There is no broligarchy (draft 5)

 

---

There Is No Broligarchy: Tech Elites as Courtiers in Trump’s Personalist America

 

Note to Reader:
 

This essay offers a speculative critique of the “broligarchy” narrative, which prematurely posited a stable tech-government nexus before Trump’s second term began. Drawing on emerging evidence as of mid-2025, it argues that the AI-tech sector’s influence is contingent on executive favor, reflecting personalist tendencies rather than durable oligarchic power. Judicial resistance and civil society mobilization remain critical variables in assessing the U.S. political trajectory.

 

1. 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 amid Donald Trump’s return to the presidency.^1 Media and public discourse heralded a new, stable, bi-directional power structure: a digital oligarchy, reminiscent of the military-industrial complex, with figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg assuming unprecedented visibility as donors and quasi-officials.

Yet, as Trump’s second term unfolds, this narrative unravels. MSM reports of Bezos’s Washington Post pivot and Zuckerberg’s Meta shifts as capitulation, with commentators like Dan Pfeiffer noting tech leaders ‘kissing Trump’s ring,’ reveal tech elites as courtiers, not oligarchs, their silence signaling fear of Trump’s ire.^2 This real-time critique argues that the AI-tech sector’s Achilles heel lies in this personalist dynamic, where unilateral actions override any stable nexus. Personalism, as a Weberian ideal type, frames this analysis, with Russia and Hungary as illustrative tokens, not direct analogs.^3

 

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

 

The broligarchy concept gained traction during Trump’s 2024 campaign and early 2025, with outlets like TIME and The Atlantic heralding a tech-government alliance based on Musk’s $300 million campaign contributions, his Special Government Employee (SGE) role, and Bezos’s and Zuckerberg’s million-dollar inauguration donations.^4 These accounts, published before Trump’s second term began, assumed a durable, mutually reinforcing nexus.

 

Mainstream media simultaneously reported tech elites’ deference, with former Post editor Marty Baron calling Bezos’s pivot ‘craven’ and Dan Pfeiffer noting tech leaders ‘kissing Trump’s ring’.^5 This contradiction—hyping a broligarchy while documenting subordination—exposes the narrative’s prematurity, as tech elites’ silence aligns with personalist dynamics.

Karen Hao’s Empire of AI likens AI firms to colonial empires, echoing the broligarchy narrative.^6 Yet, Bezos’s Post shift—despite clashing with Trump’s tariffs and university defunding—and Zuckerberg’s ‘MAGA makeover’ reveal not imperial power but courtier-like deference, driven by fear of retaliation.^7

 

3. The Personalist Turn: Executive Fiat and Tech’s Fragility

 

The Trump administration’s treatment of tech elites offers a textbook case of emergent personalist authoritarianism, where power concentrates in the executive and elites’ influence hinges on loyalty.

 

DOGE as Method and Model
 

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, offered a technocratic alternative to Project 2025’s ideological staffing, streamlining agency purges with private-sector expertise from firms like SpaceX and Palantir.^8 While reports suggest potential use of xAI tools, evidence of widespread AI-driven automation remains limited, reflecting a hybrid model under Trump’s control.^9 Musk’s role cemented his status as a favored courtier—until he criticized Trump’s tariffs, prompting threats to revoke his contracts.^10

Comparative Table: DOGE vs. Project 2025

Aspect	DOGE (Musk/Ramaswamy)	Project 2025 (Heritage)
Method	Technocratic, top-down	Grassroots, MAGA loyalists
Speed	Rapid (months)	Gradual (years)
Tech Role	Central (SpaceX, Palantir)	Peripheral
Targets	USAID, Social Security	Education, Justice, EPA
Source	New York Times, Feb. 28, 2025	Heritage Foundation, 2023

 

