What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think Sir Keir Starmer's Marxist credentials are somewhat weak. 

He could pass for Zeppo.

[Jacob]

I wonder how a classic "keys to keeping power" analysis could be applied to the Trump government- now and in the future:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

It'd also be instructive to understand where it doesn't apply and how.

[Valmy]

The military and the tech oligarchs are the main keys. Hard to imagine any government holding on to power in the US for long if they are against them.

[grumbler]

The military and the tech oligarchs are the main keys. Hard to imagine any government holding on to power in the US for long if they are against them.

It's clear that Trump and Hegseth do not consider the military a key to power.  If they did, they wouldn't have made the 800 flag officers jump through hoops to get to Quantico on short notice, only to insult them and trash-talk their retired comrades in arms.

I'd argue that Trumps principal keys are the USSC, Fox News, and right-wing podcasters like Joe Rogan. The latter two are important in his campaign to cow the House and Senate Republicans by threatening to primary them.

[Jacob]

A few thoughts in the "keys to power" analysis and American politics:

1: From what I've read, there's a growing percentage of the US population that has become basically economically irrelevant. They neither generate any amount of money, nor does their consumption matter much. This undermines the structural necessity of democracy per the "keys to power" lens.

2: Perhaps the shift to the virtual economy - as championed by Silicon Valley - has radically changed how wealth is generated and how it is distributed. Therefore a rearranging of the political order is basically inevitable.

3: Perhaps similarly the advent of social media has radically changed the nature of some of the keys. Influencers (in aggregate) matter. Controlling "the algorithm" is supremely important (I've been seeing rumors that Barron Trump is going to have a controlling role in American TikTok for example).

4: It is very interesting to me how - as grumbler points out - the armed forces don't seem to be given much shrift by the Trump clique. There are a few possible interpretations that jump to mind, but that's a longer (and IMO interesting) conversation. It comes down to if, when, and how the armed forces' reluctance to interfere with domestic politics breaks down. There's the problem (at least for me) of identifying who actually holds the keys to control the armed forces.

5: From a pure schadenfreude point of view I look forward to seeing some of the key holders required for taking power get eliminated when they become unnecessary to hold power. I expect that might include some oligarchs, the Supreme Court (as a player, not as a title), and any number of GOP "people of consequence."

6: The undermining of public goods (the CDC, education etc etc) makes a lot of sense if the goal is to undermine stable democracy and turn the US into a place more susceptible to a coup or revolution.

[Jacob]

Another related thought on the whole "keys" thing:

If AI lives up to a significant amount of its billing, it could render a significant number of the educated middle class surplus in various ways. This means that they'll become less economically relevant and/ or unnecessary to administer the apparatuses of the state and the economy; which in turn means it's unnecessary to cater to them.

In the US, it means that those who've long nursed a hatred for the "liberal coastal elites" might get to see some joy in watching that group getting short shrift (along with the institutions of democracy that are typically required to keep the broader middle classes in line).

On the flip side, as I understand it a disenfranchised middle class is historically fertile grounds for revolutions and coups.

Of course it remains to be seen if AI delivers on the promise (or threat, depending on your perspective).

[Jacob]

Also #2 - the whole "keys to power" lens seems pretty apt for explaining the overall arcs of both Putin and Xi, though that's probably not for the Trump thread 

[DGuller]

Another related thought on the whole "keys" thing:

If AI lives up to a significant amount of its billing, it could render a significant number of the educated middle class surplus in various ways. This means that they'll become less economically relevant and/ or unnecessary to administer the apparatuses of the state and the economy; which in turn means it's unnecessary to cater to them.

In the US, it means that those who've long nursed a hatred for the "liberal coastal elites" might get to see some joy in watching that group getting short shrift (along with the institutions of democracy that are typically required to keep the broader middle classes in line).

On the flip side, as I understand it a disenfranchised middle class is historically fertile grounds for revolutions and coups.

Of course it remains to be seen if AI delivers on the promise (or threat, depending on your perspective).

I think AI has much more potential for disruption than devastating the white collar class.  AI makes surveillance state far more efficient.  A mature AI solution would be able to listen to everyone, process everything it listens to, and connect all the dots, because AI can essentially function as one spy with infinite time and attention span. 

The most depressing part of it is that this surveillance capability will not be used to protect democracy from its enemies, but the moment anti-democrats wedge themselves into power, it will definitely be used to keep pro-democrats from wedging themselves back in.

