Amid the numerous politicians who attended Donald Trump’s inauguration, tech giants such as Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos stood in observation. The attendance of tech CEOs comes as no surprise, as corporate tech’s participation in government activities and its impact on citizens’ livelihoods continues to grow over time. Despite the economic or social impacts, growing control resembles a former ideology: the technocracy movement.
The technocracy movement reached its height in the early 20th century. With worldwide fiscal instability, support for the ideology as an alternative to the current government system rose sharply. One of the founders, William Henry Smyth, coined the term in his article titled Technocracy–Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy, where he critiques capitalism as the primary cause of the economy’s faults. As members turmoil internally over numerous topics, groups arose such as Technocracy Inc. and the Technical Alliance, differing in their outlooks on methods of controlling government. The movement gradually lost traction due to its lack of initiative and fears of authoritarian rule.
Technocratic politics believes in only electing the technically accredited to positions of power. Representatives consider policy through statistical reasoning and subjective numbers, ignoring the concerns of constituents. Along with affecting domestic policy, technocratic values believe in the annexation of Mexico, Canada, the U.S. and parts of South America to establish a technate. Under the technocratic administration, supporters proposed replacing the capitalist system with energy-based currency, which could reduce debt, poverty and wages.
Despite the movement’s death, its views show a return. Amid the 2024 presidential election, Elon Musk fueled Trump’s candidacy with millions of dollars and expressed support online. Along with his endorsement, Musk began advocating for government action such as annexing Canada and establishing a Martian technate. Musk’s family background traces back to Joshua N. Haldeman, a prominent leadership figure in technocratic groups and a known conspiracy theorist.
“With a lot of Musk’s rhetoric echoing past views, there are certainly alarms to be raised about it. Allowing data and predictions to rule over our activities and freedoms is much more totalitarian and it limits the idea of political efficacy. Corporations have their own power in shaping policy, however, and that should not be infringed, as due to Citizens United v. FEC,” Advanced Placement (AP) U.S. government teacher Scott Trepanier said.
Musk’s appointment as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) indicates the ease in which corporate leaders can gain political positions. As the head of DOGE, Musk gained the power to analyze statistics and cut jobs as he saw fit, nearing the position of a modern-age technocrat in the U.S. government. Despite his abandonment of DOGE in May 2025, Musk is still involved in the government with his succeeding companies, such as Tesla and Starlink.
In the atmosphere, Musk’s StarLink satellites connect thousands of Americans’ homes to high-speed internet, setting the prices they see fit with no regulation. The U.S government currently holds numerous defense contracts with StarLink to assist in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The privatization of government aspects accumulates through these contracts and obscures civilian involvement.
Foreign policy sees its own changes due to Musk’s influence. Despite numerous automotive brands such as Chevrolet, Hyundai and Mercedes-Benz beginning the switch to Electric Vehicles (EVs), Tesla holds a firm control over the market. Chinese EVs prove objectively superior to Teslas due to their exceptional horsepower and proposed ability to eject batteries in case of overheating. In spite of the market potential of Chinese EVs in the U.S., stringent restrictions prevent any real purchases from occurring in the country. The government cites a ban on any software and hardware from China, fearing illegal surveillance by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Musk acknowledges the competitive potential of Chinese EVs in the U.S; however, this shift in view only came about following his dismissive attitude toward foreign EVs.
The 2024 presidential election underwent its own shifts through corporate heads playing a part. Not many citizens could name JD Vance before he appeared as Trump’s vice presidential candidate. Vance did not begin studying politics early in his adulthood; he only found himself studying law via the GI Bill courtesy of his service in Iraq. In his first Senate race, Vance received millions of dollars in discreet donations from billionaire Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir. Thiel also introduced and advocated for JD Vance to become Trump’s right-hand man, helping boost Vance’s reputation as a potential running mate for Trump in the election.
Thiel, a libertarian, consistently endorses limiting government bureaucracy. He proudly advocates cutting down government and leaving power out of the hands of the people in press conferences and on the net alike. In his Cato Institute essay, Thiel argued that democracy and freedom could not work in an ideal government. He asserted that rather than leaving the logic of government to the people, only esteemed and intelligent analysts should determine the country’s fate.
Thiel’s views on limiting government similarly echo the technocrat ideology of only electing the scientifically gifted to logistically lead the nation. Although Thiel currently holds no specified position in the current Trump Administration, his works with Palantir provide him with numerous government contracts and influence over policy execution. Palantir gains its funding and endorsement from government agencies worldwide, enabling reliable access to private information. Citizens typically misidentify Palantir as a simple data company that holds information, but its true intentions dig deeper.
The software works by integrating massive previously siloed datasets, including financial records, communication logs and government profiles. Palantir domestically embeds itself within the policing and regulation of numerous agencies. Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) worked with Palantir to develop an Immigration Operating System (ImmigrationOS). ImmigrationOS currently holds government data, including social security pensions and medical records on migrants nationwide. Using the gathered information, ImmigrationOS provides ICE with extensive details to conduct raids on specific cities and homes, in line with Trump’s orders on expediting deportation efforts.
“Palantir is certainly a company to place focus on in the scheme of democracy. If we allow corporations to keep track of that much information and access extensive government files, we could find ourselves under the boot of a surveillance state. I’m hoping more people can place further emphasis on what they’re doing and how to speak out against it,” Kennesaw State University (KSU) political science professor Heather Pinnock said.
By aggregating sensitive information, without public awareness or consent, Palantir enables effective predictive policing and targeted enforcement. The integration base allows authorities to react to events and preemptively identify and track potential threats or people of interest. Critics argue that the company’s profit motives and concealed influence can encroach upon the Fourth Amendment’s prevention of unreasonable searches, as all data immediately ends up in police hands without any express consent. The corporation’s privacy practices enable algorithmic bias and mass surveillance in the name of efficiency and security.
Other corporations collaborate with political affairs, excluding Musk or Thiel. The typical method of companies affecting legislative action stems from lobbying. In Congress, Senator Richard Blumenthal proposed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) to limit the number of youths online. The bill received both bicameral and bipartisan support, along with concerned parents nationwide. In opposition, prominent tech companies such as Meta sent vast amounts of money to Congress to strike the bill down before it passed. The tech corporations ultimately succeeded in their efforts, as the KOSA passed in the Senate, but could not receive enough support in the House of Representatives.
For NC students, the topic of corporate influence may seem insignificant in the current scheme of their lives, but this assertion only empowers interest groups’ capability. If citizens sit idly and only elect politicians for their spoken word, corporate lobbies and Political Action Committees (PACs) can supersede constituent interests through simple cash considerations. With greater awareness of what one seeks and how to achieve it, citizens can find community members with similar interests and exercise their right to voice their wishes. It takes all individuals for a Congress member to consider interests, rather than allowing companies to lobby their way to the top of the list of political concerns.
“With Citizens United v. FEC, the courts ruled that corporations are similar to individuals and can have their own say in policy. There is a movement towards an anti-regulation push in business, arguing that broad government power is seen as an overreach. The common ideology in Silicon Valley is to ‘move fast and break things’, but the issue to recognize is that they are not only breaking things, but breaking people. The courts have to make a crucial decision on the true individuality of corporations,” AP Comparative Government teacher Carolyn Galloway said.
As corporations only grow in wealth and power, their influence raises apprehension over the democratic implications of limiting citizen involvement. Worldwide, the foundations of political efficacy hinge on the prevention of treating public institutions with the respect of a regular citizen. Reliance on data should not hold any real value in a government focused on prioritizing the abstract needs of its constituents.