Pay-to-Play Patronage
 

Musk’s campaign largesse, Bezos’s and Zuckerberg’s inauguration donations, and Thiel’s contract wins reflect kleptocratic logic: loyalty is rewarded conditionally.^11 Unlike Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg avoided dissent, aligning with Trump. Bezos’s Post shift to “personal liberties and free markets,” despite its clash with Trump’s trade wars and university defunding, sparked resignations and Marty Baron’s “craven” critique.^12 Zuckerberg’s relaxed content moderation, dubbed a “MAGA makeover,” earned conservative praise but employee backlash, yet he remained silent.^13 Their silence, likely protecting Amazon’s Pentagon contracts and Meta’s antitrust defenses, underscores their courtier-like dependence.^14

 

4. The Oligarchy Debate: Oligarchy, Crony Capitalism, or Kleptocracy?

 

Evan Osnos’s New Yorker article, Politics of Plunder (May 26, 2025) argues that Trump 2.0 is an oligarchy—rule by billionaires buying influence.^15 Bernie Sanders echoes this, describing a “government of billionaires.”^16 Yet, Osnos’s evidence shows a transactional, volatile system where outcomes depend on Trump’s whim.

 

Classic oligarchy implies a stable, cohesive elite. Trump’s regime aligns more with crony capitalism—success tied to political connections—and kleptocracy, where public office enriches allies. It is deeply personalist: even wealthy allies like Musk face threats for dissent.^17 Bezos and Zuckerberg’s deference, avoiding Musk’s fate, highlights this volatility, as their silence preserves business interests over reputational costs.^18 Trump 2.0 is a personalist-crony capitalist kleptocracy, not a classic oligarchy, its instability underscoring its fragility.

 

5. Unilateral Defunding and Institutional Erosion

 

The Trump administration’s campaign to defund elite universities and cultural institutions via unilateral action illustrates personalist tendencies, undermining the “personal liberties” tech elites claim to champion.

 

Elite Universities
 

Since early 2025, Harvard, Columbia, and Brown faced billions in federal funding freezes, justified by vague accusations of “antisemitism” or “wokeness” tied to pro-Palestinian protests.^19 These actions, based on extra-legal executive orders, violate Congress’s “power of the purse” and First Amendment protections, as lawsuits argue.^20 The firing of professors at Columbia and Brown contradicts “personal liberties,” yet Bezos’s silence mirrors Zuckerberg’s, suggesting fear of reprisals against Amazon or Meta.^21

 

Smithsonian and Cultural Institutions
 

A March 2025 executive order tasked Vice President J.D. Vance with purging “divisive narratives” from the Smithsonian, bypassing Congress.^22 These measures, facing legal challenges, echo Orban’s Hungary.^23

 

6. Theoretical Implications: Personalist Fragility vs. Oligarchic Entrenchment

 

Hao’s colonial analogy and the broligarchy narrative presume a stable tech-government nexus.^24 Trump’s America exhibits personalist traits: power concentrates in the executive; tech elites are courtiers; institutions are eroded by fiat.

 

Personalist Fragility and Democratic Recovery
 

Personalist regimes, unlike oligarchies, are vulnerable to reversal due to weak institutional roots.^25 Bolsonaro’s personalist rule was reversed after his 2022 defeat, with courts and civil society restoring checks.^26 In Poland, opposition coalitions and activism reversed judicial capture post-2023 elections.^27 These cases suggest Trump’s project may be reversible if U.S. opposition leverages judicial and civil society resistance, despite polarization. Reforms strengthening judicial independence and electoral integrity are critical to prevent future personalist cycles.

 

7. Conclusion

 

The broligarchy narrative, prematurely hyped in early 2025, misreads tech elites’ power. Musk’s contract threats, Bezos’s Post overhaul—losing 75,000 subscribers—and Zuckerberg’s “MAGA makeover,” framed as capitulation, reveal a personalist system where loyalty trumps autonomy.^28 The contradiction between their “personal liberties” rhetoric and Trump’s policies underscores their subordination. This speculative critique, grounded in mid-2025 trends, underscores the need for ongoing vigilance as tech elites’ deference and institutional erosion evolve. Political sociologists must scrutinize these trends to safeguard democracy.

