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.
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. The prevailing narrative suggested a new, stable, bi-directional power structure: a digital oligarchy, mutually reinforcing and reminiscent of the classic military-industrial complex. (citations? e.g. Hao, and various articles I have filed away from recent months we can discuss including later).
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 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].
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
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.
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.”
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.
But this analogy, while illuminating for the global and economic dimensions of AI, 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 personalist authoritarianism. Musk’s elevation in Trumpworld 2.0 was driven by two intersecting factors:
-
DOGE as Method and Model:
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a concept brought to Trump by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy [cite long NYT expose on origin story of DOGE, to be added later], provided a rapid, technocratic means of achieving Project 2025’s core goal: the evisceration of the federal bureaucracy. Rather than replacing career civil servants with grassroots loyalists and Republican MAGA "foot soldiers" (as the Heritage Foundation Project 25 and its proponents 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. The Project 25 alternative would have been far more cumbersome and slow, possibly ineffective. -
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.[possibly incorporate the Khodorevsky episode that marked Putin's "shot against the bough" with Trump's threats to cancel Musk contracts providing a less dramatic echo of the same logic-- we can discuss pros and cons of such a comparative reference] 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.
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
.
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
:
“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.”[include source]
V. 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. -- (Caveat: This analysis is based in large part on breaking stories about the Trump-Musk conflict. Depending on how these turn out, my case could be weakened somewhat-- an inevitable entailment of analysis of major political trends carried out in real time on the basis of current events).
References: ADD this on story of DOGE NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/us/politics/musk-federal-bureaucracy-takeover.html
MORE LINKS/CITATIONS TO COME, PERPLEXITY AI.
.
Smithsonian and Cultural Institutions:
An executive order in March 2025 placed Vice President JD Vance in
charge of purging “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian, threatening
funding for any program deemed to promote “divisive narratives” or
“anti-American ideas”
. 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
Hao, K. (2025). Empire of AI [Democracy Now! transcript].
“Broligarchy,” Wikipedia.
PBS NewsHour, “Trump executive order to force changes at Smithsonian Institution,” March 28, 2025.
en.as.com, “Goodbye to college funding: These are the major universities hit by Donald Trump’s funding freeze,” April 6, 2025.
University World News, “Higher education groups sue Trump over dismantling of DEI,” Feb. 8, 2025.
Fox News, “Trump froze funding for Harvard. Money to these universities may also be on the chopping block,” April 22, 2025.
Brookings Institution, “The rise of personalist rule,” March 9, 2022.
Britannica, “Authoritarianism,” Feb. 17, 2025.
TIME, “The Rise of America’s Broligarchy,” Feb. 12, 2025.
NPR, “How will Trump’s executive order affect the Smithsonian?” March 28, 2025.
Van den Bosch, J. (2015). “Personalism: A type or characteristic of authoritarian regimes?” Politol. Rev., 1, 11–30.
No comments:
Post a Comment