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 (Norden & Weiner, 2025; Scherer & Parker, 2025; NPR, 2025). Media and public discourse heralded a new, stable, bi-directional power structure: a digital oligarchy, reminiscent of the classic military-industrial complex, with figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg assuming unprecedented visibility and influence as donors and quasi-officials.

Yet, as Trump’s second term unfolds, this narrative is already unraveling. The executive’s unilateral, often extra-constitutional actions—most dramatically, the defunding of elite universities and cultural institutions—reveal a system not of entrenched oligarchs but of courtiers, their fortunes contingent on the executive’s favor. This essay offers a real-time critique of the “broligarchy” narrative, arguing that the Achilles heel of the AI and tech sector is precisely this dependence: there is no durable broligarchy, but rather a vertical of power, more akin to Putin’s Russia or Orban’s Hungary than to colonial or modern oligarchic models (Brookings Institution, 2022; Van den Bosch, 2015).

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 and his Special Government Employee (SGE) role, alongside Bezos’s and Zuckerberg’s million-dollar inauguration donations (NPR, 2025). These accounts, published before Trump’s second term began, assumed a durable, mutually reinforcing nexus akin to the military-industrial complex.

However, mainstream media simultaneously reported Bezos’s Post pivot and Zuckerberg’s Meta policy shifts as capitulation, revealing a contradiction: tech elites are not oligarchs but subordinates fearful of Trump’s ire (The Guardian, 2025; CNN, 2025). Karen Hao’s Empire of AI reinforced the broligarchy analogy by likening AI firms to colonial empires, extracting data and labor like the British East India Company (Democracy Now!, 2025). While compelling for global economic dynamics, this analogy presumes institutional stability absent in Trump’s America, where executive fiat overrides corporate influence. Bezos’s directive to limit The Post’s opinion section to “personal liberties and free markets”—despite its clash with Trump’s tariffs and university defunding—was framed as deference, a perception he did not challenge despite 75,000 subscriber cancellations (NPR, 2025). This contradiction exposes the broligarchy narrative’s prematurity, as tech elites’ actions align with personalist subordination rather than oligarchic power.

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.

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 with favors, but only conditionally. Unlike Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg avoided dissent, aligning overtly with Trump. Bezos’s Post shift to “personal liberties and free markets,” despite its incompatibility with Trump’s trade wars and extra-legal defunding of universities, sparked resignations and criticism from former editor Marty Baron, who called it “craven” (The Guardian, February 26, 2025). Zuckerberg’s relaxed content moderation, dubbed a “MAGA makeover,” earned conservative praise but employee backlash, yet he remained silent (CNN, January 7, 2025; Bloomberg, May 27, 2025). Their failure to clarify these moves, despite reputational costs, suggests fear of retaliation against Amazon’s Pentagon contracts or Meta’s antitrust battles, aligning with the personalist ideal type (Frantz, 2021).

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

Evan Osnos’s New Yorker article and related work argue that the U.S. under Trump 2.0 is an oligarchy—rule by billionaires who openly buy access and influence (Osnos, 2025). Politicians like Bernie Sanders echo this, describing a “government of billionaires.” Yet, a closer reading reveals a more complex picture.

Classic oligarchy implies a stable, cohesive elite with shared interests and institutionalized power. Osnos’s evidence, however, shows a transactional, volatile system where access is sold but outcomes are unpredictable; alliances are contingent and can be revoked at the leader’s whim. This aligns more with crony capitalism—where business success depends on political connections—and kleptocracy, where public office is used for personal enrichment.

Moreover, the system is deeply personalist: the leader dominates, and even the wealthiest allies like Musk can be discarded for dissent. While crony capitalism and kleptocracy are often considered subtypes of oligarchy, the rhetoric of “rule by the billionaire class” often obscures the intra-class conflicts and the leader’s ultimate control.

Thus, Osnos’s reporting corroborates the argument that Trump 2.0 is best understood as a hybrid personalist-crony capitalist kleptocracy, not a classic oligarchy. The instability and unpredictability of elite power underscore the regime’s fragility and potential reversibility.