[Jacob]

I think AI has much more potential for disruption than devastating the white collar class.  AI makes surveillance state far more efficient.  A mature AI solution would be able to listen to everyone, process everything it listens to, and connect all the dots, because AI can essentially function as one spy with infinite time and attention span.

I agree that AI can be used to create a very efficient and pervasive surveillance state (and, incidentally, it's one of several reasons I'm not embracing things like Alexa and smart fridges and whatnot, though of course an efficient surveillance AI will be able to tease out whether I'm a likely troublemaker or merely a harmless crank).

I think that is linked to my point about the educated middle class (which I think includes more than white collar workers, but whether it does or not isn't super important to my main point right now) - which is:

(and again this is using the "keys to power" lens for analyzing the way to gain, maintain, and exercise power):

It is, I think, basically a truism to say that over most of human history the power of a state (or other state level actor) depended on how well it collected, organized, and deployed its resources (human or otherwise).

I also think it's fairly non-controversial to say over most of human history (and civilized pre-history) the ability of a state (or equivalent) to collect and administer its resources was roughly proportional to the quality of its middle classes. Historically we've needed bureaucrats to administer, merchants to trade, skilled craftsmen to manufacture, some combination of intellectual and creative people to give meaning to our various activities and so on. The mix has changed over time, but generally the more educated folks you had (and this includes skilled blue collar type work), and the better their quality the better off your state was.

Of course, if you need all those people to prosper and increase your power then those people end up demanding a seat at the table to some degree.

The ascendance of Western liberal democracy growing out of the renaissance and into the industrial revolution can be seen as the natural consequence of having a higher quality middle class in larger numbers compared to alternative methods of governance. Basically, having a society with democratic rights, individual freedom, the rule of law, and high quality education produces the best quality middle class at scale. So we have democracy because democracy produces the human capital required for a stronger state (and more wealth and power for those who can get themselves into power).

... but if AI replaces most of the value that the middle class brings (with automation having replaced most of the value that skilled blue collar workers in the middle class provided) in creating and administering economic value and power, then they (we) are not really needed to create power or wealth; and therefore, by the "keys to power" analysis they (we) don't really need to have a seat at the table. So democracy (or other means of maintaining the support of the middle class) ultimately becomes superfluous from the perspective of those who wield the power of the state.

So it's not so much about the likes of you and I no longer having jobs (though that's obviously important to us individually) and more about the complete revolution in the social and political order when our class goes from being integral to generating power and wealth for the state and for the powerful to being superfluous for that purpose (or alternately the required size of our class being massively reduced, with most of it being pushed into something else).

That is, of course, if AI delivers. Which it might. We're not there yet. But it seems to me that the current holders of power in the US are acting like that's where they think things are going.

And of course the shape society takes after that upheaval is up for grabs, though right now it's not looking too good IMO.

The most depressing part of it is that this surveillance capability will not be used to protect democracy from its enemies, but the moment anti-democrats wedge themselves into power, it will definitely be used to keep pro-democrats from wedging themselves back in.

Yeah I think that's inevitable.

It'll be one of multiple redundant layers of control, because if popular culture is shaped against democracy, if the propagation and presentation of information (i.e. "the algorithm") is shaped to be against democracy, if education is shaped to make the idea of democracy questionable in practice, then who is going to want democracy (or understand it) to begin with?

That said, if the exercise of democracy is compromised (say if the tallying of votes is handled non-transparently by cronies of the party in power) and enough of the population believes the stories, then there may not even be a need to do away with the appearance of democracy.

[PJL]

If that's the case, I will look forward to the day when AI itself realises that it no longer needs the super elites and techo bros to have the keys to power. Nothing more schandenfreude than seeing the hubris of those seeking power to fall.

[Syt]

I mean, to quote Larry Ellison (billionaire founder of Oracle):

https://fortune.com/2025/09/28/larry-ellison-ai-surveillance-oracle-tiktok-deal-social-media/

Larry Ellison once predicted 'citizens will be on their best behavior' amid constant recording. Now his company will pay a key role in social media

A year ago, Oracle cofounder and chairman Larry Ellison described a future where everyone, including law enforcement, will face regular surveillance as daily life is documented seemingly nonstop.

At Oracle's financial analyst meeting last September, he predicted artificial intelligence will help process the vast amounts of footage recorded by cameras placed on everything from car dashboards and front doors to security systems and cops.

"We're going to have supervision," Ellison said. "Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there's a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on."

Those comments have gained fresh relevance now that his company has emerged as a major player in the AI industry and is poised to play a critical role in the deal for TikTok's U.S. operations. TikTok's video-sharing platform is among the most popular social media properties in the country.

