As home to some of the world’s biggest and most influential companies, Silicon Valley has come to be regarded as the symbol of innovation and progress. The astronomical rise of the tech industry and the wealth it generated has granted the region outsized political clout, allowing the Northern Californian hotspot to shape and disrupt tech policy legislation both in the US and globally. For instance, as a result of their lobbying, there is still no federal general privacy law. Even more notable is Silicon Valley’s direct involvement with the US government, as seen with the appointment of prominent figures to government by the last three American presidents. Furthermore, the region’s ultrawealthy are major fundraisers for political candidates, including those running for president, and they hold considerable influence on their policies.

Earlier political movements in Silicon Valley were mostly grassroots, such as the 1960s civil rights and war protests in Berkeley.  However, a new movement within the elite wealthy class has changed the landscape, and the 2024 presidential election has witnessed a shift of power to an ascendant, reactionary right-wing front of Silicon Valley.

Some members of this movement reportedly influenced Donald Trump’s selection of J.D. Vance, a one-time venture capitalist, for vice president on the Republican ticket. This group consists of individuals who get their power from the internet – which they helped build. They are sometimes called techno-authoritarians or the tech right, and their motivations appear to be a combination of personal wealth gain and earnest political ideology. This group opposes tech accountability and is against the US promoting democratic values internationally, and they also praise some authoritarian figures.

Touting tech and reaping the rewards

The goals of the tech right are at odds with the global push to address the risks of technology. Take Artificial Intelligence, for example. There are a number of global, national, and sub-national efforts to join the EU in responding to the impacts of AI on elections, discrimination, privacy, labour, and the environment. In the absence of a US federal law, President Joe Biden issued an executive order that requires developers of the most powerful AI systems to share safety results with the US government. It also promotes global collaboration on the issue and seeks more transparency on AI-generated content.

An executive order does not have the regulatory strength of a law like the EU’s AI Act, but the tech right vehemently opposes government rules on Artificial Intelligence, even the milder ones in the US. They are laying the groundwork for Donald Trump – should he become President again – to overturn the executive order.  And at the centre of these efforts is a dogmatic and techno-optimistic vision, one which is perfectly exemplified by billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreesen’s manifesto that elevates technological development – particularly in AI – as a fundamental human right. This AI-happy outlook justifies shifting power from democratic institutions to those who create and own technology.

In the case of cryptocurrency, the underlying technology is decentralised. After the global financial crisis, the early proponents hoped cryptocurrency and other uses of blockchain technology would shift power from banks and big tech to individual users in a movement now known as Web 3.0. However, cryptocurrency has so far been used as a tool for speculative investment.  Cryptocurrency exchanges – like FTX before it collapsed – and token issuers maintain significant control.

In recent years, Silicon Valley’s elite have been successful in influencing policy by getting personally involved in a range of political discussions.

In this unbalanced market, cryptocurrency deregulation has become a serious electoral priority for those with a stake in the technology. Famous members of the tech right like the Winklevoss brothers have spent heavily in support of crypto-friendly candidates in the hopes of undoing the efforts of agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission that have sought to protect investors against the volatility of digital currency markets. Additionally, in some countries the technology has empowered autocrats and undermined accountability. Russia, for instance, has promoted the use of cryptocurrency to avoid US and EU sanctions while President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador has made Bitcoin a national currency, a decision which was made with little transparency and which has brought few benefits to citizens.

There are a few reasons why the tech right is more politically active and visible now than in previous US elections. For one, the group has found political leadership that has been eager to adopt its priorities on issues like AI and crypto (the 2024 Republican Party Platform includes plans to deregulate both industries). Furthermore, in recent years, Silicon Valley’s elite have been successful in influencing policy by getting personally involved in a range of political discussions, from AI to the law that requires the Chinese company ByteDance to divest from TikTok or face a shut-down in the US^.

Secondly, the conditions in which the right-wing tech figures are now operating are different. The US technology sector is facing more direct competition from Chinese companies, which has helped create a different investment environment with higher interest rates. This has also caused priorities to change, and venture capitalists are now putting more money into defence companies such as Anduril, the weapons maker backed by the billionaire entrepreneur Peter Thiel. Government contracts, especially in the areas of defence and border security, provide a stable flow of income. As Silicon Valley’s relationship with the US government changes, so too do the priorities of the investor class.

It is not surprising that some right-wing tech billionaires oppose efforts to decouple or de-risk the economic relationship between the US and China.

An isolationist and nationalist agenda

Members of the tech right are pushing for a selectively isolationist US that is less invested in global security and prosperity. When David Sacks, a wealthy tech investor and influential political fundraiser, spoke at the Republican National Convention this year, he condemned US support for Ukraine. Sacks and those ideologically aligned with him have shown their isolationism when addressing European security. For example, Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has joined Sacks in questioning the necessity of NATO’s continued existence. In addition, tech lobbyists have long critiqued EU regulation on digital policy, aligning with a worldview that sees Europe as hostile to American values.

