What to know about 'Dark MAGA', the theory about tech bosses in government
His 'Make America Great Again' caps are donned proudly by supporters and even former advisors – Elon Musk wore a customised version, reading 'Trump Was Right About Everything!' earlier this year.
At a rally during Trump's campaign, Musk even joked: 'I'm not just MAGA, I'm dark MAGA.'
The remarks were likely tied to his increasingly dark attire, including an all black version of the MAGA hat.
But some have connected this to a fringe conspiracy theory about a government takeover involving tech bosses – and his public fallout with Trump has fanned the flames.
The term dark MAGA comes from a theory known as 'dark enlightenment'.
The theory is believed to come from Curtis Yarvin, 51, a computer coder who claims tech bosses will overthrow the government and install a CEO to run things.
Seems outlandish, right?
Not for everyone. The theory has gained traction in recent years as Trump cosies up to tech bosses – Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were all at his inauguration, by personal invitation.
And the theory is fringe – but parts of it are eerily 'coming true'. It mentions mass firings of federal employees, fear tactics to distract the masses and elections deemed 'obsolete'.
Washington institutions have reportedly been briefed about 'Dark Enlightenment', or 'Dark MAGA', as it's become known.
The first major cracks in their relationship showed at the end of last month on what turned out to be Musk's last day in the White House.
The Tesla CEO had become bolder in expressing his dissent over Trump's budget and tax cut bill, currently making its way through Congress.
Asked about Musk's disapproval of his 'Big, Beautiful Bill', the US president told reporters: 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will ever again.'
Musk responded, lashing out further overnight, branding it a 'disgusting abomination' that will explode federal budget deficits. More Trending
'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,' he wrote on X.
The criticism quickly escalated into an all-out brawl between the pair, each on their own social media sites, Truth Social and X, or in press conferences.
But it was Musk's tweet – linking Trump with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein – that has caused the most controversy.
He alleged that the Republican leader is featured in the secret government files on rich and powerful former associates of the sex offender, reigniting long-running conspiracy theories.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Zelensky refutes Trump's take on war and calls Putin 'murderer who came to kill the kids'
MORE: Donald Trump calls Elon Musk 'the man who has lost his mind' and won't talk to him
MORE: Donald Trump's new anti-terror chief is a 22-year-old former gardener
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
What Putin said — and what he meant, with a flash of sharp teeth
Unlike his American counterpart, President Putin chooses his words carefully. His closing remarks after his meeting with President Trump on Friday speak volumes both for what he did and did not say. • Trump-Putin meeting: follow the latest updates Putin pitched this meeting as an opportunity to bring US-Russian relations back on track — and in effect, to relegate the Ukraine issue to the sidelines. His well-known obsession with history, even if a deeply slanted version that suits his political needs, was soon in evidence. After praising the way the talks had been 'held in a constructive atmosphere of mutual respect', he quickly moved on to stressing not just that the meeting in Alaska highlighted the degree to which Russia and the United States, 'though separated by the oceans, are close neighbours' — just 2.4 miles apart at the closest point — but also that there was much shared history. (Of course, Alaska had been Russian until it was sold to America in 1867.) In the closed-door talks, Trump was apparently spared the kind of 30-minute lecture with which Putin began his interview with the US journalist Tucker Carlson. Instead, in both those talks and his public statement, Putin tried to mobilise history to develop his fundamental point: that Russia and America ought to be allies rather than adversaries. On his way to Anchorage, Putin had stopped over in Magadan in the Russian far east, where he made a point of laying flowers at the 'Heroes of Alsib' memorial commemorating pilots killed on the Alaska-Siberia route in the Second World War, when the US was helping to supply the Soviets. Noting that Soviet pilots had also been buried at a cemetery close to the airbase where the meeting with Trump was held, Putin offered a little light flattery to 'the citizens and the government of the US for carefully taking care of their memory. I think that's very worthy and noble'. He continued to make the point: 'We'll always remember other historical examples when our countries defeated common enemies together in the spirit of battle camaraderie and allyship that supported each other and facilitated each other.' In other words, when Moscow and Washington co-operate, no one can stand in their way. Putin here presented the war as something of a distraction which has unnecessarily interrupted co-operation between two great nations. 