Silicon Valley’s Coup: Lessons from History and Paths to Resistance

DOGE and Democracy: The Threat of Oligarchical Takeover in U.S. Governance

Silicon Valleys Coup: Lessons from History and Paths to Resistance

0:00

/794.540408

DOGE as a Power Grab: Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) expands corporate influence over U.S. governance, gaining access to federal data, financial systems, and policy decisions.
Historical Parallels: Similar to the Gilded Age robber barons, Musk’s unchecked power resembles past monopolistic overreach that required antitrust laws to curb.
Media & Corporate Manipulation: Musk leverages Twitter to control DOGE’s narrative, while government-corporate partnerships undermine democratic oversight.
Modern Privatization Threats: Like Halliburton’s Iraq war contracts, DOGE facilitates corporate control over public funds, weakening transparency and public interest governance.
Resistance & Solutions: Grassroots activism, antitrust enforcement, whistleblower protections, and independent journalism are essential to countering oligarchical control and preserving democracy.

There's a lot of things Elon Musk doesn't have. Like a wife and children that love him, a social media platform that isn't riddled with Nazi rhetoric, or student debt. But you know what he does have? Access to the backend of the USAID, financial insights on the federal aid received by his competitors, and personal health information of U.S. citizens that could easily be argued to be a HIPPA violation. We're entering a new era of U.S. history where the oligarchy has taken their mask off. Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) positions a massive conflict of interest for the public, the state, and his competitors.

But it's not the first time something like this has happened. We can observe history to discern how corporate overreach has plagued governments in the past, and what types of resistance were effective in stopping them.

I.

DOGE was initially founded to be a temporary agency designed to reduce whatever they deem to be wasteful spending, unnecessary regulations, and modernize federal technology to improve efficiency. Which was a nice idea in theory, but in practice DOGE has seen an expansion in scope that resembles a heinous power grab.

Representative's from Musk's agency have gained access to USAID internal systems like critical databases, financial systems, and classified data. Which allows Musk to assert control over USAID operations such as foreign aid, disaster relief, and international development programs. They also gained entry to the Treasury Department's payment systems, which manage trillions of dollars in expenditures annually. The expansion's butterfly effect in the USAID has lead to senior staff members being locked out of internal systems, employees placed on administrative leave, and their newly appointed chief of staff resigning.

The real threat of DOGE is it's combination of relationships with the private sector and the media opening a unique path for the agency's expansion and control of power. For one, DOGE may collaborate with private entities to implement efficiency measures in government operations. Such partnerships could allow DOGE to bypass traditional bureaucratic processes enabling it to implement changes more rapidly. And by leveraging private sector expertise, DOGE might justify its action as bringing "efficiency" to government operations when it could be a cover for expanding the presence of corporate allies around government influence.

On the other side of the coin, Musk owns Twitter and has a massive following which could play a crucial role in shaping public perception of DOGE. A lot of the media coverage on Musk's actions through DOGE are covered by himself allowing him to bypass media scrutiny with his biggest followers. Musk's "name and shame" technique pointing at examples of perceived waste and inefficiency is useful in his assault on U.S. democracy in two ways. On one edge of the sword, it generates quick wins and public support with his unquestioning Twitter following. On the other edge of the sword it diverts attention from the department's expanding and unchecked scope and influence.

While DOGE lacks authority in itself, they collaborate closely with the Office of Management and Budget to implement its prescriptions. And by leveraging PPP DOGE is able to expand its influence. And while DOGE's mandate is interpreted broadly it allows them to intervene in areas beyond their initial "streamlining" mission. Like what they've done with USAID and the Treasury Department.

Musk's actions have rippled through the USAID with immediate consequences. Grassroots development and local empowerment initiatives are being largely scaled back in favor of high-tech, quick-fix solutions. Gender equity and climate change programs are facings cuts or elimination, with funds being redirected to energy and infrastructure projects that promise tangible economic returns. And now there's a new emphasis on countering strategic rivals. China's Belt and Road Initiative is on the menu. The U.S. is now planning targeted infrastructure investment and trade facilitation programs in regions like Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America to stifle China's global efforts.

red and black abstract art — Photo by Martin Sanchez / Unsplash

II.

Where have we seen this kind of overreach of power through monopoly and oligarchy before? And how did we bring balance to the system last time this happened?

The Gilded Age spanning from the late 1800s to the early 1900s represented a perilous time in U.S. economics. But not for any lack of American growth. The nation saw rapid industrialization, economic growth, and with it, the rise of powerful monopolies.

The owners of those monopolies were often referred to as the "robber barons" (businessmen who used exploitative means to amass their wealth) by muckrakers (investigative watchdog journalists) of that era. The muckrakers accused the unethical industrialists of a spectrum of shady dealings that may sound hilariously familiar to todays reader. They characterized the robber barons with unfettered consumption and destruction of natural resources, influencing high levels of government, wage slavery, and squashing competition by acquiring their competitors to create monopolies to control the market.

The names of these robber barons should be fairly familiar. We have John D. Rockefeller who, in the prime of his exploitation, owned 90% of U.S. oil production. There's Andrew Carnegie who owned Carnegie Steel, which later became U.S. Steel. That name just reeks of monopoly.

But there's always a bigger fish. J.P. Morgan, who dominated the banking and finance sector, would utilize his immense power to control companies like General Electric and U.S. Steel. These industrialists dominated U.S. development with several tactics. Vertical integration allowed them to control all aspects of production and distribution. Horizontal integration occurred through merging with competitors. A particularly monopolistic move for the industrial giants. Predatory pricing also allowed them to dominate competition. And, of course, we can't have evil U.S. villains without the corruption of U.S. politicians with persuasive amounts of wealth.

