There Is No Broligarchy: Executive Power and the Fragility of the AI-Tech Nexus in Trump’s America

Introduction

The term “broligarchy”—a portmanteau of “bro” and “oligarchy”—emerged in late 2024 as a popular shorthand for the apparent convergence of tech plutocrats and executive power in the U.S., especially in the context of Donald Trump’s return to the presidency (TIME, Feb. 12, 2025; The Atlantic, Jan. 20, 2025; NPR, Jan. 2025). Media and public discourse depicted the rise of an AI/Tech/Gov’t nexus, with figures like Elon Musk assuming unprecedented visibility and influence as both donors and quasi-officials (Free Press, Jan. 21, 2025). The prevailing narrative suggested a new, stable, bi-directional power structure: a digital oligarchy, mutually reinforcing and reminiscent of the classic military-industrial complex.

Yet, as the Trump administration’s second term unfolds, mounting evidence calls this model into question. The executive’s unilateral, often extra-constitutional, actions—most dramatically, the defunding of elite universities and cultural institutions—point instead to a system of emergent personalist authoritarianism. In this context, the so-called “broligarchs” are not entrenched power brokers but courtiers, their fortunes contingent on the executive’s favor. This essay argues that the Achilles heel of the AI and tech sector is precisely this dependence: there is no true broligarchy, but rather a vertical of power, more akin to Putin’s Russia or Orban’s Hungary than to colonial or modern models of authoritarian oligarchy (Brookings, Mar. 9, 2022; Journal of Democracy, Nov. 13, 2024).

Caveat: This analysis uses “personalism” as a Weberian ideal type—a conceptual yardstick for assessing emergent trends, not as a claim that the U.S. is already a fully realized personalist authoritarian regime. The current situation is fluid, and the judiciary’s resistance remains a key bulwark.

I. The Rise (and Limits) of the “Broligarchy” Narrative

The notion of a broligarchy did not gain traction until Trump’s 2024 campaign and the early months of his second administration (TIME, Feb. 12, 2025; The Atlantic, Jan. 20, 2025). Musk’s unprecedented public and financial support for Trump—including nearly $300 million in campaign funding and the assumption of a Special Government Employee (SGE) post—fueled widespread speculation about a new, stable tech-government alliance. Commentators invoked the image of a “tech oligarchy,” with the AI sector and executive branch locked in a mutually beneficial embrace (NPR, Jan. 2025; Free Press, Jan. 21, 2025).

Karen Hao’s Empire of AI, published at the height of this discourse, reinforced the analogy by invoking colonial and oligarchical models:

“The empires of AI are not engaged in the same overt violence and brutality that marked this history but they too seize and extract precious resources to feed their vision of artificial intelligence... the logic of Empire and that hearkens back to my title Empire of AI.” (Hao, 2025, Democracy Now! transcript

)

She likens AI companies to state-corporate hybrids such as the British East India Company, emphasizing resource extraction, labor exploitation, and the monopolization of political influence.

Yet, while illuminating for the global and economic dimensions of AI, this analogy is increasingly at odds with the political reality emerging in Washington.

II. The Personalist Turn: Executive Fiat and the Fate of “Oligarchs”

The Trump administration’s treatment of Elon Musk—heretofore the most powerful “broligarch”—offers a textbook example of emergent personalist authoritarianism. Musk’s elevation in Trumpworld 2.0 was driven by two intersecting factors:

1. DOGE as Method and Model:
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a concept brought to Trump by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, provided a rapid, technocratic means of achieving Project 2025’s core goal: the evisceration of the federal bureaucracy (NYT, Feb. 28, 2025). Rather than replacing career civil servants with grassroots loyalists (as Project 2025 and its Heritage Foundation architects envisaged), DOGE gutted agencies wholesale, leaving only a skeletal leadership and AI-driven automation to replace tens of thousands of workers. Musk’s ability to deliver this “solution” in mere months—using SpaceX staff and xAI products—cemented his status as Trump’s favored oligarch.

