Latest news with #oligarchy
WIRED
7 days ago
- Business
- WIRED
The GOP's Message for Tech Billionaires: Be Like Peter Thiel
Jul 23, 2025 11:00 AM One lesson Republican insiders took away from Elon Musk's spectacular flameout? Be wary of billionaires who love the spotlight. Photo-illustration: WIRED Staff; Getty Images The unholy alliance between Silicon Valley and the Republican Party is no longer new. Between Elon Musk's descent upon Washington, the number of Big Tech billionaires flying in to kiss President Donald Trump's ring, and the expansion of the role of companies like Palantir in the US government, former president Joe Biden's warning about the impending oligarchy has certainly borne out. All of this raises a question: Six months into Trump's presidency, just how important are Silicon Valley billionaires to this administration now, anyhow? The answer, sources from Trumpworld tell WIRED, is complicated. The short of it: Yes, Silicon Valley billionaires still matter to the Republican party, though not as much as they did during the homestretch of the 2024 campaign. But now, following Musk's spectacular flameout, strategists and aides are a little more wary of these billionaires centering themselves ahead of the president and party. A recurring theme of my reporting for WIRED has been the lack of familiarity with these Silicon Valley players within Trumpworld and inside the White House. There has been a consistent willingness among some of Trump's closest advisers and aides to purposefully avoid even knowing what Musk was up to with his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But now, Republicans think they've learned how to manage Silicon Valley's competing interests better, and most importantly know they're going to need all the Silicon Valley money they can get heading into elections in 2026 and 2028. This includes the cryptocurrency wing of Silicon Valley, which has proven extremely profitable for the Trump family and may well be the glue holding this coalition together. Behind the scenes, adjustments and accommodations are being made to keep it going. 'Donor maintenance,' my sources tell me, is the key operating principle. Already, Americans have heard about the likes of Mark Zuckerberg at Meta, Jeff Bezos at Amazon and in his capacity as owner of The Washington Post, Sundar Pichai at Alphabet (the parent company of Google and YouTube), Microsoft's Satya Nadella, Uber's Dara Khosrowshahi and others bending the knee, ponying up donations, and doing whatever it takes to stay in the good graces of the second Trump administration. Others, like venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, got with the program early—the firm 'Andreessen-Horowitz has been very aligned with Republicans the last few years,' another one of my sources tells me. A Google spokesperson declined to comment on behalf of Pichai and a Meta spokesperson declined to comment on behalf of Zuckerberg. Representatives for Bezos, Nadella, and Khosrowshahi did not return requests for comment. For several of the well-placed GOP sources I spoke with for this inaugural edition of Inner Loop, there's more loathing of the disruptor mentality that comes with these new arrivals, and less fear over the downsides of the GOP saddling up with them. 'These guys, especially the young disruptors who make a lot of money, they don't think they have to do what everyone else does,' a GOP strategist who's been fundraising in Silicon Valley going back to the dotcom boom tells me. 'You've gotta kinda guide 'em the right way … They won. They have access to the White House. And they feel good about their investment because they won.' The White House did not return a request for comment. That return-on-investment mindset makes for a harder sell heading into an election where Republicans are likely to lose their House majority and cede any chance at further legislation until at least 2029. 'You're going into a midterm where it'll be a little tougher,' says the strategist. Lessons Learned My sources tell me there have been a few lessons learned following Musk's historic crash-out. Rule number one: Don't overstay your welcome, and don't get too big for your breeches. 'The lesson learned was: Don't idiotically think you're smarter than everyone in the room and elected along [with] Trump,' a second Republican strategist tells me in a text message, also requesting anonymity to candidly discuss private deliberations. 'Elon's act got old really quick. By the time he was wearing multiple hats, it was like congealed milk.' A senior administration official tells me Musk's fatal flaw, aside from what appeared to be an erratic personality, was placing himself too prominently in the public eye and accordingly setting expectations too high for DOGE. 'A lot of this starts with Elon setting unrealistic expectations in the public sphere. There was never an easy trillion to cut, certainly not one you could cut,' the administration source says, alluding to Musk's shifting commitments to cut at least $2 trillion in federal spending before gradually ratcheting them down. 