logo
What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump

What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump

Vox13-06-2025
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump lashes out at supporters pushing the ‘Epstein hoax': Behind the MAGA fallout over the investigation into his 'client list'
Trump lashes out at supporters pushing the ‘Epstein hoax': Behind the MAGA fallout over the investigation into his 'client list'

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump lashes out at supporters pushing the ‘Epstein hoax': Behind the MAGA fallout over the investigation into his 'client list'

President Trump is lashing out at his supporters amid their ongoing anger over his administration's handling of the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In a lengthy Truth Social post on Wednesday, Trump repeatedly referred to the case, which spawned conspiracy theories fueled by some of his prominent loyalists, as 'the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.' 'My PAST supporters have bought into this 'bullshit,' hook, line, and sinker,' the president fumed. 'All these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.' He added: 'Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don't even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don't want their support anymore!' How we got here Epstein has long been the focus of unfounded conspiracy theories pushed by some of Trump's prominent supporters. They believe that the late financier — who died of an apparent suicide in his prison cell in 2019 after his indictment on federal sex trafficking charges — was actually murdered to conceal the names of powerful people on a secret 'client list,' which was then covered up during the Biden administration. Among the prominent Trump supporters pushing the Epstein conspiracy theories were Kash Patel, who is now Trump's FBI director, and Dan Bongino, now the deputy director at the FBI. During the 2024 campaign, Trump said he would consider releasing additional government files on Epstein. When he took office, Trump directed the Justice Department to conduct an exhaustive review of the evidence collected on Epstein. Appearing on Fox News in February, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Epstein client list was "sitting on my desk right now to review." "That's been a directive by President Trump," she added. But last week, the DOJ and FBI released a joint memo with their findings, stating that Epstein had no 'client list' and concluding he 'committed suicide in his cell.' 'One of our highest priorities is combating child exploitation and bringing justice to victims,' the FBI and DOJ said. 'Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends.' The backlash over the Epstein memo The two-page memo did little to satisfy Trump's MAGA faithful. At Turning Point USA's Student Action Summit in Tampa, Fla., last weekend, young conservatives erupted in boos when the topic of the joint memo was raised. 'How many of you are satisfied with the results of the Epstein investigation?' Fox News host Laura Ingraham asked from the stage to resounding jeers. 'It's deeper than Epstein!' Steve Bannon, former senior White House adviser, shouted while taping his podcast live at the event. Bannon said the Trump administration's failure to release more Epstein documents is 'not about just a pedophile ring and all that. … It's about who governs us.' 'The fact that the U.S. government, the one that I voted for, refused to take my question seriously and instead said, 'Case closed, shut up, conspiracy theorist,' was too much for me,' former Fox News host Tucker Carlson said at the summit Friday. 'And I don't think the rest of us should be satisfied with that.' The fallout at the FBI and DOJ The conclusion of the Epstein probe also reportedly did not satisfy top officials at the FBI. Late last week, CNN reported that Bongino was considering resigning following a 'heated confrontation' he and Patel had with Bondi over the handling of the Epstein case. The same day, far-right provocateur Laura Loomer wrote on X that Bongino and Patel were 'LIVID' with Bondi over the Epstein case. According to Loomer, Bongino was 'taking the day off today from his job as Deputy Director of the FBI, and there's now speculation on whether or not he will return to his job.' Patel issued a statement on X Saturday downplaying the Epstein conspiracies and saying he would continue to serve as FBI director. 'The conspiracy theories just aren't true, never have been,' Patel wrote. 'It's an honor to serve the President of the United States @realDonaldTrump — and I'll continue to do so for as long as he calls on me.' Trump backs Bondi and says 'nobody cares' about Epstein Amid the fallout over the memo, Trump issued a lengthy statement on Saturday defending Bondi while expressing his frustration over MAGA's fixation on Epstein. 'What's going on with my 'boys' and, in some cases, 'gals?' They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We're on one Team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and 'selfish people' are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. For years, it's Epstein, over and over again.' 'One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it's the 'HOTTEST' Country anywhere in the World,' he added. 'Let's keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.' Trump doubled down on his support for Bondi while speaking to reporters on his way to Pittsburgh on Tuesday, saying she handled the matter 'very well' and added: 'Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.' Bondi: 'I'm not going to talk about Epstein' The attorney general dodged questions about Epstein at an event touting fentanyl seizures at the Drug Enforcement Administration's headquarters in Arlington, Va., on Tuesday. 'I'm not going to talk about Epstein,' Bondi said. Upon returning from Pittsburgh, Trump said he doesn't understand the fascination his supporters have with Epstein. 'I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody,' the president said. 'It's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring, and I don't understand why it keeps going."