Oracle didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.


The company has been an AI infrastructure provider and stunned Wall Street earlier this month by reaching a $300 billion deal with OpenAI, which will purchase computing power over about five years in one of the largest cloud contracts ever signed.

And earlier this week, OpenAI signed deals with SoftBank and Oracle for new data centers as part of the massive Stargate project.

In its most recent quarterly earnings call with analysts, management also offered revenue projections that cited $455 billion in contracts, up 359% from a year earlier. CEO Safra Catz revealed that Oracle landed deals with three different customers during the quarter.

Meanwhile, Oracle is expected to be among the companies that will buy TikTok's U.S. business from Chinese parent company ByteDance. In addition, Oracle will spearhead U.S. oversight of the algorithm and security.

President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon signed an executive order clearing the way for a deal to put TikTok in U.S. hands. The U.S. ownership structure is still being finalized, but Trump said Oracle and Ellison would play a "big" role in managing the app, while conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch and computer billionaire Michael Dell would sit on the board. Trump hinted that three more "blue-chip" backers are also part of the ownership group.


Vice President JD Vance said that the algorithm will be "under the control of American investors," adding that more details would be forthcoming.

Reports earlier this week said Oracle will re-create TikTok's algorithm and provide a new U.S. version while also ensuring security for users' data.

"This deal will allow for the U.S. to control the app's algorithm," Vance said. "It's actually going to be American-operated all the way."

Of course the question if Ellison and politicians would be included in the "citizens being on their best behavior." I'm sure they'll plead that they require privacy to conduct their businesses.

[Jacob]

Rupert Murdoch sits on the board, you say?

Just in case anyone was wondering in which direction the TikTok algorithm is going to lean.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

We'll have a butlerian jihad at this rate

[Syt]

https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-press-access-defense-department-rules-95878bce05096912887701eaa6d019c6

New York Times, AP, Newsmax among news outlets who say they won't sign new Pentagon rules

News organizations including The New York Times, The Associated Press and the conservative Newsmax television network said Monday they will not sign a Defense Department document about its new press rules, making it likely the Trump administration will evict their reporters from the Pentagon.

Those outlets say the policy threatens to punish them for routine news gathering protected by the First Amendment. The Washington Post, The Atlantic and Reuters on Monday also publicly joined the group that says it will not be signing. AP confirmed Monday afternoon that it would not sign.

"Reuters is bound by its commitment to accurate, impartial and independent news," the agency said in a statement. "We also steadfastly believe in the press protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution, the unrestricted flow of information and journalism that serves the public interest without fear or favor. The Pentagon's new restrictions erode these fundamental values."

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reacted by posting the Times' statement on X and adding a hand-waving emoji. His team has said that reporters who don't acknowledge the policy in writing by Tuesday must turn in badges admitting them to the Pentagon and clear out their workspaces the next day.

The new rules bar journalist access to large swaths of the Pentagon without an escort and say Hegseth can revoke press access to reporters who ask anyone in the Defense Department for information — classified or otherwise — that he has not approved for release.

Newsmax, whose on-air journalists are generally supportive of President Donald Trump's administration, said that "we believe the requirements are unnecessary and onerous and hope that the Pentagon will review the matter further."

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the rules establish "common sense media procedures."

"The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is," Parnell said. "This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it's what's best for our troops and the national security of this country."

Hegseth also reposted a question from a follower who asked, "Is this because they can't roam the Pentagon freely? Do they believe they deserve unrestricted access to a highly classified military installation under the First Amendment?"

Hegseth answered, "yes." Reporters say neither of those assertions is true.

Pentagon reporters say signing the statement amounts to admitting that reporting any information that hasn't been government-approved is harming national security. "That's simply not true," said David Schulz, director of Yale University's Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic.

Journalists have said they've long worn badges and don't access classified areas, nor do they report information that risks putting any Americans in harm's way.

"The Pentagon certainly has the right to make its own policies, within the constraints of the law," the Pentagon Press Association said in a statement on Monday. "There is no need or justification, however, for it to require reporters to affirm their understanding of vague, likely unconstitutional policies as a precondition to reporting from Pentagon facilities."

Noting that taxpayers pay nearly $1 trillion annually to the U.S. military, Times Washington bureau chief Richard Stevenson said "the public has a right to know how the government and military are operating."

Trump has applied pressure on news organizations in several ways, with ABC News and CBS News settling lawsuits related to their coverage. Trump has also filed lawsuits against The New York Times and Wall Street Journal and moved to choke off funding for government-run services like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.