(1) for his speech as a private citizen to not contradict the public values of the company he leads (i.e. for him to not donate to, say, exclusionary institutions), and,

(2) most likely, going beyond (1): for his speech as a private citizen to be "in alignment" with the public values of the company he leads (i.e., to compel speech).

You can agree or disagree that any of this is a reasonable or desirable or legal, but it's Orwellian doublespeak to claim it's "not silencing".