'Setting up expectations that couldn't be met.' The first Republican strategist, who's seen a thing or two in the long arc of the tech world's foray into politics, said an old axiom of his applies all too well to the post-Musk era. 'I think what the lesson learned from Elon is, as I like to say, the podium's for the principals. Don't get on the podium. Don't get on the podium,' the first strategist says. This became especially true inside the White House after Musk failed to secure a victory in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race back in the early spring, despite groups connected to Musk pumping nearly $20 million into the contest and publicly campaigning not just for the Republican candidate, but also 'the future of the world.' Rule number two, in other words: If you're a tech billionaire, stay in your lane—in the coffers, and out of the spotlight. Someone who has done that rather well, my sources tell me, is Peter Thiel, the billionaire megadonor, Palantir cofounder, and card-carrying member of the so-called PayPal mafia alongside Musk and Trump's 'White House & AI Crypto Czar' David Sacks, two notable GOP converts. Several sources told me he's in a league of his own in how he operates as a GOP donor, and notably one who predates many of the Johnny-come-latelies who jumped on the Trump train after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. His influence, sources say, is comparable only to that of Republican super giver Miriam Adelson, the widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. Thiel, who bankrolled Vice President JD Vance's 2022 Senate campaign, set the early stages for MAGA succession planning. With Musk gone, WIRED reported, Vance is now the primary point of contact in the White House for Silicon Valley's billionaires, and he has the inside track on their funds for the 2028 Republican presidential primary. And everyone knows that Thiel brought him to the dance. 'Thiel's an interesting one,' a third GOP strategist tells me. 'He's spread his bets. Some have paid off, and some haven't.' Maybe most important to these strategists: 'Most voters don't have a fucking clue who Peter Thiel is.' He's behind the scenes, but very much still present in Republican politics. Thiel, like the Adelsons, 'didn't just write checks,' the first strategist explains. 'They were involved, and they were present. And that's the bigger thing I can tell ya: The tech people that had the most influence were the ones that were present.' Present, in this sense, means meeting privately with lawmakers and their staff. (It does not, in this context, mean giving an off-the-wall podcast interview to New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, in which they discussed transhumanism and other topics.) 'The Peter Thiels of the world have been doing this for a while,' the first strategist says. 'Elon Musk has not.' Despite Musk throwing nearly $300 million toward supporting Trump in 2024, he 'amassed influence, went to the White House, and didn't get everything he wanted.' Alongside Thiel, this strategist mentioned billionaire and Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison as the next best example of how to play the game. 'Obviously the Larry Ellisons of the world and the Peter Thiels, they have deep policy issues that they care about. Now, it's not gonna affect their bottom line personally anytime soon. They're gonna shape policy for generations.' Ellison and Thiel did not return requests for comment. For other Silicon Valley donors to become real players, this strategist said, they need to spread their donations across multiple candidates and organizations, consistently, cycle-to-cycle. 'Most of the technology guys and the Silicon Valley guys, the one thing that was consistent: They were disrupting old-school economies that have been involved for not 10 years or 20 years, but for generations.' They thought they could do the same for politics. But, as the first strategist points out, 'that's not a long term strategy.' The Crypto Glue Holding It All Together It's not just about the Benjamins, either. The future of cryptocurrency—the cashout option of choice for alumni of Trump's first administration and previous campaigns, as well as Trump's own family—matters a whole lot. 'Crypto might be the glue that keeps the tech world, so to speak, glued to politics,' a Republican operative close to the president tells WIRED. 'Trump was very, very smart by moving positively into the tech world in various forms.' Trump and Vance are all in on crypto, and they have gone back-to-back as key speakers at the two most recent annual Bitcoin conferences. The industry made its presence known with lavish events at last summer's Republican National Convention. As long as the Trump family can keep making money off of cryptocurrency and the value of these currencies, memecoins, and other speculative digital assets keep growing, there will always be a reason for the donors to pony up again. Just this month, crypto billionaires Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss donated $1 million total to a super PAC supporting Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Bill Berrien. A representative for the Winklevoss twins did not return a request for comment. However, several of these strategists told me the crypto crowd is the hardest to deal with. 