There Is No Broligarchy (Addendum)

 

Addendum: DOGE, Russ Vought, and the Aftermath of the Musk-Trump Feud:

While the situation remains in media res, several strong, evidence-backed conclusions can already be drawn—each confirming the central thesis of this essay : there is no unified tech oligarchy or “broligarchy” in Trump 2.0. Instead, the system that has emerged is personalist, transactional, and centered on the consolidation of executive power.

Russell Vought—Project 2025’s chief architect and former OMB director—is now the central figure directing DOGE

His ascendance marks the full transition of DOGE from a Musk-led, tech-enabled blitz on the administrative state to a more institutionalized, loyalty-driven apparatus for executive control. Vought’s vision, rooted in the unitary executive theory, is explicit: the president should have direct, near-total authority over the federal bureaucracy, with Congress and traditional checks sidelined. DOGE, under Vought, is carrying out the first phase of the Project 2025 playbook—rapid evisceration of the administrative state, mass layoffs, and the embedding of loyalists in key positions.

Musk’s “Repair-Work”: An Itemized Account

In the wake of the feud, Musk undertook a series of public and private steps to repair his relationship with Trump and the administration. These actions, widely reported and observed, underscore the power asymmetry at play:

Public Apology and Expression of Regret: Musk posted on X: “I regret some of my posts aboutPresident@realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far,” a direct attempt to dial back his most inflammatory rhetoric.

Deleting Critical and Inflammatory Posts:
Musk deleted several posts that escalated the feud, including:

A post alleging Trump was referenced in Epstein files (unsupported by evidence).

His “Yes” reply endorsing a call for Trump’s impeachment.

Other posts attacking Trump’s legislative agenda and personal conduct

Ceasing Threats of Political Retaliation:

Musk abandoned threats to primary OBBB-supporting Republicans or launch a third party, and made no further public moves to organize political opposition to Trump or his congressional allies

Publicly Praising Trump and His Administration:

Musk shifted his tone, sharing and amplifying Trump’s posts, especially regarding the administration’s response to LA protests, and signaled alignment with the White House’s law-and-order messaging.

Private Outreach and Reconciliation Efforts:

Musk or his intermediaries made efforts behind the scenes to repair the relationship, including phone calls with White House officials and expressions of willingness to “move past” the dispute

Publicly Downplaying the Rift:

Musk responded positively to Trump’s public comments about their relationship, including sharing a heart emoji in response to Trump saying he “wished Musk well” and that they had a “good relationship”

Since his apology, Musk has refrained from further public criticism of Trump, the OBBB, or administration officials, and has not reignited any of the contentious issues that sparked the feud.

In sum: Musk’s actions constitute a clear, multi-pronged effort to repair his relationship with Trump and the administration. These steps—apologizing, deleting posts, amplifying Trump’s messaging, and making overtures for reconciliation—underscore that Musk, not Trump, has been under pressure to “make nice” and preserve his standing, confirming the power dynamics at play.

Metrics across every domain show Musk lost ground after opposing Trump overtly:

1) Political: Musk’s favorability among Republicans dropped at least 10–16 points; his threats to primary OBBB supporters or launch a third party fizzled; he failed to block or even meaningfully alter the One Big Beautiful Bill.

2) Financial: Tesla and other Musk-linked stocks lost billions in market value during the feud; Musk’s net worth dropped, at one point, by $34 billion in a single day.

3) Institutional: Musk’s “special government employee” status was not renewed; his NASA nominee was rejected; his operational control over DOGE ended as soon as phase one was complete.

4) Public and Elite Perception: GOP lawmakers and base overwhelmingly sided with Trump or avoided taking sides, with several legislators (e.g. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz et al.) using “divorce” metaphors to describe the split. Musk’s own supporters acknowledged his diminished influence, and Musk himself lamented “such ingratitude.”

There is no metric by which Musk can be said to have “won” this confrontation. Even his operational indispensability (SpaceX, Starlink) only constrains the administration tactically; it does not translate into political or policy power.

DOGE’s current trajectory is clear:

Project 25 architect, Russ Vought, not Musk, is at the helm, and the project’s focus is now on embedding loyalists, centralizing data and authority, and institutionalizing executive control.To do this, Trump uses and benefits transactionally tech companies like Thiel's Palantir; but he does not share political power with them, as the Musk lesson shows.

The original cadre of Musk’s techies has been reduced or absorbed as regular staffers, with little independent power.

DOGE is now “far more institutionalized at the actual agency,” as Vought told Congress, and is funded and structured to operate as a permanent extension of the executive, not a power sharing "broligarchy" as Musk had hoped, with himself as "bro-in-chief," as it were.

Musk’s experience is instructive:

He believed his money, operational genius, and campaign support would secure him a lasting role as “bro-in-chief.” Instead, as Ian Bremmer and others note, he was “shocked and stunned” to find that in Trump’s personalist system, even the world’s richest man is ultimately held to loyalty standards in which dissent is not tolerated.

Musk’s public statements of “ingratitude” and his failed attempts to retain even informal power after leaving DC underscore the transactional, instrumental nature of his involvement.

In sum:

The evidence since the Musk-Trump rupture only strengthens the essay’s argument: Trump 2.0 is a personalist regime, not a stable oligarchic partnership. DOGE was a tool for rapid administrative revolution, not a durable tech-government hybrid. Musk’s fate is a case study in the limits of elite power under personalism—useful, but never secure; celebrated, but never a peer.

This update consolidates recent developments and reinforces the essay’s core argument: Trump’s America is defined by personalist executive dominance, not by a “broligarchy” of tech titans and government power-sharing.