Why So Many Silicon Valley Business Leaders Have Turned To Trump
It could backfire
.jpg){kind=link}
The qualification used by Ben Horowitz said it best: “For Little Tech, we actually think Donald Trump is the right choice.” Horowitz, of the famed Silicon Valley venture firm, Andreessen Horowitz, didn’t say that Trump is the best choice period. He didn’t say that Trump will “Make America Great Again.”
Horowitz started the discussion with his partner Marc Andresseen by specifying that Trump is the “right choice” for the “Little Tech” agenda, which includes startups, burgeoning industries like crypto and artificial intelligence, and tech entrepreneurs everywhere.
While many of the Silicon Valley business leaders who have turned to Trump in this election cycle have voiced various reasons for supporting the former President, most of their commentary comes down to this reality – they are voting their book. Put differently, many have placed their business interests above all else.
Most of the disdain for Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Democratic Party from many in Silicon Valley is rooted in economic frustration. A hostile regulatory approach to crypto by U.S. regulators. Threats to shackle artificial intelligence innovation before it even gets started. And a Federal Trade Commission that has attempted to block many tech mergers and acquisitions for competition concerns (and in some cases has been successful).
They are not wrong to be frustrated. The Biden Administration’s approach to crypto, for example, has been nothing short of confusing (at best) while it seeks enforcement actions against companies like Coinbase without telling them how or when they need to comply with securities laws like registration requirements (because in many cases crypto is arguably not a security under U.S. law).
In this essay, we’ll break down some of the Silicon Valley Trump supporter factions to try to develop a better understanding of what is pushing so many American business and technology leaders in the former President’s direction despite years of baseless election lies, 34 felonies (with potentially more coming), and extreme policy preferences (promises to be dictator on “day 1” while firing practically everyone in the federal government) and consistently incendiary statements (how Kamala Harris “happened to turn black”).
True believers, recent converts, and the Silicon Valley titans who want one thing – increased profits
There are three primary factions of Silicon Valley Trump supporters – the true believers who are full MAGA, those who recently converted to true belief, and others who have made a moral compromise. This final group is simply seeking the best business environment for their companies and investments, and they think Trump will deliver.
True believers include tech investors like David Sacks. He was part of the “PayPal mafia”, which was led by Peter Thiel (and included Elon Musk, although we’ll get to him below). Guys like Sacks and Thiel have been political supporters of Republican causes for decades.
Sacks has pushed his ideas and agenda – with almost zero consideration of countervailing positions – on the All-In Podcast with his three other “besties.” While the “besties” do not always agree, Sacks has been forceful about making his political positions clear on everything from the Ukraine War (he blames NATO, not Putin) to the “woke” left.
The most dangerous thing about Sacks is that he is very articulate and calculated, so if you’re not well-prepared or knowledgeable about the issues, he can appear to steamroll you. And this is exactly what he does to his other podcast hosts, especially Jason Calacanis, another Silicon Valley tech entrepreneur who is far more moderate. Then their large audience is left thinking that Sacks is right, and anyone who does not always side with him (like Jason) is too woke and wrong.
Peter Thiel is similar to Sacks, although in a more discreet way. Thiel rarely does interviews or public appearances anymore, but over the past decades, he has contributed significantly to Republican causes. For example, he practically made J.D. Vance happen, contributing heavily to his Senate candidacy in Ohio.
But while these true believers exist in Silicon Valley circles, they have historically been the minority. In recent years, however, they have attracted more converts. The All-In Podcast, for example, has a large audience now, giving guys like David Sacks a platform to pontificate to a large tech-focused audience on topics like the Ukraine War despite having no foreign policy or military experience. Rising tensions and inflation around the world (and now increased market volatility) have appeared to support their criticisms of the Biden Administration, bringing more people into their converted tribe.
It’s even led newfound converts like David Marcus (also formerly of PayPal) to state things like, “On foreign policy, the [Biden] administration is exacerbating tensions with Russia through an aggressive NATO expansion narrative focused on Ukraine and prolonging an unwinnable war.” It’s led others like Shaun Maguire to accuse the Biden administration and Justice Department of “lawfare.” And it’s encouraged crypto entrepreneurs like the Winklevoss twins to support Donald Trump.
This combination of narratives spun by the true believers (like Sacks) and Biden administration policies that have compromised its credibility (disastrous Afghanistan exit, adversarial crypto policy, etc.) have convinced and converted many Silicon Valley types to support Donald Trump.
Then there’s a final bucket of recent Trump supporters who have made more of a moral compromise. They may not like Trump and some of the risks he poses to democracy, but they’ve made peace with him because they’re confident he will deliver a better business environment than any current Democrat. Ben Horowitz and Marc Andreessen fall into this category.
This thinking is deeply flawed. Here’s the objective case for why.
Why many of these Silicon Valley business leaders have the wrong priorities
Trump has said that he will be a dictator only on “day 1.” Even if you can somehow get past the fact that Trump is an adjudicated sexual abuser and fraudster with 34 felonies and more potentially coming (unless he has the presidency to shield him), his plan for a second administration is very anti-democratic on its face.