'This time has been very hard for bilateral relations, and let's be frank, they've fallen to the lowest point since the Cold War,' he said. 'I think that's not benefiting our countries and the world as a whole. It is apparent that sooner or later, we have to amend the situation to move on from the confrontation to dialogue.' This was Putin sounding conciliatory, yet wanting to have his cake and eat it: to restate his fundamental position, while posing as a peacemaker. The tell comes a few moments later. • Four key moments from Trump-Putin press conference This is Putin's usual code for demands that Kyiv must surrender territory, be barred from Nato membership and shrink its military to a level that leaves it perpetually vulnerable. He emphasised that from his perspective 'to make the settlement lasting and long-term, we need to eliminate all the primary roots, the primary causes of that conflict.' He is of course not talking about the unprovoked Russian invasion that started the war (which he ordered) but rather the supposedly 'legitimate concerns of Russia' and the need 'to reinstate a just balance of security in Europe and in the world' which would be more advantageous to Moscow. Meanwhile, he invoked what sounded like kinship with the Ukrainians, adding even that 'naturally, the security of Ukraine should be ensured as well'. This might have surprised those Ukrainian civilians hiding in their air raid shelters at the time. However, his claim that Russians have 'always considered the Ukrainian nation … a brotherly nation' as 'we have the same roots' was really just a sugar-coated rendition of his usual claim that Ukraine is not really a genuine country, more an annexe of a greater Russia. It is not yet clear what Putin meant by this arch suggestion. The official translation of his word ponimanie is 'agreements' but really the looser 'understandings' is more accurate. We therefore don't know if there is any framework for an agreement — although there are recurring suggestions of a halt to mutual air attacks on Russia and Ukraine's cities and infrastructure — or just a sense of progress being made. In any case, Putin was astute enough not to dwell on this too much and instead to refocus on the Russian and American relationship. First he dangled the benefit to the United States of improved dialogue with Russia. 'It is clear that the US and Russian investment and business co-operation has tremendous potential,' he said. 'Russia and the US can offer each other so much in trade, digital, high tech and in space exploration. We see that Arctic co-operation is also very possible.' Then he spoke warmly of his own bond with his American counterpart. Trump may be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, but he still manifests an insecurity that Putin is happy to exploit. Speaking of the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022 the Russian said: 'President Trump is saying that if he was the president back then, there would be no war, and I'm quite sure that it would indeed be so' (as if the invasion had been some natural disaster, rather than something he initiated). As for Trump's peacemaking efforts, it was the Europeans and Ukrainians who were frustrating him, Putin suggested. He expressed the pious hope that they 'will not make any attempts to use some backroom dealings to conduct provocations to torpedo the nascent progress.' It was, of course, naked flattery, but it was also different from the kind of fawning obeisances some European leaders have adopted. Rather it was calibrated to convey a sense that the two men were equals and it came with the hint of an invitation to the club of strongman leaders: 'The president of the US has a very clear idea of what he would like to achieve. He sincerely cares about the prosperity of his nation. Still, he understands that Russia has its own national interests.' This sounded like a compliment, not condescension. Putin is not a rigid strategist but an opportunist. He likes to keep his options open. Having averted any ultimatum on a ceasefire, he made it clear that he will pursue both military and diplomatic tracks simultaneously, the very thing Kyiv has been trying to prevent. He can see if some deal that suits him emerges — or just use continuing negotiations to keep Trump paralysed and try to paint the Ukrainians and the Europeans as the obstacle. At this stage, he doesn't have to decide, and that's the way he likes it. One might think that this would be enough for him, but Putin wouldn't be Putin without a snarky parting shot. Just as Trump was wrapping up the brief press conference with a vague suggestion that the two men would 'probably' see each other again soon, Putin pounced. By inviting him, in English, to the Russian capital for their next meeting, he knew he was putting Trump very much on the spot. Obviously, this would be an even greater fillip for Putin, and pretty much guarantee that President Zelensky wasn't going to be present. It was a closing flash of the sharp teeth behind the bland smile: I am not, Putin could have been saying, just another second-tier national leader who can be pushed around. Professor Mark Galeotti's book, Forged in War: A Military History of Russia from its Beginnings to Today, is published by Osprey/Bloomsbury
