Regulatory Policy in the Age of the Techno Oligarchy

A new oligarchy has risen, with tech CEOs overseeing vast domains shaped by relentless technological advancement. Their influence stretches beyond business, shaping governance, society, and global power structures— mirroring the unchecked authority once reserved for sovereign rulers. In his final address as president, Joe Biden warned of the growing power of these tech leaders, highlighting the risks of a government increasingly intertwined with the interests of this elite class. As the United States transitions to a new Trump administration—one deeply connected to Silicon Valley—a critical examination of the intersection between technology, policy, and oligarchic influence in modern America is imperative.

At the heart of this issue lies the challenge of bifurcating the regulation of tech companies from the broader concern of ensuring policymaking remains independent of undue influence. This separation is increasingly difficult as the line between business and government increasingly blurs.

As the influence of technology firms expands, regulators face mounting challenges in defining and enforcing oversight. This struggle presents itself most clearly in the antitrust debate, where existing frameworks have failed to curb the dominance of these tech giants. In the modern economy, technology conglomerates like Meta, Google, and Amazon operate across multiple sectors, making it increasingly difficult for regulators to categorize and monitor their activities effectively. These companies encompass a diverse range of business units that span various industries, from social media to virtual reality, e-commerce, and cloud computing. This multidimensional structure complicates the process of defining their market influence, which in turn impacts regulatory oversight, competition law, and antitrust enforcement.

Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), was among the most vocal critics of this regulatory blind spot, arguing that conventional antitrust measures, which have long centered on consumer welfare and pricing models, are insufficient to address the structural power of tech monopolies. She championed an expanded framework that considered market consolidation, innovation suppression, and labour exploitation, seeking to redefine how regulators assess corporate dominance. Under her leadership, the FTC pursued aggressive litigation against tech firms, attempting to block acquisitions and unwind mergers that further entrenched their power. However, the scale of these regulatory challenges, combined with the time constraints of her tenure, meant that many of her most ambitious reforms remained unfinished or at the mercy of the new administration.

While regulatory battles over monopolistic power continue, a parallel shift is occurring within the political landscape. The Republican Party has seen an evolving relationship with Silicon Valley elites as key figures from the tech industry have emerged as influential voices within Trump’s inner circle. This signals not just an alignment of familiar interests in deregulation but a broader fusion of Silicon Valley’s ideological framework with the administration’s governing philosophy.

At the center of this evolving relationship is Vice-President J.D. Vance, whose political ascent underscores the deepening influence of Silicon Valley within the administration. His ties to the tech elite—particularly Peter Thiel—directly link the industry and the White House. Thiel, a billionaire venture capitalist and early supporter of Trump, has played a crucial role in integrating Silicon Valley’s economic and political vision into the administration. He mentored Vance and facilitated his entry into venture capitalism, providing the funding for Narya Capital and later backing his Senate campaign with $15 million. Now, with Vance in the vice presidency, Thiel and his network hold a unique position of influence over policymaking.   

Rather than viewing Silicon Valley as an entity to be regulated, the Trump administration, through figures like Vance, appears more inclined to embrace its leadership in shaping policy. This alignment represents a significant departure from previous administrations, which maintained a more adversarial stance toward Big Tech. The implications of Thiel’s influence are substantial, as his ideological views often challenge mainstream political and economic thought.

Known for his belief in the transformative power of technology, Thiel has long argued that monopolies, rather than being harmful distortions of the market, are essential drivers of innovation and stability. To him, the difficulties in regulating concentrated corporate power are a feature, not a bug—an expected and even necessary outcome of technological progress. His vision for governance aligns with a push for deregulation, national industrial strategy, and an expanded role for private capital in shaping public policy. As the Trump administration moves forward with a regulatory approach shaped by its alliances with Silicon Valley, the debate over government oversight versus corporate power remains unresolved.

The connectedness of regulatory issues and the influence of Silicon Valley on policymaking is especially clear in the debate (or lack thereof) over Section 230. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has long been a pillar of internet regulation, granting tech platforms immunity from liability for user-generated content. This legal shield enabled the explosive growth of companies like Meta, Google, and Twitter, allowing them to scale without the legal risks faced by traditional publishers. However, as these firms became dominant, calls to repeal Section 230 gained traction.

During his first term, Trump and many Republicans aggressively called for the repeal of Section 230, framing it as a tool that allowed Big Tech to censor conservative voices. Yet, as Trump re-enters office with deepened ties to Silicon Valley, the rhetoric around Section 230 has notably shifted. With key allies like J.D. Vance shaping policy, outright repeal now seems unlikely. Instead, the administration appears more inclined to preserve the legal framework that has benefited its growing network of tech donors and political allies.

The established checks and balances necessary for regulating the push and pull of competing thought are already being stress-tested under this new administration. As Silicon Valley’s influence over policy deepens, the mechanisms meant to safeguard democratic decision-making face an unprecedented challenge. If these systems prove inadequate, they will require not just incremental reform but bold, structural thinking to prevent hegemonic power structures from embedding themselves permanently within government institutions.

The sheer breadth and agility of tech influence has the capacity to reshape regulatory priorities, override traditional oversight, and dictate the flow of information itself. If left unchecked, this could fundamentally alter the balance of power in a way that diminishes public accountability and erodes the democratic safeguards taken for granted. The question is no longer just about regulating technology but about whether democratic institutions can withstand an era where private capital wields governing authority as its own.