As a leading voice on policy and legislation, Donald Gainsborough has a unique vantage point on the intricate dance between multinational corporations and the U.S. government. His firm, Government Curated, advises on navigating the complex corridors of power in Washington. Today, we’ll delve into the sophisticated strategies companies use to embed themselves in the American political landscape, exploring how corporate influence can reshape international trade negotiations. We’ll examine the playbook for pivoting lobbying efforts after an election, the fine line between legitimate foreign regulation and protectionism, and how a single company’s dispute can escalate to threaten a major international trade agreement.
Coupang moved its headquarters to Seattle, hired former White House officials, and listed on the NYSE. How does a foreign-founded company so effectively rebrand itself as “American” in Washington, and what specific steps, beyond hiring, are crucial for gaining traction with U.S. policymakers?
It’s a masterclass in what I call ‘political naturalization.’ Simply planting a flag in Seattle isn’t enough; you have to cultivate the entire ecosystem around it. The real traction comes from becoming an indispensable part of the American economic and political conversation. Beyond the splashy IPO and high-profile hires like Rob Porter, the truly crucial step is embedding the company within the U.S. export narrative. Look at their partnership with the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration—that’s a brilliant move. It reframes them not as a foreign retailer, but as a dedicated pipeline for American businesses in all 50 states to access tens of millions of new customers abroad. It’s no longer just Coupang’s problem; it’s the problem of thousands of American small businesses. This, combined with joining influential trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, creates a powerful chorus of voices that Washington can’t easily ignore.
After a presidential election, Coupang significantly increased its lobbying spending and shifted its representation to firms with strong Republican ties. Could you walk me through the strategic calculus behind such a pivot? What tangible outcomes, like congressional subpoenas or supportive public statements, do companies expect from these investments?
The calculus is about survival and leverage. When the political winds shift, you have to adjust your sails immediately or risk being left dead in the water. After the 2024 election, dropping a firm with Biden connections and bringing on lobbyists with direct lines to people like Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan was not just a pivot; it was an offensive maneuver. You’re not just buying access; you’re buying champions. The tangible outcomes are exactly what we’ve seen play out. That $3.3 million in lobbying spend isn’t just for meetings. It translates into a congressional committee issuing a subpoena on your behalf, framing your corporate dispute as a matter of national economic security. It results in the House Judiciary Committee’s official X account posting in your defense, directly linking your issue to the President’s tariff threats. These actions create a powerful echo chamber in Washington, making it politically costly for the administration to ignore the company’s plight, even if they initially see it as a separate issue from broader trade policy.
A South Korean investigation into a data breach is being framed by the company as “digital discrimination,” while officials there insist it is a legitimate safety issue. How do U.S. officials typically distinguish between fair national regulation and a protectionist attack on an American-affiliated company?
It’s an incredibly murky process, and honestly, the distinction often comes down to who tells the more compelling story in Washington. On one hand, you have South Korean officials like Minister Yeo Han-koo coming to D.C. and making a very sober, rational case about protecting citizens from breaches involving sensitive data like apartment pass-key passwords. It sounds like a government doing its due diligence. But then you have Coupang launching a full-court press, framing this as a “lawless whole-of-government attack” and the first shot in a war against all U.S. tech companies. They amplify this narrative with surrogates and allies, turning a specific regulatory action into a symbol of anti-American protectionism. U.S. officials are then caught in the middle. They have to weigh the sovereign right of a partner nation to regulate against the loud, persistent, and politically connected pleas of a company that has successfully branded itself as “American.” Often, the side with the more effective D.C. influence machine wins the narrative battle, regardless of the on-the-ground facts.
A White House official stated that issues surrounding Coupang are unconnected to a major trade deal, yet influential members of Congress are making a direct link. How does this divergence impact negotiations, and what specific strategies can a company use to leverage congressional support to influence administration policy?
This divergence is where a company’s lobbying investment truly pays off. The White House, especially the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, wants to keep negotiations clean. They see the trade deal—with its focus on tariffs and market access—as one bucket, and a single company’s regulatory dispute as another. But an effective influence campaign completely erases that line. By getting powerful figures like Jim Jordan and Scott Fitzgerald to issue subpoenas and write letters explicitly linking the “targeting of Coupang” to South Korea’s trade commitments, the company creates a second front. Suddenly, the administration isn’t just negotiating with Seoul; it’s also negotiating with its own powerful legislative branch. This pressure forces the administration to address the company’s issue as part of the larger package, whether they want to or not. The strategy is to make your problem Congress’s problem, and in turn, Congress makes it the administration’s problem.
With U.S. trade officials canceling meetings over Seoul’s new digital platform regulations, how might this conflict set a precedent for other American tech companies operating in South Korea? Please elaborate on the potential long-term risks for both sides if this dispute isn’t resolved.
This conflict is a critical test case with enormous long-term implications. The U.S. Trade Representative canceling an annual meeting is a significant diplomatic slap, signaling that Washington sees Seoul’s digital policies as a potential violation of its trade commitments. If South Korea proceeds with these regulations and faces no serious consequences, it sends a green light to other countries that they can enact protectionist digital policies without fear of reprisal. This is a nightmare scenario for American tech giants who rely on a global, relatively open internet. However, if the U.S. pushes too hard and is seen as bullying a key ally on behalf of one company, it risks alienating a critical partner in a volatile region. For South Korea, the risk is being labeled a protectionist market, which could chill future U.S. investment far beyond just the tech sector. If unresolved, this dispute could erode decades of trust, making cooperation on everything from trade to regional security much more difficult.
What is your forecast for the future of U.S.-South Korea trade relations, especially concerning digital commerce and platform regulation?
I foresee a period of sustained friction. The genie is out of the bottle when it comes to digital sovereignty. Nations like South Korea are increasingly determined to regulate the massive tech platforms operating within their borders, and this impulse will only grow stronger. The U.S., on the other hand, is committed to defending its tech giants and will continue to view these national regulations through the lens of protectionism and unfair trade barriers. This fundamental disagreement isn’t going away. I expect we’ll see more tit-for-tat actions: more canceled meetings, more threats of tariffs, and more legislative maneuvering on both sides. The future will likely be a messy, negotiated truce rather than a clean resolution. The final landscape will depend on which side has more leverage at any given moment and which companies are most effective at making their specific corporate battles a matter of U.S. national interest.
