There Is No Broligarchy: Tech Elites as Courtiers in Trump’s Personalist America
Introduction
The “broligarchy”—a portmanteau of “bro” and “oligarchy”—gained traction in early 2025 as a shorthand for the supposed convergence of tech plutocrats and executive power in the U.S., especially amid Donald Trump’s return to the presidency (TIME, Feb. 12, 2025; The Atlantic, Jan. 20, 2025; NPR, Jan. 2025)
. Media and public discourse heralded a new, stable, bi-directional power structure: a digital oligarchy, reminiscent of the classic military-industrial complex, with figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg assuming unprecedented visibility and influence as donors and quasi-officials.
Yet as Trump’s second term unfolds, this narrative is already unraveling. The executive’s unilateral, often extra-constitutional actions—most dramatically, the defunding of elite universities and cultural institutions—reveal a system not of entrenched oligarchs but of courtiers, their fortunes contingent on the executive’s favor. This essay offers a speculative, real-time critique of the “broligarchy” narrative, arguing that the Achilles heel of the AI and tech sector is precisely this dependence: there is no durable broligarchy, but rather a vertical of power, more akin to Putin’s Russia or Orban’s Hungary than to colonial or modern oligarchic models (Brookings, Mar. 9, 2022)
.
Caveat: This analysis is provisional, reflecting developments as of June 2025. The judiciary’s resistance remains a key bulwark, and further events may strengthen or weaken the case for personalism.
I. The Rise (and Limits) of the “Broligarchy” Narrative
The broligarchy concept only gained currency during Trump’s 2024 campaign and the early months of his second administration, with TIME, The Atlantic, and NPR describing a tech-government alliance based on Musk’s $300 million campaign contributions, his Special Government Employee (SGE) role, and the inauguration presence of Bezos and Zuckerberg (NPR, Jan. 2025; TIME, Feb. 12, 2025)
. These accounts, published before Trump’s second term began, assumed a durable, mutually reinforcing nexus akin to the military-industrial complex.
Yet, as subsequent events have shown, this narrative was premature. The broligarchy literature overgeneralized from Musk’s visibility and failed to anticipate the volatility of personalist systems, where loyalty to the executive can shift rapidly and tech elites’ influence is fragile. The conspicuous silence of other tech magnates—despite reputational damage in the mainstream media for “buckling under Trump”—further underscores their vulnerability and the absence of a stable, independent tech oligarchy.
Karen Hao’s Empire of AI (2025) reinforced the broligarchy analogy by likening AI firms to colonial empires, extracting data and labor like the British East India Company (Democracy Now! transcript, 2025)
. While compelling for global economic dynamics, this analogy presumes institutional stability absent in Trump’s America, where executive fiat overrides corporate influence and tech elites act as subordinates, not partners.
II. The Personalist Turn: DOGE, Project 2025, and Tech’s Fragility
The Trump administration’s treatment of Elon Musk—heretofore the most visible “broligarch”—is best understood not as a case of an oligarch dictating policy, but as a convergence of interests between Musk’s technocratic ambitions and Trump’s longstanding agenda to dismantle the federal bureaucracy. This convergence was not accidental, nor was Musk’s influence unchecked.
DOGE as Method and Model—A Strategic Fit, Not a Coup:
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), conceptualized by Musk
and Vivek Ramaswamy, was not an alien imposition on Trump’s White House.
Rather, it offered a radical, streamlined alternative to the Heritage
Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint, which had envisioned a slower, more
cumbersome process of replacing tens of thousands of civil servants
with MAGA loyalists. By leveraging Musk’s resources, technical
expertise, and outsider status, DOGE enabled the administration to
bypass the logistical and political hurdles of grassroots staffing,
instead gutting agencies almost overnight and replacing middle
management with AI-driven automation and a skeletal leadership structure
(NYT, Feb. 28, 2025)
. Musk’s appeal to Trump and his allies lay precisely in this capacity to operationalize Project 2025’s goals more rapidly and with fewer obstacles.
Pay-to-Play Patronage—Conditional, Not Autonomous:
Musk’s campaign largesse and public support were rewarded with
contracts, regulatory favors, and a quasi-official role, but this was
always conditional. As soon as Musk publicly criticized Trump’s budget
and tariff policies, Trump threatened to revoke all federal contracts
and subsidies to Musk’s companies—a move justified not by performance or
public interest, but by personal grievance (CBS News, Jun. 5, 2025;
Business Insider, Jun. 6, 2025)
. This echoed the logic of Putin’s “red lines” with Russian oligarchs: utility and loyalty are rewarded, but autonomy or dissent is punished.