5. Unilateral Defunding and Institutional Erosion

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

Elite Universities
Since early 2025, Harvard, Columbia, Brown, and others have faced billions in federal funding freezes, justified by vague accusations of “antisemitism” or “wokeness” tied to pro-Palestinian protests (Chronicle of Higher Education, April 10, 2025; University World News, February 8, 2025). These actions, based on extra-legal definitions from Trump’s executive orders, violate Congress’s “power of the purse” and First Amendment protections, as lawsuits from faculty unions argue. The firing of professors at Columbia and Brown for supporting protests directly contradicts “personal liberties,” yet Bezos’s silence suggests deference to avoid reprisals against his businesses (The Guardian, February 26, 2025).

Smithsonian and Cultural Institutions
A March 2025 executive order tasked Vice President J.D. Vance with purging “divisive narratives” from the Smithsonian, bypassing Congress and threatening funding (PBS NewsHour, March 28, 2025). These measures, still facing legal challenges as of June 2025, mirror tactics in Orban’s Hungary, where cultural institutions are subordinated to executive will (Journal of Democracy, November 13, 2024).

6. Theoretical Implications: Personalist Fragility vs. Oligarchic Entrenchment

Hao’s colonial analogy and the broligarchy narrative presume a stable, mutually dependent tech-government nexus. In contrast, Trump’s America exhibits personalist traits:

Power concentrates in the executive, who dispenses rewards and punishments at will.
Tech and cultural elites are courtiers, their status contingent on loyalty.
Institutions are hollowed out, their autonomy eroded by fiat.

Personalist Fragility and Democratic Recovery
Political science research shows personalist regimes—unlike entrenched oligarchies—are more vulnerable to reversal after the leader’s exit, precisely because they lack deep institutional roots and elite coalitions (Brookings Institution, 2022; Frantz, 2021; Van den Bosch, 2015). Brazil and Poland offer instructive cases: Bolsonaro’s personalist rule was quickly reversed after his defeat, with courts banning him from office and democratic institutions recovering ground (Carnegie Endowment, April 2025). In Poland, despite Law and Justice’s judicial capture, opposition coalitions and civil society activism enabled partial restoration of democratic checks (European Democracy Hub, March 2025). These cases suggest that Trump’s personalist project, lacking a durable broligarchy, may be reversible if opposition leverages institutional checks.

7. The Judiciary as Acid Test: The Boasberg Episode

The judiciary remains a bulwark against personalism, as seen in Chief Judge James Boasberg’s temporary halt to deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act (NPR, March 18, 2025; Politico, March 18, 2025). Trump’s defiance, public attacks on Boasberg as a “radical left lunatic,” and the House’s introduction of impeachment articles—rebuked by Chief Justice John Roberts—signal pressure on judicial independence (The Guardian, March 20, 2025). This episode, still unresolved as of June 2025, contrasts with tech elites’ deference. The judiciary’s resilience will determine whether the U.S. crosses into full personalism.

8. Conclusion

The broligarchy narrative, prematurely proclaimed in early 2025, misreads tech elites’ power as oligarchic. Musk’s contract threats, Bezos’s Post overhaul—losing 75,000 subscribers yet unclarified—and Zuckerberg’s “MAGA makeover” were framed as capitulation, revealing a personalist system where loyalty trumps autonomy. The contradiction between their rhetoric of “personal liberties and free markets” and Trump’s tariffs, trade wars, and university defunding underscores their subordination. As lawsuits and judicial resistance unfold, this analysis urges political sociologists to scrutinize these trends, as the AI-tech sector’s fragility and institutional erosion demand vigilance to safeguard democracy.

Comparative Perspective:
Recent experiences in Brazil and Poland suggest that personalist authoritarianism, for all its dangers, is more vulnerable to reversal than entrenched oligarchic systems. The absence of a durable “broligarchy” in Trump’s America may paradoxically increase the chances for democratic recovery—though the window for reversal is narrow, and the costs of personalist rule are high (Carnegie Endowment, April 2025).

