There Is No "Broligarchy:" What the Musk-Trump Feud Reveals About Authoritarian Trends in Trump's America
The
Musk-Trump feud isn’t just a clash of egos—it’s a test of whether any
elite can resist the gravitational pull of an autocratic presidency.
Political
scientists call this kind of system “personalism”—where the power and
preferences of a single leader override institutions, laws, and even
their own party. In a personalist system, loyalty to the individual at
the top matters more than rules, ideology, or established norms.
The Rise and Fall of the “Broligarchy” Narrative
In
late 2024, pundits coined the term “broligarchy”—a mashup of “bro” and
“oligarchy”—to describe what looked like a new tech-government power
bloc. Trump’s return to the White House, paired with the high-profile
support of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, seemed to signal a
stable alliance between Silicon Valley and Washington. Musk alone
poured $300 million into Trump’s campaign and was rewarded with a
powerful, quasi-official government role.
But
as Trump’s second term unfolds, this narrative is falling apart.
Trump’s willingness to sideline, punish, or ignore even his wealthiest
backer—Elon Musk, who played a pivotal political and operational role in
accomplishing (through DOGE and with his own employees) what Project
2025 had only envisioned: the rapid evisceration of federal
agencies—reveals a system not of entrenched oligarchs, but of courtiers
whose fortunes depend on the whims of a single leader.
How Trump’s Personalism Upended Tech Elite Power
The
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), originally created by Musk
and Vivek Ramaswamy and later headed under Trump by Musk as a “special
government employee” with quasi-official status, was supposed to bring
technocratic discipline to federal agencies. Instead, it became a
vehicle for purges and no-bid contracts to loyalists, with Musk’s
companies at the center. But this favor was conditional.
Though
tensions had been mounting for weeks—over tariffs, regulatory moves,
and Trump’s abrupt firing of Musk’s handpicked NASA nominee—the feud
boiled over when Musk publicly opposed Trump’s signature “One Big
Beautiful Bill” (OBBB), calling it a “disgusting abomination”. The
fallout was so dramatic that Senator Mike Lee, caught between the two,
likened the situation to a child forced to choose between divorcing
parents: “But … I really like both of them”.
The
rupture became unmistakable when Musk, in a post on X, openly called
for Trump’s impeachment—a move widely reported and seen as a point of no
return in the feud. Musk’s “Yes” reply to a call for impeachment was
amplified across social media and news outlets.
Musk’s Leverage—and Limits
This
standoff is more than personal drama. It echoes the early 2000s
showdown between Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Putin—a moment that
defined whether oligarchs could challenge a personalist ruler. Unlike
Khodorkovsky, Musk controls assets the U.S. government can’t easily
replace: Starlink satellites, SpaceX launches, and a social media
megaphone rivaling Trump’s own.
Trump
threatened to pull federal contracts; Musk threatened to decommission
the Dragon spacecraft, a move that would have immediate consequences for
NASA and U.S. space operations. Musk later walked back the threat, but
the message was clear: both sides have leverage, and both are willing to
use it. As the New York Times put it, Musk’s pushback is “unprecedented
in Trumpworld 2.0”.
Yet
the government’s reliance on Musk is as deep as Musk’s reliance on
government contracts. As political analyst Ian Bremmer notes, “Are they
really going to [cancel the contracts]? I doubt it, because there aren’t
good options.” Bremmer and the latest NYT analysis both point out that
while Trump can ramp up regulatory scrutiny or suspend Musk’s security
clearance, Musk has already demonstrated his ability to threaten
government priorities in return. The result is a precarious mutual
dependency, with no easy off-ramp for either side.
Why the “Broligarchy” Myth Fails
Some
commentators, like Evan Osnos, still frame Trump’s America as an
oligarchy—rule by billionaires buying access and influence. But the
evidence suggests something more volatile: a system where alliances are
transactional, outcomes are unpredictable, and even the richest can be
discarded for dissent. This is crony capitalism and kleptocracy, yes—but
above all, it’s personalism.
Bremmer
puts it bluntly: “Rule of law plays no interest. It’s rule of man, rule
of one man… That is how you get ahead.” The scale of self-enrichment is
staggering, from meme coins to billion-dollar contracts. But as Musk’s
experience shows, money alone can’t buy lasting protection in a system
ruled by loyalty and personal favor.
Institutional Erosion and the Fragility of Power
Trump’s
personalist style isn’t limited to tech. His administration’s campaign
to defund universities and cultural institutions, often by executive
fiat, is part of the same pattern. Accusations of “wokeness” or
“antisemitism” justify billion-dollar funding freezes, while critics are
fired or silenced. The message is clear: autonomy depends on loyalty.
Yet,
as political science shows, personalist regimes—unlike entrenched
oligarchies—are often more fragile. Their power is concentrated but
brittle, lacking the deep roots and coalitions that make reversal
difficult. Recent reversals in Brazil and Poland suggest that
personalist projects, for all their dangers, can be undone if
institutions and civil society push back.
Conclusion: The Real Stakes
The
Musk-Trump feud isn’t just about two outsized personalities. It’s a
test case for how much power one leader can wield in a system where
loyalty trumps law, and whether any elite—no matter how rich or
well-connected—can resist.
Whether
Musk’s challenge sparks a broader elite defection or simply reinforces
Trump’s dominance will help determine if America tips further toward
personalist rule, or if this era proves reversible. For now, the
“broligarchy” looks more like a court of courtiers than a true
oligarchy—and the outcome is still very much in play.
Endnotes
- Center for a New American Security. “Democracy under Threat: How the Personalization of Political Parties Undermines Democracy.” CNAS Report, June 2023.
- Broadwater, Luke. “Trump Has Power, a Big Megaphone and Billions to Spend. So Does Musk.” The New York Times, June 6, 2025.
- Bremmer, Ian. “Elon vs. Trump: Billionaire Fallout Goes Public.” GZERO Media Quick Take, June 6, 2025.
- Fischer, Sara. “Musk Calls for Trump Impeachment.” Axios, June 5, 2025.
- “Fact Check: Yes, Musk Shared Post Calling for Trump’s Impeachment.” Yahoo News, June 5, 2025.
- “Trump’s Former NASA Pick Suggests He Lost Nomination Due to Musk Ties.” Axios, June 4, 2025.
- “Understanding Personalism in Politics.” Number Analytics, May 24, 2025.
- Osnos, Evan. “The Billionaires’ Playbook.” The New Yorker, March 3, 2025.
- “Washington Post Faces Backlash After Bezos’s Editorial Shift.” The Guardian, February 26, 2025.
- Stelter, Brian. “Mark Zuckerberg’s MAGA Makeover Will Reshape the Internet.” CNN, January 7, 2025.
- “How Musk Built DOGE: Timeline and Key Takeaways.” New York Times, February 28, 2025.
- “Tech Giants Secure No-Bid Contracts Under Trump.” Forbes, April 10, 2025.
(Note: This blog post was adapted from a longer, academic essay I wrote and which is currently unpublished)
No comments:
Post a Comment