 

Comparative Perspective
 

Brazil and Poland’s recoveries highlight personalism’s fragility, offering hope for the U.S. if opposition leverages judicial and civil society resistance. Without reforms, personalist populism risks recurring.^29

 

Endnotes

1.  
   Norden, L. & Weiner, D. I. “The Rise of America’s Broligarchy.” TIME, February 12, 2025; Scherer, M. & Parker, A. “The Tech Oligarchy Arrives.” The Atlantic, January 20, 2025; “What is a Tech Oligarchy and Are We in One?” NPR, January 15, 2025.
2. “Washington Post Faces Backlash After Bezos’s Editorial Shift.” The Guardian, February 26, 2025; Stelter, B. “Mark Zuckerberg’s MAGA Makeover Will Reshape the Internet.” CNN, January 7, 2025; Pfeiffer, D. X Post,

   @danpfeiffer

   , February 27, 2025.
3. Van den Bosch, J. “Personalism: A Type or Characteristic of Authoritarian Regimes?” Politologická Revue 1 (2015): 11–30.
4. “What is a Tech Oligarchy,” NPR, January 15, 2025.
5. “Washington Post Faces Backlash,” The Guardian, February 26, 2025; Pfeiffer, D. X Post,

   @danpfeiffer

   , February 27, 2025.
6. Hao, K. Empire of AI. New York: Penguin Press, 2025; “Karen Hao Discusses Empire of AI.” Democracy Now!, May 10, 2025.
7. “Bezos Signals Washington Post Opinion Section to Focus on ‘Personal Liberties and Free Markets.’” NPR, February 26, 2025; Stelter, “Mark Zuckerberg’s MAGA Makeover,” CNN, January 7, 2025.
8. “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.
9. “How Musk Built DOGE,” New York Times, February 28, 2025.
10. “Trump and Elon Musk Trade Insults as Feud Reaches New Heights.” CBS News, June 5, 2025.
11. “Tech Giants Secure No-Bid Contracts,” Forbes, April 10, 2025.
12. “Washington Post Faces Backlash,” The Guardian, February 26, 2025.
13. Stelter, “Mark Zuckerberg’s MAGA Makeover,” CNN, January 7, 2025; “What Zuckerberg’s Pivot Means for Meta.” Bloomberg, May 27, 2025.
14. “Washington Post Faces Backlash,” The Guardian, February 26, 2025; “What Zuckerberg’s Pivot,” Bloomberg, May 27, 2025.
15. Osnos, E. “The Billionaires’ White House.” The New Yorker, March 3, 2025.
16. Sanders, B. Speech at Democratic National Convention, August 20, 2024.
17. “Trump and Musk Trade Insults,” CBS News, June 5, 2025.
18. “Washington Post Faces Backlash,” The Guardian, February 26, 2025.
19. “Trump Targets Elite Universities with Funding Freezes.” Chronicle of Higher Education, April 10, 2025; “Higher Education Groups Sue Trump Over Dismantling of DEI.” University World News, February 8, 2025.
20. “Higher Education Groups Sue Trump,” University World News, February 8, 2025.
21. “Washington Post Faces Backlash,” The Guardian, February 26, 2025.
22. “Trump Executive Order to Force Changes at Smithsonian Institution.” PBS NewsHour, March 28, 2025; Smithsonian Institution, “Statement on Executive Order,” March 30, 2025.
23. “How Personalist Politics Is Changing Democracies.” Journal of Democracy, November 13, 2024.
24. Hao, Empire of AI, 2025.
25. “The Rise of Personalist Rule.” Brookings Institution, March 9, 2022; Frantz, E. “Autocracy.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2021; Van den Bosch, “Personalism,” 2015.