2. Pay-to-Play Patronage:
Musk’s campaign largesse and public support were rewarded with contracts, regulatory favors, and a quasi-official role. This is classic kleptocratic logic: those who deliver resources or strategic value to the leader are elevated, but only so long as they remain loyal.

Yet, as with Putin’s Russia, this arrangement is fragile. When Musk publicly criticized Trump’s budget and tariff policies, Trump responded by threatening to revoke all federal contracts and subsidies to Musk’s companies—a move justified not by performance or public interest, but by personal grievance. The message was clear: political influence is contingent, not entrenched.

Comparative note: This dynamic echoes Putin’s early-2000s “red line” with oligarchs such as Khodorkovsky, where economic power was tolerated only so long as it did not challenge executive authority (Brookings, Mar. 9, 2022).

III. Unilateral Defunding and the Hollowing Out of Institutional Power

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 other Ivy League schools have faced billions in federal funding freezes and grant cancellations (en.as.com, Apr. 6, 2025; Fox News, Apr. 22, 2025). The justifications range from alleged “antisemitism” (using expansive, extra-legal definitions from Trump’s own EOs and the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which has not passed the Senate) to purported violations of Title VI/IX, often based on vague accusations of “DEI,” “wokeness,” or “CRT.” These actions are widely seen as unconstitutional, violating both Congress’s “power of the purse” (Article I) and First Amendment protections for free speech and academic freedom (University World News, Feb. 8, 2025).

Smithsonian and Cultural Institutions:
A March 2025 executive order placed Vice President J.D. Vance in charge of purging “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian, threatening funding for any program deemed to promote “divisive narratives” or “anti-American ideas” (ALBAWABA, Mar. 28, 2025). The order bypasses Congress and established oversight, with critics likening it to Orban’s Hungary or Putin’s Russia.

Legal and Political Backlash:
Lawsuits from universities, faculty unions, and advocacy groups argue that these measures are not only unlawful but represent a direct assault on the autonomy of American institutions (University World News, Feb. 8, 2025).

IV. Theoretical Implications: From Colonial/Oligarchical to Personalist Rule

Hao’s colonial analogy is powerful for describing the global, extractive, and monopolistic aspects of the AI industry. However, it presumes a degree of institutional stability and mutual dependency that is increasingly absent in the current U.S. context. In the classic colonial or modern oligarchical model, corporate-state hybrids wielded enduring influence over policy, often shaping or even dictating state action.

By contrast, the Trump administration’s actions reveal a system where:

Power is concentrated in the hands of the executive, who dispenses rewards and punishments at will.
Economic and cultural elites—whether tech CEOs or university presidents—are not independent actors but courtiers, their status contingent on personal loyalty.
Institutions are hollowed out, their autonomy and influence diluted or destroyed by executive fiat.
Political influence is not stable or institutionalized, but precarious and subject to sudden reversal.

This is the logic of personalist authoritarianism (Van den Bosch, 2015; Brookings, Mar. 9, 2022):

“The personalist dictator rules by decree, often without consultation and trusts his decisions to be implemented by the aid of his loyal followers. He distrusts institutions and does not bestow any autonomy on them and in addition often undermines them from within in order to subject them to his reign.” (Van den Bosch, 2015)

Barbara Geddes’ typology further clarifies that personalist regimes are those in which “all significant power is concentrated in the hands of the leader, and the fate of elites depends on their personal relationship with the ruler” (Frantz, 2021, Oxford Research Encyclopedia/Politics). The U.S. under Trump 2.0 increasingly exhibits these traits, though not yet fully realized.