References

Brookings Institution. (2022). The rise of personalist rule.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2025). Democratic recovery after significant backsliding.
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2025, April 10). Trump targets elite universities with funding freezes.
CNN. (2025, January 7). Zuckerberg’s Meta moderation shift.
Democracy Now!. (2025). Karen Hao on Empire of AI.
European Democracy Hub. (2025, March). The EU’s role in Poland’s democratic turnaround.
Forbes. (2025, April). DOGE’s rapid restructuring.
Frantz, E. (2021). Autocracy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
Norden, L., & Weiner, D. I. (2025, February 12). The rise of America’s broligarchy and what to do about it. TIME.
NPR. (2025, March 18). Trump calls for impeachment of judge who tried to halt deportation flights.
Osnos, E. (2025, May 26). The new American oligarchy. The New Yorker.
PBS NewsHour. (2025, March 28). Trump executive order to force changes at Smithsonian Institution.
Politico. (2025, March 18). Judge draws Trump’s ire over ruling to stop deportation flights.
Scherer, M., & Parker, A. (2025, January 20). The tech oligarchy arrives. The Atlantic.
The Guardian. (2025, February 26). Bezos signals Washington Post opinion section to focus on ‘personal liberties and free markets’.
University World News. (2025, February 8). Higher education groups sue Trump over dismantling of DEI.
Van den Bosch, J. (2015). Personalism: A type or characteristic of authoritarian regimes? Politologická Revue, 1, 11–30.

REVISED DRAFT 6 Below:

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

Note to Reader:
This essay offers a speculative, real-time 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. Media and public discourse heralded a new, stable, bi-directional power structure: a digital oligarchy, reminiscent of the classic military-industrial complex, with figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg assuming unprecedented visibility and influence as donors and quasi-officials.

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 and his Special Government Employee (SGE) role, alongside Bezos’s and Zuckerberg’s million-dollar inauguration donations. These accounts, published before Trump’s second term began, assumed a durable, mutually reinforcing nexus akin to the military-industrial complex.

However, mainstream media simultaneously reported Bezos’s Post pivot and Zuckerberg’s Meta policy shifts as capitulation, revealing a contradiction: tech elites are not oligarchs but subordinates fearful of Trump’s ire. Karen Hao’s Empire of AI reinforced the broligarchy analogy by likening AI firms to colonial empires, extracting data and labor like the British East India Company. While compelling for global economic dynamics, this analogy presumes institutional stability absent in Trump’s America, where executive fiat overrides corporate influence. Bezos’s directive to limit The Post’s opinion section to “personal liberties and free markets”—despite its clash with Trump’s tariffs and university defunding—was framed as deference, a perception he did not challenge despite 75,000 subscriber cancellations. This contradiction exposes the broligarchy narrative’s prematurity, as tech elites’ actions align with personalist subordination rather than oligarchic power.

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

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 with favors, but only conditionally. Unlike Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg avoided dissent, aligning overtly with Trump. Bezos’s Post shift to “personal liberties and free markets,” despite its incompatibility with Trump’s trade wars and extra-legal defunding of universities, sparked resignations and criticism from former editor Marty Baron, who called it “craven.” Zuckerberg’s relaxed content moderation, dubbed a “MAGA makeover,” earned conservative praise but employee backlash, yet he remained silent. Their failure to clarify these moves, despite reputational costs, suggests fear of retaliation against Amazon’s Pentagon contracts or Meta’s antitrust battles, aligning with the personalist ideal type.

4. Musk’s Challenge: Top Courtier or Gamechanger?

A Live Test of Personalist Limits
The unfolding Trump-Musk feud is the most significant test to date of whether Trump’s personalist model can subordinate even the most powerful and indispensable tech elite. Musk, having secured extraordinary influence—DOGE leadership, no-bid contracts, and a central role in dismantling USAID (a move with both policy and personal motives)—now openly challenges Trump’s tariffs and legislative agenda, branding the OBBB a “disgusting abomination” and threatening to leverage his unique assets, including Starlink’s strategic indispensability.

This standoff echoes the early 2000s confrontation between Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Putin, where a red line was drawn against elite defiance. Yet, unlike Khodorkovsky, Musk possesses leverage that may render him less disposable: U.S. military and government operations rely on his technologies, and his social media platform gives him a megaphone rivaling Trump’s own. The New York Times notes that Musk’s pushback is “unprecedented in Trumpworld 2.0,” and the outcome remains unsettled.