While Silicon Valley’s right-wing tech elites largely support an aggressively confrontational approach to China, some with more direct business interests have adopted a passive approach. Either way, a more inward-facing US would be less willing to involve itself in promoting human rights and democracy, but it would eagerly protect the tech sector. This could involve continued opposition to regulation, support for domestic subsidies, and barriers to foreign companies operating in the US.

 While the economic competition between the US, the EU, and China is already fierce, the rivalry could escalate further. The US and Europe are slapping tariffs on Chinese imports and placing restrictions on goods bound for China, where there is direct competition in technologies like EVs and semiconductors. Yet the tech right’s chosen candidates have proposed even more aggressive, across-the-board tariffs that would raise prices for consumers, especially on climate-friendly technology, while harming other US trading partners. At the same, some Silicon Valley right-wingers have gone so far as to suggest the US should be preparing for a military war with China.

Still, it should be noted that the tech right is not a monolith. Considering how entangled the American and Chinese economies have become over the past decades, it is not surprising that some right-wing tech billionaires who have invested heavily in China oppose efforts to decouple or de-risk the economic relationship between the two countries. For example, since opening a Tesla factory in Shanghai, Elon Musk has adopted a friendly tone toward Beijing while opposing any tariffs on Chinese-manufactured EVs.

Opposing accountability

The tech right’s attempts to avoid real accountability and fairness for online platforms and to manufacture a more conservative internet have led to adverse impacts globally. Since Elon Musk purchased Twitter – now X –, he has personally and publicly challenged orders in Brazil, where X was blocked in September, and also from officials in Australia. While there is a need to discuss whether such orders infringe on people’s rights and freedoms, it is undemocratic to leave decision-making on content that could be potentially harmful to millions to a single unaccountable individual. The EU Commission seems to recognise the dangers of an ideologically driven platform resisting democratic oversight, as seen in its first Digital Services Act (DSA) charges against X.

Disinformation around elections has been an ongoing challenge for large online platforms, and AI has made it easier to create and spread deceptive information. After Musk took over, X fired most of the trust and safety staff and left the EU’s voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation at a time when such oversight is crucial. The platform now hosts a particularly high rate of disinformation, and women candidates for political office face rampant personal attacks.

To understand and tackle the impacts of platforms and the role of foreign influence campaigns on our elections, we need research. Whereas the DSA mandates that platforms grant access to data for research purposes, the tech right is fighting efforts in the US to examine how disinformation spreads on social media. Opposing government measures to rein in online disinformation, Musk has used lawsuits and Congressman Jim Jordan has led investigations that drain researchers’ resources while making them targets of right-wing attacks.

When content is global, there is tension between how the EU enforces platform standards and the situation in the US, where there is a powerful movement opposing safety controls. This contradiction was displayed when French former European Commissioner Thierry Breton issued a letter to Elon Musk ahead of the billionaire’s interview with Donald Trump, reminding him of X’s obligations under the DSA. The letter drew a crass insult from Musk and the ire of the tech right. Regardless of whether the letter was a good idea, the incident shows the possibility of conflict when Brussels seeks to hold global platforms accountable and highlights the need for the European Commission to be cautious in applying the DSA to issues outside the EU.  The US tech right and those ideologically aligned with its principles will be eager to portray the EU as controlling global narratives.

Considering the tech right’s resistance to accountability, it may seem surprising that some members of the group support a more forceful regulatory crackdown on big tech, particularly Meta and Google. However, the truth is that they adopt this position in order to protect conservative voices online, even though research shows that conservatives tend to spread more disinformation and hate speech and that they segment the internet into liberal and conservative echo chambers.

Addressing Silicon Valley’s illiberalism

There was a time when Silicon Valley executives and investors proudly touted the positive influence of their technology on democracy. That moment has passed, and democracy no longer seems to be the priority it once was in the tech hotspot.

In the aftermath of the January 6th attempts to overturn the 2020 election, a number of prominent venture capitalists, including Doug Leone of Sequoia Capital and David Sacks, said that Donald Trump was not qualified to be president ever again. However, they both now support Trump for president this year. For the rest of the world, this right-wing shift raises questions about the values of some of those who are advocating for AI to become an integral part of our daily lives.

But for Silicon Valley’s ascendant tech right, there are many potential self-interests at play in the politics game, such as lower taxes on capital gains, interest rates that benefit their investments, and competition rules that allow them to sell startups for big profits. Nevertheless, there are also people who are true believers in their brand of conservativism, as some of them have long subscribed to an ideology distrustful of democracy. A good example is Peter Thiel, an early member of the tech right and long-time backer of Vance, who declared he did not believe democracy and freedom were compatible any more.

The tech right embraces plans to purge Washington on ideological grounds and shift control to Silicon Valley or a more conservative White House. They sympathise with extreme right-wing movements around the world, sharing similarities with leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni. They also seek to leverage the large capital and influence that they possess to distort technology and American politics toward authoritarianism. Given that their influence in politics has global impacts, Europe – like the US – should recognise and confront the dangers posed by the far-right tech elite.

The article reflects the views of the author and does not reflect the views of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung.