In November 2023, Microsoft staked out its strategy to combat online violent extremism. The tech giant partnered with U.N.-backed initiative Tech Against Terrorism to develop AI detection technologies to identify violent or terrorist content. Microsoft President Brad Smith heralded the move as the necessary extension of the company’s commitment to countering online extremism, asserting that “The use of digital platforms to spread violent extremist content is an urgent issue with real-world consequences.” The company’s chosen to broadcast a hardline stance on platforming political extremism in keeping with its view of its social commitment and also, ostensibly, its own fiduciary duty to protect its brand integrity.

Yet Microsoft itself has become a source of political extremism and PR headaches. Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn cofounder and a member of the company’s board of directors, recently drew fire for comments he made at the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference. PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel asserted that Hoffman’s bankrolling of lawsuits against Donald Trump had effectively turned the former president into a martyr. Hoffman’s reported response? “Yeah, I wish I had made him an actual martyr.”

Days later, a would-be assassin nearly murdered former President Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, eliciting an apology from Hoffman. But the reputational damage had already begun.

Hoffman’s remarks drew widespread media coverage, and the National Legal and Policy Center called for a special meeting of shareholders to discuss Hoffman’s ongoing tenure on Microsoft’s board. The controversy also shed light on the Democratic Party megadonor’s political ties, including to Democratic strategist Dmitri Mehlhorn, who recently suggested that the attempted assassination of Trump was a false flag.

Hoffman can’t seem to get away from having to backpedal statements and regret associations—the Trump comments are hardly the first time the social media mogul had to apologize for less-than-stellar judgment. Hoffman also drew serious criticism for his associations with Jeffrey Epstein. He visited the financier’s “pedophile island” Little St. James in 2014 and later issued an apology in which he described his connection with Epstein as a “personal misjudgment.”

While it might be tempting to see the backlash against Hoffman’s remarks as cancel culture, it’s crucial to remember that his statements occurred in a public arena: the Sun Valley Conference brings together some of the brightest minds in media, finance, and business. Additionally, Hoffman’s remarks have cast a shadow of politicization on the Microsoft brand that he was promoting at Sun Valley, a brand that also happens to be one of the biggest in the world.

Hoffman’s remarks about killing Trump don’t exist in a vacuum. They’re exhibit A for why America’s biggest corporations are perceived as politically slanted. Microsoft, aside from its problem with its progressive firebrand board member, is a textbook example of perceived corporate bias.

The company holds a perfect score from the liberal Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, while conservative groups like the 1792 Exchange label it “High Risk.” Public controversies like Hoffman’s aren’t helping Microsoft stay out of politics. And they certainly aren’t helping advance the company’s fiduciary obligation to shareholders. On the contrary, such political speech sets little fires that distract companies from their primary obligations of generating return.

Microsoft is correct that mishandling violent political speech creates repercussions, both socially and for the companies commited to combating it. But if it wants its center/right-leaning shareholders to trust its ability to be politically neutral, it’s time for the tech giant to take a serious look at the genuine risk that arises when partisan executives bring their politics into the boardroom. Against the already-heated public square that an election year inevitably brings, companies that commit to fighting political extremism need to start looking a bit closer to home—for the sake of the body politic and the shareholders who ultimately own them.