Unsettled Power Dynamics
Will Musk’s challenge force Trump to recalibrate, or will Trump succeed in making Musk the latest courtier to fall in line—or be sidelined? The answer will shape not only the fate of the broligarchy narrative but also the broader question of whether Trump’s personalism has enforceable limits.

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

Evan Osnos’s New Yorker article and related work argue that the U.S. under Trump 2.0 is an oligarchy—rule by billionaires who openly buy access and influence. Politicians like Bernie Sanders echo this, describing a “government of billionaires.” Yet, a closer reading reveals a more complex picture.

Classic oligarchy implies a stable, cohesive elite with shared interests and institutionalized power. Osnos’s evidence, however, shows a transactional, volatile system where access is sold but outcomes are unpredictable; alliances are contingent and can be revoked at the leader’s whim. This aligns more with crony capitalism—where business success depends on political connections—and kleptocracy, where public office is used for personal enrichment.

Moreover, the system is deeply personalist: the leader dominates, and even the wealthiest allies like Musk can be discarded for dissent. While crony capitalism and kleptocracy are often considered subtypes of oligarchy, the rhetoric of “rule by the billionaire class” often obscures the intra-class conflicts and the leader’s ultimate control.

Thus, Osnos’s reporting corroborates the argument that Trump 2.0 is best understood as a hybrid personalist-crony capitalist kleptocracy, not a classic oligarchy. The instability and unpredictability of elite power underscore the regime’s fragility and potential reversibility.

6. Unilateral Defunding and Institutional Erosion

Elite Universities
Since early 2025, Harvard, Columbia, Brown, and others have faced billions in federal funding freezes, justified by vague accusations of “antisemitism” or “wokeness” tied to pro-Palestinian protests. These actions, based on extra-legal definitions from Trump’s executive orders, violate Congress’s “power of the purse” and First Amendment protections, as lawsuits from faculty unions argue. The firing of professors at Columbia and Brown for supporting protests directly contradicts “personal liberties,” yet Bezos’s silence suggests deference to avoid reprisals against his businesses.

Smithsonian and Cultural Institutions
A March 2025 executive order tasked Vice President J.D. Vance with purging “divisive narratives” from the Smithsonian, bypassing Congress and threatening funding. These measures, still facing legal challenges as of June 2025, mirror tactics in Orban’s Hungary, where cultural institutions are subordinated to executive will.

7. Theoretical Implications: Personalist Fragility vs. Oligarchic Entrenchment

Hao’s colonial analogy and the broligarchy narrative presume a stable, mutually dependent tech-government nexus. In contrast, Trump’s America exhibits personalist traits:

Power concentrates in the executive, who dispenses rewards and punishments at will.
Tech and cultural elites are courtiers, their status contingent on loyalty.
Institutions are hollowed out, their autonomy eroded by fiat.

Personalist Fragility and Democratic Recovery
Political science research shows personalist regimes—unlike entrenched oligarchies—are more vulnerable to reversal after the leader’s exit, precisely because they lack deep institutional roots and elite coalitions. Brazil and Poland offer instructive cases: Bolsonaro’s personalist rule was quickly reversed after his defeat, with courts banning him from office and democratic institutions recovering ground. In Poland, despite Law and Justice’s judicial capture, opposition coalitions and civil society activism enabled partial restoration of democratic checks. These cases suggest that Trump’s personalist project, lacking a durable broligarchy, may be reversible if opposition leverages institutional checks.

8. Judicial Checks and Civil Society: The Decisive Battleground

The judiciary remains a bulwark against personalism, as seen in Chief Judge James Boasberg’s temporary halt to deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act. Trump’s defiance, public attacks on Boasberg as a “radical left lunatic,” and the House’s introduction of impeachment articles—rebuked by Chief Justice John Roberts—signal pressure on judicial independence. This episode, still unresolved as of June 2025, contrasts with tech elites’ deference. The judiciary’s resilience—and the willingness of political leaders, civil society, and the public to support the courts—will determine whether the U.S. crosses into full personalism.

