Donald Trump and His Court

In his farewell address from the presidency, Joe Biden decided to issue a warning similar to the one Dwight Eisenhower gave in 1961 about the “military-industrial complex.” The outgoing president said that today “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence… a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers to our country.”

The reference to Silicon Valley billionaires, who have rushed to Donald Trump’s side in recent months, is obvious. There are those who previously presented themselves as Democrats, but who now found it expedient to reach out to the new occupant of the White House, such as Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Mark Zuckerberg of Meta. Most importantly, there is the president’s newly inaugurated friend and close adviser, Elon Musk.

Concerns about the role played by the owner of Tesla and SpaceX are widespread, given the clear conflicts of interest inherent in his role and Musk’s activism on the international political front as well. He does not hesitate to comment on Italy’s internal affairs, for example, by intervening in the clash between the government and the judiciary over the treatment of migrants. He is leading a campaign against UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and openly promoting Alternativ fur Deutschland in the German elections.

The sharpest clash, however, may be the one emerging inside the Trump world. With his support and his money, Musk has managed to win the ear of the new president. He has also secured an office in the West Wing of the White House for the so-called DOGE, the body pursuing government efficiency that is supposed to produce deep spending cuts and a reorganization of the state’s digital operations.

Not everyone is happy with his role, starting with one of the most prominent figures in the MAGA world, Steve Bannon. The former 2015-2016 Trump campaign strategist is now an important voice in guiding grassroots sentiment. Bannon calls the tech bigwigs, “oligarchs,” representatives of the globalist vision to be countered at all costs. He denounces the danger of “technofeudalism,” a threat to the human order from those who want to bend human life into “technologized and unnatural new forms.” And the two have clashed openly on the issue of immigration: MAGA purists want to restrict all entry, while Musk and his allies support visas for skilled workers in the tech world.

There are other important areas where a clash between different factions in the Trump administration looms, underscoring the difference between the nationalists and the more pragmatic representatives of the business world. Among the most important are tariffs, relations with China, and antitrust actions. The Republican Party has changed in recent years, becoming decidedly more Trumpian. However, there remain many supporters of a traditional, free-market view, opposed to heavy-handed protectionism and in favor of a new phase of deregulation to stimulate the economy. This position clashes with the populist and nationalist demands that animate America First activists. Back in December, Musk intervened in budget negotiations in Congress to avoid restrictions on investment in China. In addition to Tesla’s direct interests, the row highlighted differing visions of trade policy. U.S. institutions in recent years have decided that China’s growth must be curbed in an effort to maintain U.S. economic supremacy. The maximalist position insists on drastically reducing trade, not merely encouraging the return of production in strategic sectors. Musk, on the other hand, represents the more liberal faction here, which wants to continue economic cooperation rather than pursue a hard line toward Beijing.

Treasury will also be led by a member of the pragmatist group. Scott Bessent sees tariffs as a negotiating tool to gain concessions, rather than a way to reduce economic interdependence. That is the orientation one might expect from a Wall Street man. And if there is one point on which Trump has never fulfilled his initial populist promises, it is to counter big finance. There are more than ten billionaires in important positions in the new administration, some who have to manage domestic and foreign economic issues. In promoting policies that benefit big business and financial funds, it is clear that these figures will be seen as little aligned with the interests of Trump’s political base in the working class.

One very interesting area is that of antitrust. The Biden administration, through the young chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Lina Khan, had taken legal action against Amazon and Meta, accusing them of monopolistic behavior. The goal was to counter the overwhelming power created when the same company controls different elements of a platform, such as infrastructure, sales, advertising, and even rules on content.

In the Big Tech world, opposition has been explicit. Criticism of Khan has come not only from Musk but also from figures who supported Kamala Harris, such as LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman. The business world’s position on the issue is clear, but the populist intentions of the MAGA movement go in the opposite direction. In fact, several prominent figures in the Republican Party have expressed support for antitrust actions. And it’s not just the grassroots: intellectual discussion is also growing about the tradition of the “American System of Political Economy,” which gave birth to the marriage of industrial policy and investment in the welfare of the people.

This is where an important name comes into play: J.D. Vance. As a senator, the neo-Vice President openly supported Khan, and now he has managed to place one of his own advisers, Gail Slater, as assistant attorney general for the antitrust division. In addition, Khan’s replacement at the helm of the FTC, Andrew Ferguson, promises to continue investigations against “anticompetitive cartels,” albeit focusing primarily on fighting censorship. And he does not rule out forcing large corporations to split into several entities. This provides hope for the nationalist faction, as opposed to the pragmatists accused – on both the left and the right – of creating a new oligarchy threatening democracy in America.