'A lot of bumbling and fumbling,' the first one tells me. 'It's kind of an example of the learning curve of crypto. They've been late to the game on so much,' the third strategist says, referring to a general misunderstanding of how Trump's GOP operates in Washington. The Hard Sell for the Midterms Even with cryptoworld and much of Silicon Valley all in for Trump, the pitch to the billionaires going into midterms won't be easy. Republicans are bracing for a wipeout in the House in the midterm elections if historical trends hold—not to mentionTrump's sagging approval across almost every major policy issue. 'Going into the midterms … the amount of ask for large six- and seven-figure donations from the NRCC, the NRSC, the presidential stuff, Trump, all the super PACs, the RGA, I mean, you name it—there's going to be a flood in the phone calls and inboxes of every one of these people that participated two years ago,' the seasoned GOP strategist says. The pitch to these newcomers, for someone like House speaker Mike Johnson, is to be team players: Spread the money far and wide, not just on a few safe bets. That's where the unique charm of Trump comes into play, and where the GOP's apparent next standard-bearer, Vance, will be put to the test in holding this coalition together. Republicans on Capitol Hill point to former House speaker Kevin McCarthy and Trump himself as some of the best in the business at picking up the phone, inviting Silicon Valley elites to events, and making them 'feel special'—but the donors also need someone to tell them their money is not going toward a short-term return. 'The donor maintenance part of the bigger donor stuff is—and look, love 'em, hate 'em or not. Trump was great at that,' the first strategist says. 'Come to Mar-a-Lago, you give a bunch of money, you're having dinner, you're watching Trump walk into that room, work the crowd. He made you feel special. He made you feel important.' Maybe not a bad return on investment, after all. This is an edition of Jake Lahut's Inner Loop newsletter. Read previous coverage from Jake Lahut here.
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Oligarchs' Big Prize in Trump's Budget-Busting Bill
If America is a ruled by a billionaire oligarchy, as I argued in a recent New Republic feature story ('How the Billionaires Took Over'), what will our billionaire overlords get out of the 'big, beautiful' budget reconciliation bill that narrowly cleared the Senate this week? Higher interest rates, for one, because the bill more than doubles the budget deficit; this will benefit billionaire creditors but hurt billionaire borrowers. The top marginal rate won't rise from the present 37 percent to 39.6 percent, as it would have done in a Harris administration, which is excellent news if you actually pay that much—but often billionaires do not. And I'll wager your typical oligarch doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not 12 million people lose medical coverage and six million people lose food stamps. The oligarchs' real prize in the reconciliation bill is the continuation or possible expansion of a 2017 change in the tax code so tedious to explain that most news accounts haven't bothered. Some people call it the qualified business income deduction, others call it the pass-through deduction, and still others just call it Section 199A. It's a deduction of 23 percent (House version) or 20 percent (Senate version) on business income that 'passes through,' untaxed, to a private individual, who then pays taxes on it as personal rather than corporate income. The rationale for this deduction is that business income shouldn't be taxed at a maximum 37 percent rate when the corporate income tax is only 21 percent. Are you bored yet? If so, you're exactly where the oligarchs want you. Maybe you'll perk up if I tell you this tax cut will add to the budget deficit either $820 billion (House version) or $736 billion (Senate version). More than half the benefit will go to millionaires. Pass-through income is a key driver of income inequality. Between 1985 and 2021, the top 1 percent in the income distribution increased its share of the nation's income from 13 percent to more than 25 percent. The majority of that increase came from pass-through income. Defenders of the pass-through tax break will tell you that most pass-through businesses are small businesses, and that's true. But the majority of income from pass-through businesses goes to the rich. In 2011, 70 percent of all pass-through income went to the top 1 percent; the 2017 tax break almost certainly pushed that proportion higher. We're talking oligarch money. When corporations spend money on political candidacies, as they were invited to do by the Supreme Court's execrable Citizens United ruling in 2010, the corporations in question are seldom publicly held (i.e., the kind