9. Conclusion

The broligarchy narrative, prematurely proclaimed in early 2025, misreads tech elites’ power as oligarchic. Musk’s contract threats, Bezos’s Post overhaul—losing 75,000 subscribers yet unclarified—and Zuckerberg’s “MAGA makeover” were framed as capitulation, revealing a personalist system where loyalty trumps autonomy. The contradiction between their rhetoric of “personal liberties and free markets” and Trump’s tariffs, trade wars, and university defunding underscores their subordination.

Yet, the Musk-Trump conflict now foregrounds the unsettled and contingent nature of elite power under personalism. Whether Musk’s challenge portends elite defections or merely reinforces Trump’s red lines—and whether judicial checks hold—will determine if the U.S. tips into durable personalism or charts a reversible path.

References

----------------------------------------------

DRAFT 7

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

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. Media and public discourse heralded a new, stable, bi-directional power structure: a digital oligarchy, reminiscent of the classic military-industrial complex, with figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg assuming unprecedented visibility and influence as donors and quasi-officials.

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 and his Special Government Employee (SGE) role, alongside Bezos’s and Zuckerberg’s million-dollar inauguration donations. These accounts, published before Trump’s second term began, assumed a durable, mutually reinforcing nexus akin to the military-industrial complex.

However, mainstream media simultaneously reported Bezos’s Post pivot and Zuckerberg’s Meta policy shifts as capitulation, revealing a contradiction: tech elites are not oligarchs but subordinates fearful of Trump’s ire. Karen Hao’s Empire of AI reinforced the broligarchy analogy by likening AI firms to colonial empires, extracting data and labor like the British East India Company. While compelling for global economic dynamics, this analogy presumes institutional stability absent in Trump’s America, where executive fiat overrides corporate influence. Bezos’s directive to limit The Post’s opinion section to “personal liberties and free markets”—despite its clash with Trump’s tariffs and university defunding—was framed as deference, a perception he did not challenge despite 75,000 subscriber cancellations. This contradiction exposes the broligarchy narrative’s prematurity, as tech elites’ actions align with personalist subordination rather than oligarchic power.

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

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, potentially including SpaceX and xAI tools. While claims of widespread AI-driven automation lack concrete evidence, DOGE’s rapid restructuring and no-bid contracts to firms like Thiel’s Palantir reflect a hybrid model: technocratic efficiency blended with ideological loyalty, all under Trump’s control. Musk’s role cemented his status as a favored courtier—until he criticized the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB), Trump’s signature domestic policy legislation, which Musk denounced as a “disgusting abomination.” This very public break threw Republicans—many of whom had regarded Musk and Trump as a unified front—into disarray. As the New York Times reported, the fallout was so dramatic that Senator Mike Lee likened the situation to a child choosing which parent to stay with after a divorce, saying, “But … I really like both of them” and refusing to take sides.

Contrary to claims of technocratic efficiency, the rapid replacement of human staff with AI systems—particularly xAI tools—has led to widespread dysfunction. Reports from outlets like AP and Axios detail how call centers and agency support lines have become inaccessible, with automated systems prone to error and incapable of managing complex cases without human oversight. This “bureaucratic nightmare” demonstrates that the DOGE plan, far from being a model of efficiency, primarily benefits select tech contractors while undermining public service delivery

.

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 with favors, but only conditionally. Unlike Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg avoided dissent, aligning overtly with Trump. Bezos’s Post shift to “personal liberties and free markets,” despite its incompatibility with Trump’s trade wars and extra-legal defunding of universities, sparked resignations and criticism from former editor Marty Baron, who called it “craven.” Zuckerberg’s relaxed content moderation, dubbed a “MAGA makeover,” earned conservative praise but employee backlash, yet he remained silent. Their failure to clarify these moves, despite reputational costs, suggests fear of retaliation against Amazon’s Pentagon contracts or Meta’s antitrust battles, aligning with the personalist ideal type.

4. Musk’s Challenge: Top Courtier or Gamechanger?

This standoff is structurally reminiscent of the early 2000s confrontation between Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Putin—a moment that tested whether Russia’s oligarchs could remain autonomous or would be subordinated to a new personalist order. While Musk’s position is not identical, the analogy is instructive: both cases mark a critical juncture where a powerful business figure openly challenges an emergent personalist leader, and the outcome may determine whether the system tilts toward oligarchic resilience or executive dominance. As The New York Times notes, Musk’s defiance is “unprecedented in Trumpworld 2.0,” highlighting the stakes of this unresolved power struggle

.

