What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump
is a senior writer at Future Perfect, Vox's effective altruism-inspired section on the world's biggest challenges. She explores wide-ranging topics like climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccine development, and factory farms, and also writes the Future Perfect newsletter.
While tech has generally been very liberal in its political support and giving, there's been an emergence of a real and influential tech right over the last few years. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images
I live and work in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I don't know anyone who says they voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. I know, on the other hand, quite a few who voted for him in 2024, and quite a few more who — while they didn't vote for Trump because of his many crippling personal foibles, corruption, penchant for destroying the global economy, etc. — have thoroughly soured on the Democratic Party.
Future Perfect
Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
It's not just my professional networks. While tech has generally been very liberal in its political support and giving, the last few years have seen the emergence of a real and influential tech right.
Elon Musk, of course, is by far the most famous, but he didn't start the tech right by himself. And while his break with Trump — which Musk now seems to be backpedaling on — might have changed his role within the tech right, I don't think this shift will end with him.
The rise of the tech right
The Bay Area tech scene has always to my mind been best understood as left-libertarian — socially liberal, but suspicious of big government and excited about new things from cryptocurrency to charter cities to mosquito gene drives to genetically engineered superbabies to tooth bacteria. That array of attitudes sometimes puts them at odds with governments (and much of the public, which tends to be much less welcoming of new technology).
The tech world valorizes founders and doers, and everyone knows two or three stories about a company that only succeeded because it was willing to break some city regulations. Lots of founders are immigrants; lots are LGBTQ+. For a long time, this set of commitments put tech firmly on the political left — and indeed tech employees overwhelmingly vote and donate to the Democratic Party.
Related The AI that apparently wants Elon Musk to die
But over the last 10 years, I think three things changed.
The first was what Vox at the time called the Great Awokening — a sweeping adoption of what had been a bunch of niche liberal social justice ideas, from widespread acceptance of trans people to suspicion of any sex or race disparity in hiring to #MeToo awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace.
A lot of this shift at tech companies was employee driven; again, tech employees are mostly on the left. And some of it was good! But some of it was illiberal — rejecting the idea that we can and should work with people we profoundly disagree with — and identitarian, in that it focused more on what demographic categories we belong to than our commonalities. We're now in the middle of a backlash, which I think is all the more intense in tech because the original woke movement was all the more intense in tech.
The second thing that changed was the macroeconomic environment. When I first joined a tech company in 2017, interest rates were low and VC funding was incredibly easy to get. Startups were everywhere, and companies were desperately competing to hire employees. As a result, employees had a lot of power; CEOs were often scared of them.
The third was a deliberate effort by many liberals to go after a tech scene they saw as their enemy. The Biden administration ended up staffed by a lot of people ideologically committed to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's view of the world, where big tech was the enemy of liberal democracy and the tools of antitrust should be used to break it up. Lina Khan's Federal Trade Commission acted on those convictions, going after big tech companies like Amazon. Whether you think this was the right call in economic terms — I mostly think it was not — it was decidedly self-destructive in political terms.
So in 2024, some of tech (still not a majority, but a smaller minority than in the past two Trump elections) went right. The tech world watched with bated breath as Musk announced DOGE: Would the administration bring about the deregulation, tax cuts, and anti-woke wish list they believed that only the administration could?
…and the immediate failure
The answer so far has been no. (Many people on the tech right are still more optimistic than me, and point at a small handful of victories, but my assessment is that they're wearing rose-colored glasses to the point of outright blindness.)
Some deregulation has happened, but any beneficial effects it would have had on investment have been more than canceled out by the tariffs' catastrophic effects on businesses' ability to plan for the future. They did at least get the tax cuts for the rich, if the 'big, beautiful bill' passes, but that's about all they got — and the ultra-rich will be poorer this year anyway thanks to the unsteady stock market.
The Republicans, when out of power, had a critique of the Democrats which spoke to the tech right, the populist right, the white supremacists and moderate Black and Latino voters alike. But it's much easier to complain about Democrats in a way that all of those disparate interest groups find compelling than to govern in a way that keeps them all happy.