As a reaction to the presence of the robber barons some sweeping legislation was passed to protect Americans. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was a historical piece of legislation that prohibited monopolies and anticompetitive business practices. While this law laid the foundation, the Clayton Act of 1914 would further reinforce antitrust laws by specifying prohibited practices and requiring government review of large mergers and acquisitions.

Closer to modern day, we've seen the unethical privatization of public functions with Halliburton. Primarily functioning through its subsidiary Kellog, Brown & Root (KBR) the company aggressively monopolized government contracts for reconstruction and logistical support in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2003, their revenue from Department of Defense contracts pushed upwards of $4.3 billion where they had received less than $2.5 billion just five years prior. KBR won a $7 billion contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure in March of the same year, which was criticized as a no-bid contract. If you think that's an alarmingly escalating cash grab consider the $30 billion they won in 2008 in Department of Defense contracts for setting up military bases, maintaining equipment, and providing food and laundry services.

At face value it may seem like a lot of good things happened. A lot of direly needed work got done, and somebody got paid for putting up that immense amount of labor. Except when you consider the context that these contracts were awarded without competitive bidding. Like their $568-million contract renewal in 2010 for providing housing, meals, and other services to soldiers. No competition. In hindsight, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated that the level of corruption by defense contractors may have been as high as $60 billion.

Additionally, the use of "cost-plus" contracts, like the LOGCAP program, allowed for potential overcharging and reduced incentives for cost control. And despite whistleblowers like Bunnatine Greenhouse, media investigations, and congressional inquiries raising awareness about the issue--justice was never brought to the issue. Greenhouse even received retaliation for his actions. Even after Biden pulled troops out of Iraq private contractors remained on the ground. Federal preference for issuing contacts to particular companies while bypassing competitive bidding is a trend that increased by 9% in 2012.

To this day we're witnessing a "revolving door" phenomena blurring the line between government and corporate interests reminiscent of Gilded Age robber barons. Meanwhile, opaque government contracting practices undermines democratic oversight. And corporations being able to challenge regulations through international tribunals undermines democratic sovereignty. The heinous marginalization of civil society organization by corporate interests weakens public oversight and participation in democratic processes. This entire system was supposed to be for the American people. But these days the American Dream is an exclusive fantasy that can only be afforded by the oligarchy.

a group of people standing in a tunnel — Photo by Elyse Chia / Unsplash

III.

None of this is to say that there's anything wrong with reforming U.S. spending. Support for that kind of reform is bipartisan. It's the way we go about it that we disagree on. Republicans demonstrate diamond support of their oligarch flipping through U.S. spending and making corrections himself.

But that's a conversation that should be between the government and its tax-payers. Not an over-powered third party corporate/political oligarch. Grassroots movements and civil society organizations are already mobilizing against corporate influence while pushing for campaign finance reform and stronger regulatory frameworks. There's even recent legislative efforts like the Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act of 2023 to prohibit political contributions by publicly traded corporations.

We're trying to divorce corporations from government, not marry them through oligarchy. That corporate concentration of power threatens democracy by limiting transparency to the public. If he can instantly stop funds to federal agencies he deems as wasteful in such a way that we won't find out unless it's reported by the media, then who's to say he can't push federal funds to suit his private interests without anyone noticing? What could we do even if we did notice?

If his motivations are to funnel federal funds into tech-driven solutions granting his company and its allies contracts to modernize the government, then will that come at the expense of aid to marginalized communities? Neocolonial "smart" aid solutions serve corporations and the U.S. itself more than the interests of local populations like the working class. For example, the A.I. sector is yet to be profitable and has seen a massive blow from the more efficient Chinese solution, DeepSeek.

If Musk motions to satisfy the federal need for control while rescuing A.I. companies from financially drowning then we could easily see the rollout of A.I. surveillance reducing civil liberties. Altogether this would position the oligarchical relationship of government and corporation to shape narratives and data collection in a way that benefits them politically and financially.

black red and white bicycle wheel — Photo by Julian Hochgesang / Unsplash

IV.

Yet for all these issues, we the people of the United States of America are not without our options. Rather than an oligarch shuffling our government without our consent, coalitions built by the people should demand transparency and accountability from USAID. Tech labor movements should demand ethical guidelines and resist the militarization of their products.

We have antitrust legislation from the Gilded Age that we could be using today to sue the likes of Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos for establishing their monopolies on supposedly free markets. Protections for whistleblowers need to become a priority as many voices are never heard for fear of retaliation. Independent media journalists need to focus on exposing hidden deals and policy manipulations that are hidden from mainstream media and social media algorithms.

There's no shortage of routes for us to take on the path to restoring democratic oversight. And no authoritarian rule has ever survived more than 3.5% population resistance. Protests, petitions, and senator calls can help stoke the flames of democratic restoration.

Together we can reestablish a return to public-interest-based policy. But it can't stop at legislative restructuring. Culturally, we need a renewed civic ethos to spot corporate interests creeping into politics and condemn it. Lest the will of the people be overwritten by Silicon Valley. All of these strategies will be needed, not just for the present issue, but for long-term vigilance. This won't be the last oligarchical attempt on democracy. And we'll need to be ready to defend our rights and civil liberties time and time again. Because that's what heroes do.

by Derek Guzman

Independent journalist in tech, art, and philosophy

DOGE and Democracy: The Threat of Oligarchical Takeover in U.S. Governance

I.

II.

III.

IV.

by Derek Guzman

Footer navigation