A tech-tonic shift: the age of the broligarchs
The Trump administration has given American tech bros more power than ever. Here’s what it means for the rest of us.
The seating plans at US Presidential inaugurations are as symbolic as they are political.
Those who sit closest to the incoming President are not only powerful in their own right, they’re also symbols in America’s most important piece of political pageantry.
Traditionally, the seats directly behind the incoming President and family members are reserved for incoming cabinet members, former presidents or other powerful dignitaries.
But there was nothing traditional about President Trump’s inauguration.
Moved inside because of the frigid temperatures outdoors, seating at the event was at a premium. And the decision to seat tech billionaires directly behind the President foreshadowed the direction the Trump administration has since gone on to take.
Rise of the tech bros
Dartmouth sociologist Brooke Harrington coined the term ‘broligarch’ to refer to the wealthy and apparently exclusively male tech actors inserting themselves into US politics. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and crypto king David Sacks all fall under this category.
Harrington describes these bros as largely indifferent or even hostile to democratic tradition, while benefitting enormously from the operation of government.
While some powerbrokers prefer to do their work in the shadows, US broligarchs are wielding their political influence out in the open.
From the establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the White House’s crypto reserve through to the appointment of Trump allies to Meta’s board and Musk’s appearance in presidential calls to world leaders — it’s clear tech has a seat at the table.
Follow the money
There’s nothing new about tech and government working together in the US – think back to Hillary Clinton’s Internet Freedom initiative.
But the Trump administration’s intent to disrupt global affairs is much clearer, the line between US foreign policy and tech corporate goals is much blurrier, and the global dominance of US tech firms is much greater.
Elon Musk was the largest political donor of the 2024 election cycle, spending more than a quarter of a billion dollars. Trump’s inauguration campaign raised more than double Biden’s inauguration fund, with cryptocurrency firms, Amazon, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Google, Meta and Apple among the largest donors.
Because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2010, these donations influence politics within a regulated, legal framework established by the highest court in the land.
Influence can certainly be bought or at least courted by broligarchs in other jurisdictions, but this access is often governed by opaque politics, as in China. By contrast, America’s official framework legitimises the US process, essentially laying the groundwork for broligarchs to influence government decisions and making it difficult to counter.
Global consequences
Broligarchs have domestic policy goals in their sights – on antitrust and AI regulation. But their influence extends far beyond US borders and potentially beyond the boundaries of tech. America has dominated the global order since the end of the Second World War, shaping institutions including NATO, Five Eyes, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and even the United Nations.
If broligarchs are antagonistic towards various international bodies, there is a risk US political leadership may follow suit. European regulators, for example, are at loggerheads with many US tech companies over potential breaches of European antitrust and privacy law. They should be (and are) concerned about what this means for broader US-European relations.
This is also a risk Australia faces in its antagonistic relationship with Elon Musk’s X in the wake of the Bondi stabbings of 2024. It is no longer a relationship with a social media platform owner but instead a contentious history with the man shaping domestic US fiscal policy while Australia attempts to negotiate favourable trade outcomes.
The US dollar also underpins federal trade, and the Trump administration’s announcement of a US crypto reserve and its general friendliness towards cryptocurrency also has the potential to shape global finance trends.
Tech is king
Despite the presence of competitors in China, Russia and local startups in rising markets such as Indonesia, US tech companies dominate the information technology market globally. More than 3.5 billion people worldwide use at least one Meta product, while Google has nine products with more than a billion global users each.
US tech companies also own significant amounts of the computing infrastructure used by the world’s governments and the private sector.
Between them, Google, Amazon and Meta represent about three quarters of current global activity in building undersea data cables.
Meanwhile, Amazon accounts for 30 per cent of the global cloud infrastructure market.
This dominance means there are limited options for states and consumers to protest shifts in US global practices driven by President Trump’s broligarchs.
Canadians may be removing Jack Daniels from the shelves and Australians may be reducing their Tesla purchases, but they still have very little choice when it comes to their cloud infrastructure, or the cable via which they access the internet.
Broligarchs exist all over the world but the US breed is different. We can’t be certain whether global order will be broken open by their new closeness to power, but we can be certain that we can’t unfollow.
Top image: Andrew Harnik/Shutterstock.com
You may also like
The death of inclusive AI? Trump’s fight against diversity intensifies
Amid President Trump's crusade against DEI, tech companies are reneging on promises to address bias in artificial intelligence.
Silicon Valley’s Trump love affair shows it can’t and won’t regulate itself
Silicon Valley has promised more responsible innovation. But high-profile support for Trump shows companies don’t really want the burden of responsibility.
Defence spending – a question of capability
Both major parties talk big on defence ahead of elections. But even with the world changing before our eyes, Australia’s spend on defence isn’t enough to buy us the capabilities we need.