The OP was actually not questioning that at all. It was lamenting that they are bending the knee to someone unworthy of it, in furtherance of a culture war spearheaded by said someone. In particular, a glorified reality show egomaniac who treats their current job as a glorified reality show.

It certainly isn't useless information that the person is currently president, but that alone doesn't say much, because no presidents have ever acted this way before. The difference here is that this president is also a power-tripping glorified reality show egomaniac. Thus, the operant term is the latter, not the former.

Again, that said someone is the President of the United States. If he wasnt the president, these companies probably wouldnt be doing this.

I still feel thats pretty relevant.

The part which is relevant is that he’s willing to break the law in unprecedented ways and has the full support of the Republican Party in doing so. Americans used to pride ourselves on the government not controlling businesses.

The US government has been dictating what company grows and what fails since WWII. Just like every other country.

Really? So like IBM getting big and then fading to Microsoft and then Apple and Google was a government plan? The government decided that American car manufacturers should lose to Japan but then pivoted back for … reasons?

This is not like “every other country”, it’s like corrupt authoritarian countries and you shouldn’t help cover for it by making excuses for corruption.

If he wasnt the President, he wouldnt be able to do those things.

Therefore the fact he is President is pretty relevant.

Sure, and again, that someone is also a 34-time convicted criminal and rapist. He wouldn't be doing these things if he wasn't predisposed to criminality and abusing people over which he has disproportionate power, or if he wasn't a malignant narcissist and glorified reality tv show egomaniac, with a track record of amoral transactional relationships aimed at improving his position at the expense of others.

So, your points and others' are all 'pretty relevant': we now have the means (provided by the article), the motive (provided by others), and the opportunity (provided by you). Thank you for your useful and equal contribution to the trifecta.

sorry, on HN you get flagged for stating the truth

However, in the United States, the President is supposed to have very limited unilateral authority over any company.

That's proved to be an idea only held up by the fig leaf of norms like the independence of the DOJ and the idea of the other two branches actually acting as a check on the others. Instead after the 70 year project we now have a compliant Supreme Court rubber stamping practically every action and flirting with ratifying the unitary executive as law. That plus a compliant Congress either ideologically aligned or cowed by the idea of his power over the voters means we very much have a President able to exert huge amounts of influence over companies.

But on the plus (???) side, he's extremely bribable.

For minor things with immediate payoffs like a pardon that seems correct. If you're ask is longer term though I'd be hesitant, he shows the same inclination to go with whatever the last person in a room wanted for longer term stuff, see his aggressive oscillations on Ukraine.

These companies had no problem resisting "the president". Heck, if Bernie Sanders or AOC were elected president, do you think they would bend the knee the way they do?

Trump is the president AND he is part of their in-group. They submit willingly.