The Musk-Trump feud isn’t just a clash of egos—it’s a test of whether any elite can resist the gravitational pull of an autocratic presidency.
Political scientists call this kind of system “personalism”—where the power and preferences of a single leader override institutions, laws, and even their own party. In a personalist system, loyalty to the individual at the top matters more than rules, ideology, or established norms.
The Rise and Fall of the “Broligarchy” Narrative
In late 2024, pundits coined the term “broligarchy”—a mashup of “bro” and “oligarchy”—to describe what looked like a new tech-government power bloc. Trump’s return to the White House, paired with the high-profile support of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, seemed to signal a stable alliance between Silicon Valley and Washington. Musk alone poured $300 million into Trump’s campaign and was rewarded with a powerful, quasi-official government role.
But as Trump’s second term unfolds, this narrative is falling apart. Trump’s willingness to sideline, punish, or ignore even his wealthiest backer—Elon Musk, who played a pivotal political and operational role in accomplishing (through DOGE and with his own employees) what Project 2025 had only envisioned: the rapid evisceration of federal agencies—reveals a system not of entrenched oligarchs, but of courtiers whose fortunes depend on the whims of a single leader.
How Trump’s Personalism Upended Tech Elite Power
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), originally created by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy and later headed under Trump by Musk as a “special government employee” with quasi-official status, was supposed to bring technocratic discipline to federal agencies. Instead, it became a vehicle for purges and no-bid contracts to loyalists, with Musk’s companies at the center. But this favor was conditional.
Though tensions had been mounting for weeks—over tariffs, regulatory moves, and Trump’s abrupt firing of Musk’s handpicked NASA nominee—the feud boiled over when Musk publicly opposed Trump’s signature “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB), calling it a “disgusting abomination”. The fallout was so dramatic that Senator Mike Lee, caught between the two, likened the situation to a child forced to choose between divorcing parents: “But … I really like both of them”.
The rupture became unmistakable when Musk, in a post on X, openly called for Trump’s impeachment—a move widely reported and seen as a point of no return in the feud. Musk’s “Yes” reply to a call for impeachment was amplified across social media and news outlets.
Musk’s Leverage—and Limits
This standoff is more than personal drama. It echoes the early 2000s showdown between Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Putin—a moment that defined whether oligarchs could challenge a personalist ruler. Unlike Khodorkovsky, Musk controls assets the U.S. government can’t easily replace: Starlink satellites, SpaceX launches, and a social media megaphone rivaling Trump’s own.
Trump threatened to pull federal contracts; Musk threatened to decommission the Dragon spacecraft, a move that would have immediate consequences for NASA and U.S. space operations. Musk later walked back the threat, but the message was clear: both sides have leverage, and both are willing to use it. As the New York Times put it, Musk’s pushback is “unprecedented in Trumpworld 2.0”.
Yet the government’s reliance on Musk is as deep as Musk’s reliance on government contracts. As political analyst Ian Bremmer notes, “Are they really going to [cancel the contracts]? I doubt it, because there aren’t good options.” Bremmer and the latest NYT analysis both point out that while Trump can ramp up regulatory scrutiny or suspend Musk’s security clearance, Musk has already demonstrated his ability to threaten government priorities in return. The result is a precarious mutual dependency, with no easy off-ramp for either side.
Why the “Broligarchy” Myth Fails
Some commentators, like Evan Osnos, still frame Trump’s America as an oligarchy—rule by billionaires buying access and influence. But the evidence suggests something more volatile: a system where alliances are transactional, outcomes are unpredictable, and even the richest can be discarded for dissent. This is crony capitalism and kleptocracy, yes—but above all, it’s personalism.
Bremmer puts it bluntly: “Rule of law plays no interest. It’s rule of man, rule of one man… That is how you get ahead.” The scale of self-enrichment is staggering, from meme coins to billion-dollar contracts. But as Musk’s experience shows, money alone can’t buy lasting protection in a system ruled by loyalty and personal favor.
Institutional Erosion and the Fragility of Power
Trump’s personalist style isn’t limited to tech. His administration’s campaign to defund universities and cultural institutions, often by executive fiat, is part of the same pattern. Accusations of “wokeness” or “antisemitism” justify billion-dollar funding freezes, while critics are fired or silenced. The message is clear: autonomy depends on loyalty.
Yet, as political science shows, personalist regimes—unlike entrenched oligarchies—are often more fragile. Their power is concentrated but brittle, lacking the deep roots and coalitions that make reversal difficult. Recent reversals in Brazil and Poland suggest that personalist projects, for all their dangers, can be undone if institutions and civil society push back.
Conclusion: The Real Stakes
The Musk-Trump feud isn’t just about two outsized personalities. It’s a test case for how much power one leader can wield in a system where loyalty trumps law, and whether any elite—no matter how rich or well-connected—can resist.
Whether Musk’s challenge sparks a broader elite defection or simply reinforces Trump’s dominance will help determine if America tips further toward personalist rule, or if this era proves reversible. For now, the “broligarchy” looks more like a court of courtiers than a true oligarchy—and the outcome is still very much in play.
Endnotes
- Center for a New American Security. “Democracy under Threat: How the Personalization of Political Parties Undermines Democracy.” CNAS Report, June 2023.
- Broadwater, Luke. “Trump Has Power, a Big Megaphone and Billions to Spend. So Does Musk.” The New York Times, June 6, 2025.
- Bremmer, Ian. “Elon vs. Trump: Billionaire Fallout Goes Public.” GZERO Media Quick Take, June 6, 2025.
- Fischer, Sara. “Musk Calls for Trump Impeachment.” Axios, June 5, 2025.
- “Fact Check: Yes, Musk Shared Post Calling for Trump’s Impeachment.” Yahoo News, June 5, 2025.
- “Trump’s Former NASA Pick Suggests He Lost Nomination Due to Musk Ties.” Axios, June 4, 2025.
- “Understanding Personalism in Politics.” Number Analytics, May 24, 2025.
- Osnos, Evan. “The Billionaires’ Playbook.” The New Yorker, March 3, 2025.
- “Washington Post Faces Backlash After Bezos’s Editorial Shift.” The Guardian, February 26, 2025.
- Stelter, Brian. “Mark Zuckerberg’s MAGA Makeover Will Reshape the Internet.” CNN, January 7, 2025.
- “How Musk Built DOGE: Timeline and Key Takeaways.” New York Times, February 28, 2025.
- “Tech Giants Secure No-Bid Contracts Under Trump.” Forbes, April 10, 2025.