Originally published at Project-Syndicate | Feb 28th, 2025
With Trump’s elite supporters prioritizing their own narrow agendas over democratic principles, the risk of a slide toward authoritarianism should be obvious. Fortunately, it is even more likely that competing agendas will trigger open conflict, causing the Trump coalition to implode.
CAMBRIDGE – Although Donald Trump came to office riding a tsunami of public hostility against “elites,” his enablers are themselves leading members of the establishment and the plutocracy. As was true during his first term, Trump – a wealthy businessman and celebrity – has surrounded himself with a mix of conventional Republican politicians, Wall Street financiers, and economic nationalists. But this time, these groups have been joined by members of the techno-right, represented most glaringly by Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest person.
What unites these groups, at least for the time being, is not Trump’s character or his leadership – both of which leave much to be desired. Rather, it is the belief that their specific agendas will be better served under Trump than under the most likely alternative. Conservative Republicans want low taxes and less regulation, while economic nationalists want to close the trade deficit and restore US manufacturing. Free-speech absolutists want to end what they see as “woke censorship,” while the techno-right wants a free hand to enact its own vision of the future.
Irrespective of their pet projects, these groups all regarded Kamala Harris (and Joe Biden) as a hindrance, and Trump as a promising ally. Most do not oppose democracy, per se, but they do seem willing to overlook, and hence facilitate, Trump’s authoritarianism so long as their agenda is being served. Press them on Trump’s anti-democratic impulses and contempt for the rule of law, and they will equivocate or minimize the risks.
During Trump’s first term, I shared my concerns about him with one of his leading economic advisers (an economic nationalist). But my interlocutor pooh-poohed my worries and countered that Democrats and the administrative state were the more serious threats. Ultimately, he was interested in his boss’s commitment to tariffs, not any of the possible consequences for democracy.
Similarly, on a recent episode of New York Times journalist Ezra Klein’s podcast, free-speech absolutist Martin Gurri explained that his own support for Trump was driven mainly by the Biden administration’s clampdown on free expression. Biden had “basically told the [social media] platforms: You have to adhere to European standards of good behavior online,” Gurri claimed. Yet the restrictions Trump has placed on speech by civil servants and government-funded private entities are already far more egregious. Even as he concedes that Trump might end up “being even worse,” Gurri seems unfazed. When push comes to shove, it is apparently more important to decimate woke culture than to uphold the First Amendment.
With Trump’s elite supporters prioritizing their own narrow agendas over democratic principles, the risk of a slide toward authoritarianism should be obvious. Fortunately, however, the even more likely outcome is that these competing agendas will soon clash, causing the Trump coalition to implode.
The sharpest lines of conflict are between the economic nationalists and the techno-right. Both camps see themselves as anti-system, and both want to disrupt a regime that they feel has been imposed on them by Democratic Party elites. But they embody very different visions of America and where it should be going.
The economic nationalists want to return to a mythical past marked by American industrial glory, whereas the tech camp envisions an AI-administered utopian future. One is populist, the other elitist. One has faith in the wisdom and common sense of ordinary people, the other only in technology. One wants to stop immigration across the board, the other welcomes skilled newcomers. One is parochial, the other essentially globalist. One wants to break up Silicon Valley, the other to empower it. One believes in soaking the rich, and the other in spoon-feeding the rich.
The nationalist-populists claim to speak for the people Musk’s envisioned technological revolution would leave behind. So, it is not surprising that they hold Silicon Valley’s “technofeudalists” in deep contempt. Steve Bannon, a leading voice among the economic nationalists (and a graduate of Harvard Business School, of course), has even gone so far as to call Musk a “parasitic illegal immigrant.” Musk and what he represents must “be stopped,” Bannon warns. “If we don’t stop it … now, it’s going to destroy not just this country, it’s going to destroy the world.”
While Bannon does not currently serve in the Trump administration, he is a major figure in the MAGA (“Make America Great Again”) movement, and he maintains close ties to many top administration staffers. Yet it is clear that Musk currently has Trump’s ear. The White House has given free rein to Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and Trump himself has encouraged Musk to be more aggressive.
It is typical of personalistic leaders, like Trump, to pit allies (courtiers, really) against each other so that none amasses too much power. Trump undoubtedly thinks he can stay on top and leverage the conflicts for his own advantage. But such tactics work best when the competition among different groups is over government resources and rents, rather than reflecting different ideologies and belief systems.
Given the vastly different worldviews and policy preferences of the forces animating the Trump administration, a showdown is all but inevitable. But what would come after. Will there be paralysis, or will one of the groups assert its dominance? Will the Democrats be able to capitalize on the rift? Will Trumpism be disgraced? Will the prospects for American democracy be revived, or diminished even further?
Regardless of the outcome, the tragedy is that the less-educated working-class voters who flocked to Trump’s anti-elitist message will remain the losers. None of the contending wings of Trump’s coalition offers a compelling vision for them. This applies even to the economic nationalists (their rhetoric notwithstanding), whose aspirations hinge on an unrealistic revival in manufacturing jobs.
As different elites fight for their own versions of America, the urgent policy agenda needed to create a middle-class economy in a post-industrial society will remain as distant as ever.
Dani Rodrik: Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard Kennedy School, is President of the International Economic Association and the author of Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy (Princeton University Press, 2017).