that pay corporate tax), because shareholders are liable to object. Instead, corporate contributions typically come from privately held S-corporations, partnerships, and limited liability corporations (or LLCs), where income passes through to a very wealthy owner. The less tax these oligarchs pay on pass-through income, the more they have to buy politicians. Pass-through corporations proliferated after Ronald Reagan's 1986 tax reform reduced the top marginal income-tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent. That law lowered the corporate tax rate too, but not enough to halt a stampede from public to private corporations. (I'm grateful for this history to Bloomberg's Justin Fox.) The pass-through advantage diminished in subsequent years as a result of various tax changes. But when Trump's 2017 tax law dropped publicly held corporations' tax bill from 35 percent to 21 percent, the pass-through-dependent rich screamed bloody murder until Congress agreed to lower taxes on pass-through income too, with the 20 percent deduction. (Reason Number I-Lost-Count why it was dumb to lower corporate taxes in the first place.) The result was not, in fact, parity, mainly because revenue generated by publicly held corporations gets taxed twice (through corporate taxes and taxes on dividends or capital gains) whereas pass-through revenue gets taxed only once. If any type of corporate structure should be favored by the tax system, it's public ownership. I'm no cheerleader for publicly held corporations, but they're usually preferable to privately held corporations because they're at least theoretically accountable to shareholders, many of them pensioners. And again, it's privately held corporations that account for the bulk of corporate political spending unleashed by Citizens United. But the trend runs the other way; between 1996 and 2020, the number of publicly held corporations shrank by nearly half. You don't have to be a bleeding heart to hate the pass-through tax break. The American Enterprise Institute's Kyle Pomerleau can't stand it, either, on the grounds that tax policy shouldn't favor one type of corporate structure over another. According to Fox, 'it's hard to find any tax expert of any political leaning not in the employ of the pass-through industrial complex who thinks the qualified business income deduction is a good idea.' A 2021 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found the 2017 pass-through deduction did not increase capital investment, wages, or employment. When it was first proposed, Daniel Savior, professor of law at New York University, called it 'the worst provision ever even to be seriously proposed in the history of the federal income tax.' But oligarchs love pass-through income, perhaps most especially Donald Trump, whose Trump Organization is privately held. And what oligarchs want, they usually get. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
29-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? Tell us.
Billionaires are having a day. The White House is a good example of this happy time for the wealthiest among us, since it is the residence (once more) of our first billionaire president, Donald Trump. It was there that he was joined briefly by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, who slashed his way through much of the federal government, then exited to go tend to rockets, electric cars and other ventures. But not to worry. Left behind are five billionaires brought into office by Trump, the most of any administration. Those magnates spent hundreds of millions of dollars to reelect Trump and to throw him an inaugural party. Opinion: What's an oligarchy? With Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' bill, we're living in one. As a national phenomenon, the number of billionaires has grown from one in the 1920s (industrialist Henry Ford) to more than 900. Since the start of the 21st century, that group's wealth has expanded nine times, aided by Trump's 2017 tax cuts. For the country's lower half of earners, the expansion was double, mostly due to stimulus checks. I say all this to set up the question for you: What do we think of this conspicuous power of America's billionaires? Is it something to fear, as President Joe Biden warned on his way out the door, saying there is a growing oligarchy that "threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead"? Or are these exceptional people whom we should celebrate? They are, after all, the group that brought us Starlink, a satellite system that kept Ukraine afloat in its war against Russia. And Amazon. (Boy, I like not going to the store to buy that thingy to fix my dryer. And I get it the next day!) Opinion: You're not really mad at the Bezos, Sánchez luxury Venice wedding. You're just poor. We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum billionaires" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Should billionaires be running the country? Tell us | Opinion
The Guardian
27-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Will the Democrats learn from Zohran Mamdani's victory?