V. The Judiciary as Acid Test: The Boasberg Episode

While Congress has largely abdicated its checking function, the judiciary remains the principal institutional bulwark. The confrontation between President Trump and Chief Judge James Boasberg is emblematic:

Boasberg issued a temporary halt to deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members, invoking judicial authority over the executive’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (NPR, Mar. 18, 2025; Politico, Mar. 18, 2025).
The Trump administration defied the order, and Boasberg found probable cause for criminal contempt, warning that “willful disobedience of judicial orders… would make a solemn mockery of the constitution itself.”
Trump publicly attacked Boasberg as a “radical left lunatic,” demanded his impeachment, and the White House fully backed this call (The Guardian, Mar. 20, 2025).
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public rebuke, affirming that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial disagreement.
Articles of impeachment were introduced in the House but are unlikely to succeed.

This episode is not “proof positive” of completed authoritarian transformation, but it is a critical indicator. The extent to which the judiciary is able to resist—or is ultimately marginalized—will determine whether the U.S. crosses the threshold into full personalist authoritarianism.

VI. Conclusion: The Achilles Heel of Tech Power

The Achilles heel of the AI and tech sector in Trump’s America is not the specter of a stable, entrenched broligarchy, but its profound dependence on the executive. The fate of Musk, the universities, and the Smithsonian alike demonstrates that power is vertical, not horizontal; personal, not institutional. The “empire of AI” may extract resources and wield global influence, but at home, its fortunes are hostage to the will of the leader.

In this sense, the U.S. is undergoing a transformation more akin to Putin’s Russia or Orban’s Hungary than to the colonial or oligarchic models invoked by Hao and others. The implications for democracy, academic freedom, and the future of American institutions are profound—and demand urgent, critical scrutiny.

This analysis is necessarily provisional, reflecting the state of play as of mid-2025. As events unfold—especially the outcomes of judicial challenges and executive responses—the case for emergent personalism may be strengthened or weakened. The argument here is not that the U.S. has already become a personalist authoritarian regime, but that current trends warrant close scrutiny through this analytical lens.

References (in order of appearance; please add hyperlinks as needed)

Hao, K. (2025). Empire of AI. [Democracy Now! transcript].
“The Tech and Media Broligarchs Ready to Serve Trump.” Free Press, Jan. 21, 2025.
Norden, L. & Weiner, D. I. “The Rise of America’s Broligarchy and What to Do About It.” TIME, Feb. 12, 2025.
Scherer, M. & Parker, A. “The Tech Oligarchy Arrives.” The Atlantic, Jan. 20, 2025.
“What is a Tech Oligarchy and are we in one?” NPR, Jan. 2025.
“How Musk Built DOGE: Timeline and Key Takeaways.” The New York Times, Feb. 28, 2025.
“Goodbye to college funding: These are the major universities hit by Donald Trump’s funding freeze.” en.as.com, Apr. 6, 2025.
“Trump froze funding for Harvard. Money to these universities may also be on the chopping block.” Fox News, Apr. 22, 2025.
“Higher education groups sue Trump over dismantling of DEI.” University World News, Feb. 8, 2025.
“Trump executive order to force changes at Smithsonian Institution.” PBS NewsHour, Mar. 28, 2025.
“Trump targets Smithsonian: ‘No room for divisive Ideology.’” ALBAWABA, Mar. 28, 2025.
“The rise of personalist rule.” Brookings Institution, Mar. 9, 2022.
“How Personalist Politics Is Changing Democracies.” Journal of Democracy, Nov. 13, 2024.
Van den Bosch, J. (2015). “Personalism: A type or characteristic of authoritarian regimes?” Politologická Revue, 1, 11–30.
Frantz, E. (2021). “Autocracy.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
“Impeaching James E. Boasberg, United States District Court.” Congress.gov, Mar. 18, 2025.
“Trump calls for the impeachment of a judge, as lawsuits pile up.” NPR, Mar. 18, 2025.
“Judge Draws Trump's Ire Over Ruling to Stop Deportation Flights.” The New York Times, Mar. 18, 2025.
“Trump calls for impeachment of judge who tried to halt deportation flights.” Politico, Mar. 18, 2025.
“White House says Trump is right to call for impeachment of judge.” The Guardian, Mar. 20, 2025.

Books&Ideas

Thursday, June 5, 2025

There is no Broligarchy (Draft 2)