I understand why people feel this way. But the premise of this concern is that the Trump administration could be meaningfully influenced by these clubs. In really no administration is this the case. Kalanick's real role on the "Business Advisory Council" is as an endorser of Trump and his policies. That's not just supposition: it's Kalanick's stated reason for leaving the "Council".

Further, there being no rational basis for the construction of an immigration ban that detains pre-schoolers at the border and denies visa- and green-card-holders access to their homes, we've already reached a point where the idea of rational inputs to Trump's policy process miss the point. Trump isn't looking to accomplish serious domestic policy objectives.

Finally, I don't think we need to spend too much time on the concern that leaving a "business advisory council" is going to deprive the leadership of multi-billion-dollar corporations of access to the policy-making process anyways. I'm pretty sure any CEO in the Fortune 500 can get any meeting they want regarding policymaking in the Trump (or Obama) administration.

Unless there's some demographic anomaly about Uber I haven't picked up on, Kalanick's employees overwhelmingly oppose the Trump administration. I prefer to see this as a hopeful sign that no matter how outsized their compensation, tech's leadership remains beholden in at least some ways to its rank-and-file employees. Now it's time to find better ways to put that influence to use.

We can't spend 8 years complaining on this message board about how unfair options packages at big tech companies are and then shrink away when given the opportunity to use our market power to help people in real need.

We have been through this. It is not like this council is anything other that Trump administration looking for endorsement from the tech industry.

Do you seriously think that it would all be fine, if only Kalanick and Musk mentioned to Trump that it was a bad idea to ban muslim refugees?

This is not to mention Trump's trying to control businesses by giving out favors in exchange for endorsements is a path to legitimizing autocracy. The administration wants feedback from business leaders? Fine, go ahead and listen to the media or read their open letters.

The CEOs having to prize and endorse Trump in exchange to not being slammed on Twitter is so wrong I do not even know where to start.

This endorsement was a bad business and morally and ethically wrong.

Not all (I'd actually venture out to say most) people important to Uber (customers!) think like you do.

Look into the #deleteUber campaign and the subsequent rise of Lyft usage. I was pretty disappointed to see the same reactionary protesters you talk about, not doing due research. But they have the capacity to hurt Uber very much.

So being bent to them is actually the better move if you ask me. If he would've stayed, sadly most would see it as a choice of siding with Trump administration, and Uber or Kalanick can't really afford another anti-Uber hashtag movement.

I agree people should not be reactionary, but it doesn't not apply in this case.

Trump has been advocating these things for over a year and a half, to a far greater extreme and more brazenly than any major party candidate possibly ever. He has been acting on them since Election Day, including via appointing xenophobic, hateful people such as Steve Bannon to high positions, and with his actions post-inauguration. Over the same period Trump has also demonstrated an extreme unwillingness to listen to anyone, including people in his own government, in his own party and his own political allies.

If this was Trump's first day on the campaign trail, I'd agree. But at this point it's not at all reactionary to draw conclusions about Trump and to oppose him. What more evidence do we need? What more could he provide? We cannot wait for him to capture more ground and hurt more people in return for a very slim chance that he will suddenly change his personality, behavior and policies and listen to reason. This man has openly declared war on the values of much of America and the world; as his forces advance across the metaphorical landscape, should we stand back and try to negotiate Peace in our time?

The story I read about this announcement said that Kalanick called and spoke with Trump about this. I imagine that he could have walked back on it had Trump's reaction given him hope.