Once the Trump administration actually had to choose, it chose basically none of the tech right's priorities. They took a bad bet — and I think it'd behoove the Democrats to think, as Trump's coalition fractures, about which of those voters can be won back.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
13 minutes ago
Vance blames California Dems for violent immigration protests and calls Sen. Alex Padilla 'Jose'
LOS ANGELES -- Vice President JD Vance on Friday accused California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of encouraging violent immigration protests as he used his appearance in Los Angeles to rebut criticism from state and local officials that the Trump administration fueled the unrest by sending in federal officers. Vance also referred to U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, the state's first Latino senator, as 'Jose Padilla,' a week after the Democrat was forcibly taken to the ground by officers and handcuffed after speaking out during a Los Angeles news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on immigration raids. 'I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question,' Vance said, in an apparent reference to the altercation at Noem's event. 'I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't a theater. And that's all it is.' 'They want to be able to go back to their far-left groups and to say, 'Look, me, I stood up against border enforcement. I stood up against Donald Trump,'' Vance added. A spokesperson for Padilla, Tess Oswald, noted in a social media post that Padilla and Vance were formerly colleagues in the Senate and said that Vance should know better. 'He should be more focused on demilitarizing our city than taking cheap shots,' Oswald said. Vance's visit to Los Angeles to tour a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center came as demonstrations calmed down in the city and a curfew was lifted this week. That followed over a week of sometimes-violent clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and looting that followed immigration raids across Southern California. Trump's dispatching of his top emissary to Los Angeles at a time of turmoil surrounding the Israel-Iran war and the U.S.'s future role in it signals the political importance Trump places on his hard-line immigration policies. Vance echoed the president's harsh rhetoric toward California Democrats as he sought to blame them for the protests in the city. 'Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass, by treating the city as a sanctuary city, have basically said that this is open season on federal law enforcement,' Vance said after he toured federal immigration enforcement offices. 'What happened here was a tragedy,' Vance added. 'You had people who were doing the simple job of enforcing the law and they had rioters egged on by the governor and the mayor, making it harder for them to do their job. That is disgraceful. And it is why the president has responded so forcefully.' Newsom's spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement, 'The Vice President's claim is categorically false. The governor has consistently condemned violence and has made his stance clear.' Speaking at City Hall, Bass said Vance was 'spewing lies and utter nonsense.' She said hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted by the federal government on a 'stunt.' 'How dare you say that city officials encourage violence? We kept the peace,' Bass said. In a statement on X, Newsom responded to Vance's reference to 'Jose Padilla,' saying the comment was no accident. Jose Padilla also is the name of a convicted al-Qaida terrorism plotter during President George W. Bush's administration, who was sentenced to two decades in prison. Padilla was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport during the tense months after the 9/11 attacks and accused of the 'dirty bomb' mission. It later emerged through U.S. interrogation of other al-Qaida suspects that the 'mission' was only a sketchy idea, and those claims never surfaced in the South Florida terrorism case. Responding to the outrage, Taylor Van Kirk, a spokesperson for Vance, said of the vice president: 'He must have mixed up two people who have broken the law.' Federal immigration authorities have been ramping up arrests across the country to fulfill Trump's promise of mass deportations. Todd Lyons, the head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has defended his tactics against criticism that authorities are being too heavy-handed. The friction in Los Angeles began June 6, when federal agents conducted a series of immigration sweeps in the region that have continued since. Amid the protests and over the objections of state and local officials, Trump ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the second-largest U.S. city, home to 3.8 million people. Trump has said that without the military's involvement, Los Angeles 'would be a crime scene like we haven't seen in years.' Newsom has depicted the military intervention as the onset of a much broader effort by Trump to overturn political and cultural norms at the heart of the nation's democracy. Earlier Friday, Newsom urged Vance to visit victims of the deadly January wildfires while in Southern California and talk with Trump, who earlier this week suggested his feud with the governor might influence his consideration of $40 billion in federal wildfire aid for California. 'I hope we get that back on track,' Newsom wrote on X. 'We are counting on you, Mr. Vice President.'