Progressive (PGR) Reports Half-Year Revenue of US$42 Billion and Net Income of US$6 Billion
Progressive (PGR) Reports Half-Year Revenue of US$42 Billion and Net Income of US$6 Billion

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Progressive (PGR) Reports Half-Year Revenue of US$42 Billion and Net Income of US$6 Billion

The Progressive Corporation (PGR) recently announced robust financial performance for the first half of 2025, including a significant rise in revenue to USD 42,413 million and an increase in net income to USD 5,742 million. Despite these positive earnings results, Progressive's stock price declined by 4% over the last week. While this drop might seem at odds with the company's strong financials, it aligned with a generally volatile market environment, influenced by uncertainties surrounding the Federal Reserve's direction amid President Trump's ongoing criticisms of its leadership. These market conditions likely contributed to Progressive's share price movement. We've identified 1 possible red flag with Progressive and understanding the impact should be part of your investment process. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 22 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. The recent decline of Progressive Corporation's stock price by 4% over the last week, despite strong financial performance, underscores the volatile market environment driven by uncertainties about the Federal Reserve's direction. This backdrop aligns with investor concerns, possibly impacting sentiment even with Progressive's strategic initiatives to acquire cost-effective policies and focus on technology. Over the past five years, Progressive's total shareholder return, including both share price and dividends, reached an impressive 201.01%. This strong return reflects the company's ability to grow through both strategic expansion and capital management. In the last year alone, Progressive outperformed both the broader US market and the US Insurance industry, which returned 10% and 7.4% respectively. Looking forward, the current news impacts revenue and earnings forecasts as Progressive still targets a revenue increase to $102.6 billion by 2028 and earnings growth to $9.9 billion. However, potential challenges related to tariffs and competitive pressures could influence the ability to maintain these forecasts. While analysts have set a consensus price target of US$286.80, Progressive's current share price of US$242.20 indicates an 18.41% discount, suggesting room for future growth in line with earnings and revenue projections. Get an in-depth perspective on Progressive's performance by reading our balance sheet health report here. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Companies discussed in this article include PGR. This article was originally published by Simply Wall St. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@

New York joins multistate lawsuit after Trump administration's FEMA cuts
New York joins multistate lawsuit after Trump administration's FEMA cuts

UPI

time25 minutes ago

  • UPI

New York joins multistate lawsuit after Trump administration's FEMA cuts

July 16 (UPI) -- The state of New York joined several other states Wednesday in a lawsuit against the Trump administration's closure of a protective arm of FEMA. New York Attorney General Letitia James announced in a press release that her state has joined 19 others in litigation against Federal Emergency Management Agency chief David Richardson, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the federal government that seeks the restoration of FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, program. "I'm suing the federal government with a group of [Attorneys General] over its deadly decision to end FEMA's BRIC program and slash billions of dollars that protect communities from natural disasters," James wrote in an X post Wednesday. According to the release, BRIC had "supported critical infrastructure to protect communities from disasters before they happen" with the provision of billions of dollars to state and local governments in order for municipalities to prepare for natural disasters. In a press release that has since been deleted from the FEMA website, FEMA announced in April it was ending BRIC, and canceled all applications sent to BRIC from Fiscal Years 2020-2023, then canceled the fiscal year 2024 notice of funding opportunity. Any grant funds that hadn't been distributed were reabsorbed and returned to either the U.S. Treasury or the Disaster Relief Fund. The dissolution of BRIC followed an Executive Order made in March that, among other decrees, ordered the Secretary of Homeland Security to "propose changes to the policies" related to "national preparedness and response policies and recommend to the President the revisions, recissions, and replacements necessary to reformulate the process and metrics for Federal responsibility." The statement from James noted that the loss of the BRIC program could specifically affect New York, which is noted as being "among the states receiving the most BRIC funding" due to its coastal communities. New York currently has 38 BRIC projects that total over $380 million located across its boundaries, which would be jeopardized by the termination of BRIC. New York City alone was expected to receive BRIC funds for almost 20 different projects, including a $50 million mitigation action plan intended to provide protection from flash flooding of the Harlem River. "This administration's decision to slash billions of dollars that protect our communities from floods, wildfires, and other disasters puts millions of New Yorkers at risk," said Attorney General James in the Wednesday press release from her office. "New Yorkers depend on quality roads, floodwalls, and other vital infrastructure to keep them safe when disaster strikes," she continued. "This administration has no authority to cut this program that has helped save countless lives, and I will continue to fight to ensure New York gets the support we need to prepare for dangerous natural disasters."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store