The Democratic party is at a crossroads. It can continue to push policies that maintain a broken and rigged economic and political system and ignore the pain of the 60% of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck. It can turn its back on the dreams of a younger generation which, if we don't change that system, will likely be worse off than their parents. It can continue to depend upon billionaire donors and out-of-touch campaign consultants and spend huge amounts of money on dumb 30-second ads that fewer and fewer people respond to. It can ignore the tragic reality that tens of millions of Americans are giving up on democracy because they don't see their government understanding their struggles and the realities of their lives or doing anything about it. Or it can learn the lesson that the Zohran Mamdani campaign taught us on Tuesday. And that is: Have the courage to address the real economic and moral issues that face the majority of our people, take on the greed and power of the oligarchy and fight for an agenda that can improve life for working families. Some may claim that Mamdani's victory was just about style and the fact that he is a charismatic candidate. Yes. He is. But you don't get a Mamdani victory without the extraordinary grassroots movement that rallied around him. And you don't get that movement and thousands of enthusiastic people knocking on doors without an economic agenda that speaks to the needs of working people. The people of New York and all Americans understand that, in the richest country on earth, they should not have to struggle every day just to put food on the table, pay their rent or pay their medical bills. These are the people the Democratic consultants don't know exist. Mamdani has been criticized for his 'radical' and 'unrealistic' economic policies: Demanding that, at a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, the rich and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. Demanding that, when many New Yorkers are no longer able to find affordable housing, there should be a freeze on rent hikes. Demanding that, when commuting to a job takes a big toll out of a worker's paycheck, public transportation should be free. Demanding that, when many low-income and working people are unable to access good-quality food for themselves and their kids, publicly owned neighborhood grocery stores should be created. These ideas, and more, are not radical. They may not be what billionaires, wealthy campaign contributors and real estate speculators want, but they are what working people want. And maybe, just maybe, it's time to listen to them. Mamdani's victory was not about 'star power'. It was very much about people power, about revitalizing democracy and opening the door for ordinary people to gain control over the decisions that impact their lives. Importantly, he did not run away from the moral issue that is troubling millions in New York and around the country: the need to end US military support for a rightwing extremist Benjamin Netanyahu government in Israel that is obliterating the people of Gaza and starving their children. Mamdani understands that antisemitism is a disgusting and dangerous ideology, but that it is not antisemitic to be critical of the inhumane policies of the Netanyahu government. The lesson of Mamdani's campaign is that it is not good enough just to be critical of Trump and his destructive policies. We have to bring forth a positive vision and an analysis of why things are the way they are. It is not good enough to maintain a status quo that is failing most Americans. At a time when hope is in increasingly short supply, people must have the sense that if we work together, if we have the courage to take on powerful special interests, we can create a better world – a world of economic, social, racial and environmental justice. Will the current Democratic party leadership learn the lessons of the Mamdani campaign? Probably not. Too many of them would rather be the captains on a sinking Titanic, rather than change course. Then again, it doesn't matter what they think. The establishment threw everything they had against Mamdani – millions in Super Pac money, endorsements from 'important people', a hostile media – and they still lost. The future of the Democratic party will not be determined by its current leadership. It will be decided by the working class of this country. Increasingly, people understand that our political system is corrupt and that billionaires should not be able to buy elections. They understand that we should not have an unprecedented level of income and wealth inequality; that we should not be the only wealthy country not to guarantee healthcare for all; that we should not deny young people the right to a higher education because of their income; that we should not have a major crisis in affordable housing; that we should not have a minimum wage that is a starvation wage; that we should not allow corporations to illegally prevent union organization – and much, much more. The American people are beginning to stand up and fight back. We have seen that in the many Fighting Oligarchy events that we've done around the country that have drawn huge turnouts. We have seen that in the millions of people who came out for the No Kings rallies that took place this month in almost every state. And yesterday, we saw that in the Democratic primary in New York City. We're going forward. And no one is going to stop us. Bernie Sanders is a US senator, and ranking member of the health, education, labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont and is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress
The Guardian
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Will the Democrats learn from Zohran Mamdani's victory?