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Putin ‘rewarded' for Ukraine invasion with Trump summit, experts warn
The summit, which took place at a military base in Anchorage in the US's northernmost state, was aimed at kick-starting a peace process to end the war in Ukraine. Very little appears to have been materially resolved as a result of the meeting. Mr Trump has insisted 'some great progress' was made, with 'many points' agreed and 'very few' remaining. Sir Keir Starmer, meanwhile, commended the US president's efforts to make peace, and said Mr Trump had 'brought us closer than ever before' to an end to the war in Ukraine. Leading foreign affairs and military experts have however claimed the summit's main effect has been to lend legitimacy to Mr Putin, who has been considered a pariah by many world leaders since the invasion began in 2022. Orysia Lutsevych, deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia programme and head of the Ukraine forum at the Chatham House think tank, said: 'After six bilateral Trump-Putin phone calls, five trips of Trump's envoy (Steve) Witkoff to Moscow, the Alaska summit, watched globally with so much anticipation and anxiety, failed to produce any tangible outcome to stop Russian aggression against Ukraine. 'Russia has received a reward for its invasion. 'Trump called Russia a 'great country' and said there is strong mutual understanding between the two parties. 'This represents a further fissure in the already shaky Transatlantic alliance, the rupture of which is a primary Russian aim. 'The Alaska summit represents another step towards this goal.' Keir Giles, an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House, meanwhile suggested there were 'two dangers' which could emerge from the summit. The first is that Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky may now be perceived by Mr Trump as a 'softer target where he is more willing to exert leverage', and that the US president could 'once again try to strongarm Zelensky into compromising the future of his country'. The second danger is that European leaders 'might once again think the immediate danger has passed' and become complacent, after their scramble to speak to Mr Trump ahead of the summit. Dr Neil Melvin, director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) meanwhile suggested Mr Putin would walk away considering the summit a success. Dr Melvin said: 'Vladimir Putin came to the Alaska summit with the principal goal of stalling any pressure on Russia to end the war. 'He will consider the summit outcome as mission accomplished.' He added: 'Russia's war aims have not changed since it launched its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 'At the summit, Putin was clear that he wants to address first what he calls the root causes of the war. 'The Kremlin identifies these as Nato enlargement, the emergence of governments in Ukraine resistant to Russian integration projects, and challenges to Russian claims about territory and ethnic Russians in Ukraine. 'This is Russia's precondition and underpins Putin's demand for a 'comprehensive peace deal'. 'This agenda would lead to the subjugation of Ukraine. 'Putin made no concessions at the summit. 'Moreover, he succeeded in presenting himself as a legitimate equal to the US president. 'He will also consider it a victory that he was able to marginalise Zelensky and European leaders from the central discussion about the future of European security.' Elsewhere, party political leaders in the UK warned against lending Mr Putin legitimacy. Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader said: 'It's clear Putin doesn't want peace. 'Trump's attempt to sweet talk him into a deal has failed, so it's time for Trump to finally get tough. 'The UK should seize Russian assets to help Ukraine today, and press the US to do the same.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns meanwhile said the world was 'left where we started' by the summit, adding: 'A brutal war caused by Russia's aggression and no real solution in sight. 'Any lasting peace plan without Ukraine's full participation and consent will fail. 'When you compare how Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin to his publicly humiliating Zelensky, it's clear that the only winner from these talks is Putin. 'He was handed the credibility of a seat at the top table while his forces continue their attacks on Ukraine.'