DOGE and Project 2025—Convergence, Not Contradiction:
While some reporting has highlighted tensions between the more
technocratic, privatizing instincts of DOGE (and Musk) and the
grassroots vision of Project 2025, the reality is that Trump’s
administration has blended these approaches opportunistically. The
result is a hybrid model: rapid, top-down purges and automation where
feasible (DOGE), and slower, ideologically-driven staffing and policy
changes where necessary (Project 2025). The key constant is executive
dominance, not stable oligarchic partnership.
The Silence of Other Tech Elites:
Other tech leaders—Zuckerberg, Altman, Bezos, and Thiel—have avoided
public dissent, aligning with Trump through inauguration contributions,
regulatory accommodations, or contract wins (TIME, Feb. 12, 2025;
Bloomberg, May 27, 2025)
. Their conspicuous silence, despite reputational costs and MSM criticism for “capitulation,” suggests a courtier-like dependence and fear of executive retaliation, further undermining the broligarchy thesis.
III. Unilateral Defunding and Institutional Erosion
The most striking evidence for the personalist model is the Trump administration’s ongoing campaign to defund and discipline America’s most iconic institutions—universities, museums, and research centers—by executive order and administrative fiat.
Elite Universities:
Since early 2025, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Brown, and others have
faced billions in federal funding freezes and grant cancellations,
justified by vague accusations of “antisemitism” or “wokeness” tied to
pro-Palestinian protests (Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 10, 2025;
NYT, Apr. 9, 2025; ABC News, Apr. 22, 2025)
. The firing of professors at Columbia and Brown for supporting protests directly contradicts “personal liberties,” yet tech elites’ silence suggests deference to avoid similar reprisals against their businesses.
Smithsonian and Cultural Institutions:
A March 2025 executive order tasked Vice President J.D. Vance with
purging “divisive narratives” from the Smithsonian, bypassing Congress
and threatening funding (PBS NewsHour, Mar. 28, 2025; Fox5DC, Mar. 28,
2025; Pressley House, May 2, 2025)
.
IV. Theoretical Implications: Personalist Fragility vs. Oligarchic Entrenchment
Hao’s colonial analogy and the broligarchy narrative presume a stable, mutually dependent tech-government nexus. In contrast, Trump’s America exhibits personalist traits, where:
-
Power concentrates in the executive, who dispenses rewards and punishments at will.
-
Tech and cultural elites are courtiers, their status contingent on loyalty.
-
Institutions are hollowed out, their autonomy eroded by fiat.
Personalist Fragility and Democratic Recovery:
Political science research shows that personalist regimes—unlike
entrenched oligarchic systems—are more vulnerable to reversal after the
leader’s exit, precisely because they lack deep institutional roots and
elite coalitions (Brookings, Mar. 9, 2022; Frantz, 2021; Van den Bosch,
2015)
. Brazil and Poland offer instructive cases:
-
In Brazil, Bolsonaro’s personalist rule was quickly reversed after his defeat, with courts banning him from office and democratic institutions recovering ground (Carnegie, Apr. 2025)
.
-
In both cases, the absence of a durable, power-sharing oligarchy made reversal possible, though not easy or complete.
By contrast, oligarchic authoritarianism—where elite coalitions outlive individual leaders—makes democratic recovery much harder, as subsequent leaders must negotiate with entrenched interests (Sage, 2023; Wikipedia, 2024)
.
U.S. Implications:
Trump’s refusal to share power with tech oligarchs or other elites, as
shown by the Musk episode, prevents the formation of a durable,
bi-directional power structure. This makes his personalist project more
brittle and susceptible to reversal if he loses office or is otherwise
removed. If a Democratic administration returns in 2028, it could
quickly reverse many of Trump’s executive actions, as there is no
entrenched oligarchy to resist—unlike the scenario in a true
“broligarchy.”
However, the damage to norms, the judiciary, and civil service may still
have lasting effects, and the risk of repeated cycles of personalist
populism remains unless deeper institutional reforms are made.