Business Insider
21 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Tesla (TSLA) Invites a Small Group of People to Test Its Robotaxi Service
EV maker Tesla (TSLA) has started inviting a small group of people to try out its robotaxi service in Austin, Texas. The test could begin as early as Sunday, according to Reuters. Riders must be at least 18 years old, and a Tesla employee will sit in the front passenger seat during each ride. Furthermore, the test will use about 10 Model Y SUVs running on Tesla's Full Self-Driving software. Those who receive the invitation can download Tesla's Robotaxi app to call a ride, and are asked to share their feedback on the experience. Confident Investing Starts Here: This trial is important for Tesla as the company shifts its focus from building affordable electric cars to working on robotics and artificial intelligence. Unsurprisingly, CEO Elon Musk says that safety is the top priority, with humans monitoring the cars remotely. He believes that the robotaxi service can grow quickly if the trial goes well. Still, experts are worried about Tesla's approach, which relies solely on cameras and AI, rather than incorporating additional sensors like lidar or radar. These worries grow in conditions like fog, heavy rain, or bright sunlight. As a result, some lawmakers and safety experts want more caution, which led a group of Austin-area Democratic lawmakers to ask Tesla to wait until September, when new state rules for autonomous vehicles take effect. It is worth noting that self-driving services are expensive and risky, and companies like Tesla, Waymo (GOOGL), and Zoox (AMZN) have already faced federal investigations and recalls after accidents. What Is the Prediction for Tesla Stock? Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Hold consensus rating on TSLA stock based on 14 Buys, 12 Holds, and nine Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. Furthermore, the average TSLA price target of $286.14 per share implies 11% downside risk.
Business Insider
21 minutes ago
- Business Insider
'Roadblock': Paramount Stock (NASDAQ:PARA) Surges as the Trump Settlement Sputters
As it turns out, entertainment giant Paramount (PARA) was actually fairly close to a deal with President Trump over the 60 Minutes lawsuit. But, when the deal was fairly close, a 'roadblock' emerged and put a halt to the whole matter, at least for now. Investors reacted with surprising strength, and perhaps even more surprising positivity. Paramount shares gained nearly 2.5% in the closing minutes of Friday's trading. Confident Investing Starts Here: The settlement had reached $35 million, reports noted, when Paramount suddenly found itself paralyzed by indecision. That delay caused Trump lawyers to pivot and pull back to their original demand, calling for a $50 million settlement. The biggest problem seems to be that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is also involved in this, and needs to sign off on the merger with Skydance as well. Reports suggested that Paramount brass believes that the FCC's sign-off on the deal needs to be contingent on settling the case, but by like token, the idea that requiring FCC approval as part of the settlement looks a lot like a bribe. Trump's legal team, reports note, has already been clear that the Trump suit and the FCC case are two separate matters. But with outside organizations looking to launch their own lawsuits should the settlement go through, looks may count for more here than anyone expected. South Park Losses Mount Meanwhile, as Paramount faces the prospect of losing South Park exclusivity, it quietly pulled another old episode from the field. The pull this time showed up in the Canadian and Australian markets, reports noted, and this time, featured Butters' Very Own Episode pulled from Paramount+. Why, however, is a bit of a mystery. Several South Park episodes are apparently a bit too spicy for streaming, in retrospect, with around a dozen classic episodes set to be pulled from the catalog and relegated to a 'ban list', reports noted. The reports got stranger as an Australian viewer noted that the Paramount+ listing had been pulled, but the episode could still be watched by watching through Paramount+ on Amazon (AMZN) Prime Video. Is Paramount Stock a Good Buy Right Now? Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Hold consensus rating on PARA stock based on two Buys, eight Holds and five Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. After a 18.62% rally in its share price over the past year, the average PARA price target of $12.08 per share implies 2.23% downside risk.
