Ortberg deftly cited as a contributing factor behind delays in the 777X certification timeline. While industry analysts widely understood that the 777X was already facing significant regulatory and technical hurdles independent of labor disruptions, Ortberg effectively reframed the strike as an external headwind impacting progress. In doing so, he positioned Boeing as a company navigating external challenges rather than internal program difficulties, using the situation to manage expectations with regulators, customers, and investors alike — a hallmark of his strategic adaptability.

Symbolism and Access: Elon Musk, Air Force One, and Defense Realignment

Further signals followed. Elon Musk’s highly publicized invitation to advise on Air Force One—whether deeply substantive or largely symbolic—aligned three powerful brands: Boeing, Musk, and Trump. The message was unmistakable: Boeing was signaling itself as not simply a defense contractor, but a trusted partner in an emerging industrial-political alliance.

But the most consequential moment came with Boeing’s successful capture of the contract for America’s next-generation fighter jet—officially designated as the F-47. The naming itself is no coincidence: Donald Trump is the 47th president. The contract—potentially exceeding $1 trillion in value over the next two decades—was awarded even before full specifications for the aircraft have been established. Boeing has, effectively, secured a generational revenue stream on a product that, as of today, remains largely conceptual.

The Middle East Dividends

This alignment has paid dividends beyond U.S. borders as well. Trump’s recent visit to Qatar yielded a 180-plane order for Boeing’s 737 series—a major commercial win with far-reaching geopolitical implications. Middle Eastern orders have historically been bellwethers of U.S. foreign policy influence. Now, Boeing appears deeply embedded in that nexus of diplomacy, commerce, and defense.

As Boeing’s alignment with Trump’s foreign policy objectives deepens, it stands to gain not only financially, but diplomatically, positioning itself as a preferred industrial partner for both U.S. allies and defense clients across the Gulf.

Regulatory Risk: The Quiet End of Boeing’s Criminal Trial and Media Coverage (or lack thereof)

Perhaps the clearest signal of Boeing’s political insulation came on the Friday afternoon before Memorial Day weekend—a time traditionally reserved for burying unflattering news. In a near-total media vacuum, the U.S. Department of Justice quietly announced it would drop its criminal prosecution of Boeing related to the 737 MAX disasters that claimed hundreds of lives. All for the bargain price of $1 billion. Half to the families and half reinvested at Boing in quality measures.

Announced late on a Friday afternoon, the DOJ’s decision attracted minimal media scrutiny despite the scale of the legal exposure being set aside. .

In an earlier political era, or any prior regulatory environment, such a dismissal of corporate criminal liability for one of the most serious aviation safety crises in modern history would have dominated headlines for weeks. This time, the news was largely absorbed into the holiday weekend, receiving only passing media attention. That silence spoke volumes—not only about Boeing’s legal fortunes, but about the evolving relationship between corporate power, political patronage, and media control, either direct or via influence, in the Trump era.

The New Political Economy of Corporate Power

What emerges from Boeing’s story is not merely a tale of contract wins or regulatory escapes. It is a case study in the evolving political economy of American business—a world where industrial giants increasingly find it more profitable to align themselves early and decisively with political movements rather than attempt neutrality in an era that no longer rewards it.

By moving early, Ortberg brilliantly placed Boeing in a position that now appears nearly unassailable: with multi-decade defense contracts secured, international sales booming, regulatory threats defused, and political favor banked.

The Remaining Variable: Execution

Of course, the final test will come not in Washington or Qatar, but on Boeing’s factory floors. The company’s long string of manufacturing lapses, supply chain disruptions, and quality assurance breakdowns remain its most visible and potentially damaging liabilities. No amount of political capital can indefinitely shield a firm from repeated product failures in safety-critical industries.

Still, with trillions in revenue now forecasted over the next 20 years and its political position more secure than ever, Boeing has bought itself something just as valuable as capital: time.

Conclusion

Kelly Ortberg may ultimately be remembered not as the CEO who simply stabilized Boeing after a turbulent period, but as one of the most strategically adaptive corporate leaders of his era—someone who understood that in the 21st century’s increasingly polarized political economy, corporate survival often depends less on technical performance than on the skillful management of power itself. Or perhaps he just adapts to the climate and does what it takes, not just to survive, but to thrive. And in an amazingly short period of time.

Now, for Boeing, the future will still require engineering excellence. Delivering the 777X and competing with Airbus A350 for market share, and developing the next generation of commercial planes. But politically and strategically, the most important engineering may already have been done.