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Zelensky must be at future peace talks, Starmer says after Trump-Putin summit
The Prime Minister said the US president's actions had 'brought us closer than ever before' to an end to the war in Ukraine. But he insisted insisted Ukraine's leader must take part in future peace talks after speaking with Mr Trump and Nato allies in the wake of the US president's negotiations with Vladimir Putin. The American leader had hoped to secure a peace deal from the talks in Alaska, but both he and his Russian counterpart walked away without agreement on how to end the war in Ukraine. Mr Trump, however, insisted 'some great progress' was made, with 'many points' agreed and 'very few' remaining. Ukraine's president Mr Zelensky is due to fly to Washington DC on Monday to meet Mr Trump, with the aim of paving the way to further talks. Sir Keir spent Saturday morning speaking to western allies in the wake of the Anchorage summit. Following the round of calls, the Prime Minister said: 'President Trump's efforts have brought us closer than ever before to ending Russia's illegal war in Ukraine. His leadership in pursuit of an end to the killing should be commended. 'While progress has been made, the next step must be further talks involving President Zelensky. The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without him.' Overnight, the Ministry of Defence said British troops now stand ready to police a future peace deal as soon as one is agreed. The allied peacekeeping effort, the so-called coalition of the willing, would rely upon a 'security guarantee' of air support from the US to prevent future Russian aggression in Ukraine. Sir Keir suggested such an arrangement was now in place, something which Mr Trump has previously been reluctant to publicly confirm. The Prime Minister welcomed 'the openness of the United States, alongside Europe, to provide robust security guarantees to Ukraine as part of any deal'. 'This is important progress and will be crucial in deterring Putin from coming back for more,' he added. In a joint statement with leaders from key Nato allies including France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Finland, Sir Keir also said the coalition of the willing is 'ready to play an active role'. The leaders added: 'No limitations should be placed on Ukraine's armed forces or on its co-operation with third countries. Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine's pathway to EU and Nato.' Allies plan to 'keep tightening the screws' on Mr Putin with 'even more sanctions', Sir Keir also said. Mr Zelensky, who spoke with Mr Trump in a one-on-one call on Saturday morning before European leaders joined, laid out what he wanted to see from an end to fighting. Today, following a conversation with President Trump, we further coordinated positions with European leaders. The positions are clear. A real peace must be achieved, one that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions. Killings must stop as soon as… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 16, 2025 Writing on social media site X, he said: 'A real peace must be achieved, one that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions.' A ceasefire must include an end to fighting on land, in the sea and the air, he said, and all prisoners of war, as well as captured civilians – including children – must be returned. Sanctions on Moscow 'should be strengthened if there is no trilateral meeting or if Russia tries to evade an honest end to the war', Mr Zelensky added. After the summit with Mr Putin at an air base in Anchorage, Alaska, the US president suggested there were only a few major stumbling blocks holding up the prospect of a peace deal. Speaking to Fox News, he said it was up to Mr Zelensky to 'make a deal' to end the war. Writing on his Truth Social platform after the summit, Mr Trump said he hoped Monday's meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart in the Oval Office could pave the way for three-way talks with Mr Putin. The American leader added: 'Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Experts, meanwhile, lined up to warn that the summit risked lending legitimacy to Mr Putin's war effort. Orysia Lutsevych, deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia programme and head of the Ukraine forum at the Chatham House think tank, said: 'Russia has received a reward for its invasion. Trump called Russia a 'great country' and said there is strong mutual understanding between the two parties. 'This represents a further fissure in the already shaky Transatlantic alliance, the rupture of which is a primary Russian aim. The Alaska summit represents another step towards this goal.' Dr Neil Melvin, director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute, suggested Mr Putin would walk away considering the summit a success. He said: 'Vladimir Putin came to the Alaska summit with the principal goal of stalling any pressure on Russia to end the war. 'He will consider the summit outcome as mission accomplished.'