Musk’s leverage is amplified by the federal government’s deep reliance on Starlink and SpaceX. As of 2025, Starlink supports nearly half of rural U.S. broadband and a majority of Pentagon satellite communications, making it indispensable to both civilian and military operations. The rapid expansion of Starlink into multiple federal agencies—such as the GSA and FAA—underscores Musk’s unique position as a contractor whose assets are deeply embedded in the infrastructure of government operations

. This dependency was underscored when Musk threatened to decommission a key capsule used for International Space Station missions during his dispute with Trump—an act that, if carried out, would have immediate national security implications

.

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

Classic oligarchy implies a stable, cohesive elite with shared interests and institutionalized power. Osnos’s evidence, however, shows a transactional, volatile system where access is sold but outcomes are unpredictable; alliances are contingent and can be revoked at the leader’s whim. This aligns more with crony capitalism—where business success depends on political connections—and kleptocracy, where public office is used for personal enrichment.

6. Unilateral Defunding and Institutional Erosion

Elite Universities
Since early 2025, Harvard, Columbia, Brown, and others have faced billions in federal funding freezes, justified by vague accusations of “antisemitism” or “wokeness” tied to pro-Palestinian protests. These actions, based on extra-legal definitions from Trump’s executive orders, violate Congress’s “power of the purse” and First Amendment protections, as lawsuits from faculty unions argue. The firing of professors at Columbia and Brown for supporting protests directly contradicts “personal liberties,” yet Bezos’s silence suggests deference to avoid reprisals against his businesses.

Smithsonian and Cultural Institutions
A March 2025 executive order tasked Vice President J.D. Vance with purging “divisive narratives” from the Smithsonian, bypassing Congress and threatening funding. These measures, still facing legal challenges as of June 2025, mirror tactics in Orban’s Hungary, where cultural institutions are subordinated to executive will.

7. Theoretical Implications: Personalist Fragility vs. Oligarchic Entrenchment

Hao’s colonial analogy and the broligarchy narrative presume a stable, mutually dependent tech-government nexus. In contrast, Trump’s America exhibits personalist traits:

Power concentrates in the executive, who dispenses rewards and punishments at will.
Tech and cultural elites are courtiers, their status contingent on loyalty.
Institutions are hollowed out, their autonomy eroded by fiat.

Personalist Fragility and Democratic Recovery
Political science research shows personalist regimes—unlike entrenched oligarchies—are more vulnerable to reversal after the leader’s exit, precisely because they lack deep institutional roots and elite coalitions. Brazil and Poland offer instructive cases: Bolsonaro’s personalist rule was quickly reversed after his defeat, with courts banning him from office and democratic institutions recovering ground. In Poland, despite Law and Justice’s judicial capture, opposition coalitions and civil society activism enabled partial restoration of democratic checks. These cases suggest that Trump’s personalist project, lacking a durable broligarchy, may be reversible if opposition leverages institutional checks.

Books&Ideas

Friday, June 6, 2025

There is no Broligarchy (final-- I think)

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

5. Unilateral Defunding and Institutional Erosion

6. Theoretical Implications: Personalist Fragility vs. Oligarchic Entrenchment

7. The Judiciary as Acid Test: The Boasberg Episode

8. Conclusion

References

1. Introduction

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

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

4. Musk’s Challenge: Top Courtier or Gamechanger?

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

6. Unilateral Defunding and Institutional Erosion

7. Theoretical Implications: Personalist Fragility vs. Oligarchic Entrenchment

8. Judicial Checks and Civil Society: The Decisive Battleground

9. Conclusion

References

1. Introduction

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

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

4. Musk’s Challenge: Top Courtier or Gamechanger?

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

6. Unilateral Defunding and Institutional Erosion

7. Theoretical Implications: Personalist Fragility vs. Oligarchic Entrenchment

8. Judicial Checks and Civil Society: The Decisive Battleground

9. Conclusion

No comments:

Post a Comment