Trump wants to completely reconfigure the administrative state. That includes historically independent executive branch departments like the Justice Department. Regardless of whether these proposals came from Trump, another Republican, or a Democrat, I would still argue they are anti-democratic because they’re designed to insulate the President from accountability and give him unitary authority.
This type of reshaping of the administrative state betrays the inherent checks and balances and separation of powers under America’s constitutional system. With the recent presidential immunity ruling on “official acts”, these policies would make Trump more of a monarch than a president (which is exactly what some conservative thinkers want).
Why would Silicon Valley leaders who are willing to make a moral compromise for Trump think this environment would be good for business?
They think that if they support Trump, they will receive favorable conditions and treatment. When considering the history of authoritarianism, that’s a very shortsighted approach.
Authoritarianism is exactly what a second Trump administration would bring with a freshly reconfigured administrative state – a group of agencies with no independence from the President who are completely loyal to him and incapable of checking his behavior.
What happens when allegiance to one man becomes more important than objectivity, reason, and even science?
Truth takes a back seat.
In this new administrative state, crypto entrepreneurs won’t be primarily worried about convincing the Securities and Exchange Commission that their activities will uphold market integrity. They will be more worried about Trump liking their businesses.
A biotechnology startup won’t be concerned about the Food & Drug Administration’s approval process as much as they will be about pandering to Trump. The next Elizabeth Holmes won’t be concerned about their criminal culpability so long as they can convince (or bribe!) Trump not to use “his” Justice Department, which will have effectively become his personal law firm, to indict him or her.
An administrative state loyal to someone like Donald Trump above all else – truth, objectivity, science, etc. – is not a good business environment. It lacks certainty. It lacks stability.
In short, it’s the worst case scenario for an entrepreneur trying to win on the merits of their product or service, not their connections or influence. It’s why numerous CEOs have soured on Trump. They’ve realized, as will many of these Silicon Valley business leaders, that a predictable rule of law is crucial for a stable business environment and thriving economy.
Unfortunately, many of these business leaders have not presently prioritized the rule of law over any anticipated short-term economic benefits.
What the Democrats need to do to win back business leaders
Democrats have done a poor job of winning over business leaders. From crypto to artificial intelligence and the startup community at large, Democratic lawmakers and regulators have been unclear at best and hostile at worst when engaging with the business community.
Crypto regulation is opaque and uncertain. Proposals to regulate AI have been filled with doomsday prophecies. The FTC has been incredibly aggressive in policing mergers and acquisitions while largely ignoring major competition concerns that already exist in Big Tech.
Democrats even ostracized Elon Musk who was rarely included in Biden administration events involving American car companies (despite Tesla being more innovative and having a far larger market cap than all them). This ostracizing does not justify Elon Musk’s extreme “red-pilling” since buying Twitter, but it does support the fact that Democrats can antagonize the entrepreneur and founder class.
Democrats should be celebrating business leaders. Provided of course they operate within the laws and don’t spread baseless conspiracy theories on social media. Entrepreneurs, after all, are the engines that drive the U.S. and global economies. We need to be promoting innovation, not demonizing risk-takers for turning profits.
Democrats also need to change the conversation. If I hear one more tech entrepreneur encouraging people to think freely about Donald Trump and don’t listen to the mainstream media narratives, I’m going to go insane.
David Marcus called it a “coordinated vilification” of Donald Trump.
Bill Ackman, the New York financier, has even gotten in on the act.
Please keep an open mind on the upcoming presidential election. Bear in mind that your views on Trump have likely been dramatically affected if you have sourced your info on Trump from mainstream media or friends or family who have relied on mainstream media as a source of knowledge. We have all recently learned in the starkest manner (the debate) how we cannot rely on the MSM as our source of truth on the ultimate political question. Remember, media organizations are like sports teams that run plays chosen by their owners and executed by the coaches they hire. They are not unbiased arbiters of the truth.
What they fail or neglect to mention is that most of the mainstream media “vilification” of Trump comes straight from the horse’s mouth. If you simply listen or watch Trump for any extended period of time, whether at his rallies or at an interview like he had with the NABJ, his unfiltered self provides more than enough concerning material ripe for “vilification.”
What the Marcus, Ackman, and Musk types also neglect to mention is what they consume. How they get their information. How that has changed over the years.
Are they actually watching and consuming Trump unfiltered? Or are they watching conservative commentators after feeling disillusioned with the leftist or moderate versions?
The point is that Democrats should work harder to present Trump as unfiltered as possible. Let his “dictator for a day” commentary stand on its own. Broadcast Project 2025 and its army of ex-Trump White House officials. Let Agenda 47 speak for itself.
Calling Trump’s rhetoric and actions for what they are - autocratic - is not incitement or leftist spin if it can be substantiated and supported with evidence.
If Democrats are to change the hearts and minds of the Silicon Valley elite who are increasingly turning to Trump, they simply need to highlight the moral decay, not even attempt to spin it.
Then the morality compromising Ben Horowitzs of the world will have the case presented clearly before them - the short term benefits of a favorable autocrat versus the long term consequences for the rule of law, democracy, and business uncertainty.
At that point, the choice and its accompanying consequences are on them.
Thanks for reading! For more great articles, check out The Political Prism.