V. The Judiciary as Acid Test: The Boasberg Episode
The judiciary remains a bulwark against personalism, as seen in Chief Judge James Boasberg’s temporary halt to deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act (NPR, Mar. 18, 2025; Politico, Mar. 18, 2025)
. Trump’s defiance, public attacks on Boasberg as a “radical left lunatic,” and the House’s introduction of impeachment articles—rebuked by Chief Justice John Roberts—signal pressure on judicial independence (The Guardian, Mar. 20, 2025). This episode, still unresolved as of June 2025, contrasts with tech elites’ deference. The judiciary’s resilience will determine whether the U.S. crosses into full personalism.
VI. Conclusion
The broligarchy narrative, prematurely proclaimed in early 2025, misreads tech elites’ power as oligarchic. Musk’s contract threats, Bezos’s Post overhaul, and Zuckerberg’s Meta pivot—framed by MSM as capitulation yet unclarified despite reputational costs—reveal a personalist system where loyalty trumps autonomy. The contradiction between their rhetoric of “personal liberties and free markets” and Trump’s tariffs, trade wars, and university defunding underscores their subordination. As lawsuits and judicial resistance unfold, this speculative analysis urges political sociologists to scrutinize these trends, as the AI-tech sector’s fragility and institutional erosion demand vigilance to safeguard democracy.
Comparative Perspective:
Recent experiences in Brazil and Poland suggest that personalist
authoritarianism, for all its dangers, is more vulnerable to reversal
than entrenched oligarchic systems. The absence of a durable
“broligarchy” in Trump’s America may paradoxically increase the chances
for democratic recovery—though the window for reversal is narrow, and
the costs of personalist rule are high.
References
-
Hao, K. (2025). Empire of AI. [Democracy Now! transcript].
-
Norden, L. & Weiner, D. I. “The Rise of America’s Broligarchy.” TIME, Feb. 12, 2025.
-
Scherer, M. & Parker, A. “The Tech Oligarchy Arrives.” The Atlantic, Jan. 20, 2025.
-
“Trump and Elon Musk trade insults and accusations as public feud reaches new heights.” CBS News, Jun. 5, 2025.
-
“Exposing the Work of Elon Musk and DOGE.” American Oversight, Mar. 25, 2025.
-
“How Musk Built DOGE: Timeline and Key Takeaways.” The New York Times, Feb. 28, 2025.
-
“Trump, Musk, and their dangerous AI-driven government overhaul.” Biometric Update, Feb. 19, 2025.
-
“Trump Has Targeted These Universities. Why?” The New York Times, Apr. 9, 2025.
-
“Trump targets Smithsonian funding with executive order to remove ‘improper ideology’.” Fox5DC, Mar. 28, 2025.
-
“Harvard sues Trump administration over threats to cut funding if demands go unmet.” ABC News, Apr. 22, 2025.
-
“New Budget Proposal a Potential ‘Deathblow’ to Arts and Culture Funding.” PEN America, Jul. 12, 2024.
-
“Authoritarianism.” Wikipedia, 2024.
-
“In the plutocratic age of ‘broligarchy’, democracy is in deep trouble.” CEPS, Mar. 14, 2025.
-
“Democratic Recovery After Significant Backsliding: Emergent Lessons.” Carnegie Endowment, Apr. 28, 2025.
-
“When Can Dictators Go It Alone? Personalization and Oversight in Authoritarian Regimes.” Sage Journals, Mar. 10, 2023.
-
“The epic breakup of Trump and Musk’s White House bromance.” Washington Post, Jun. 5, 2025.
-
“What to Know About Trump’s Funding Threats to Colleges.” Inside Higher Ed, Apr. 18, 2025.
-
“Pressley, Tonko Demand Investigation Into Trump’s Attack on Smithsonian Museums.” Pressley House, May 2, 2025.
-
“The rise of personalist rule.” Brookings Institution, Mar. 9, 2022.
-
“The Rise of America’s Broligarchy and What to Do About It.” TIME, Feb. 12, 2025.
-
“How the nasty feud between Trump and Musk unfolded minute by minute.” Business Insider, Jun. 6, 2025.
-
“Trump’s Education Budget Calls for Billions in Cuts, Major Policy Changes.” Education Week, May 31, 2025.
-
“Authoritarian personality theory.” EBSCO Research Starters, Mar. 3, 2025.
.
In Poland, despite the Law and Justice Party’s attempts to entrench loyalists in the judiciary, a broad opposition coalition and civil society activism enabled a partial restoration of democratic checks after the 2023 elections (Carnegie, Apr. 2025; European Democracy Hub, Mar. 2025)
No comments:
Post a Comment