The Democratic party is at a crossroads. It can continue to push policies which maintain a broken and rigged economic and political system and ignore the pain of the 60% of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck. It can turn its back on the dreams of a younger generation which, if we don't change that system, will likely be worse off than their parents. It can continue to depend upon billionaire donors, out-of-touch campaign consultants and spend huge amounts of money on dumb 30-second ads that fewer and fewer people respond to. It can ignore the tragic reality that tens of millions of Americans are giving up on democracy because they don't see their government understanding their struggles and the realities of their lives or doing anything about it. Or it can learn the lesson that the Zohran Mamdani campaign taught us on Tuesday. And that is: Have the courage to address the real economic and moral issues that face the majority of our people, take on the greed and power of the oligarchy and fight for an agenda that can improve life for working families. Some may claim that Mamdani's victory was just about style and the fact that he is a charismatic candidate. Yes. He is. But you don't get a Mamdani victory without the extraordinary grassroots movement that rallied around him. And you don't get that movement and thousands of enthusiastic people knocking on doors without an economic agenda that speaks to the needs of working people. The people of New York and all Americans understand that, in the richest country on earth, they should not have to struggle every day just to put food on the table, pay their rent or pay their medical bills. These are the people the Democratic consultants don't know exist. Mamdani has been criticized for his 'radical' and 'unrealistic' economic policies: Demanding that, at a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, the rich and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. Demanding that, when many New Yorkers are no longer able to find affordable housing, there should be a freeze on rent hikes. Demanding that, when commuting to a job takes a big toll out of a worker's paycheck, public transportation should be free. Demanding that, when many low-income and working people are unable to access good quality food for themselves and their kids, publicly owned neighborhood grocery stores should be created. These ideas, and more, are not radical. They may not be what billionaires, wealthy campaign contributors and real estate speculators want, but they are what working people want. And maybe, just maybe, it's time to listen to them. Mamdani's victory was not about 'star power'. It was very much about people power, about revitalizing democracy and opening the door for ordinary people to gain control over the decisions that impact their lives. And, importantly, he did not run away from the moral issue that is troubling millions in New York and around the country – the need to end US military support for a rightwing extremist Benjamin Netanyahu government in Israel that is obliterating the people of Gaza and starving their children. Mamdani understands that antisemitism is a disgusting and dangerous ideology, but that it is not antisemitic to be critical of the inhumane policies of the Netanyahu government. The lesson of Mamdani's campaign is that it is not good enough just to be critical of Trump and his destructive policies. We have to bring forth a positive vision and an analysis of why things are the way they are. It is not good enough to maintain a status quo that is failing most Americans. At a time when hope is in increasingly short supply, people must have the sense that if we work together, if we have the courage to take on powerful special interests, we can create a better world – a world of economic, social, racial and environmental justice. Will the current Democratic party leadership learn the lessons of the Mamdani campaign? Probably not. Too many of them would rather be the captains on a sinking Titanic, rather than change course. But, then again, it doesn't matter what they think. The establishment threw everything they had against Mamdani – millions in super Pac money, endorsements from 'important people', a hostile media – and they still lost. The future of the Democratic party will not be determined by its current leadership. It will be decided by the working class of this country. Increasingly, people understand that our political system is corrupt and that billionaires should not be able to buy elections. They understand that we should not have an unprecedented level of income and wealth inequality; that we should not be the only wealthy country not to guarantee healthcare for all; that we should not deny young people the right to a higher education because of their income; that we should not have a major crisis in affordable housing; that we should not have a minimum wage that is a starvation wage; that we should not allow corporations to illegally prevent union organization – and much, much more. The American people are beginning to stand up and fight back. We have seen that in the many Fighting Oligarchy events that we've done around the country that have drawn huge turnouts. We have seen that in the millions of people who came out for the 'No Kings' rallies that took place this month in almost every state. And yesterday, we saw that in the Democratic primary in New York City. We're going forward. And no one is going to stop us. Bernie Sanders is a US senator, and ranking member of the health, education, labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont and is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress
