Tech Oligarchy-Driven US Revivalism
Trump 2.0 has got off to a tumultuous start. The early days of Donald Trump’s second term as US president have been marked by a whirlwind of policy shifts, diplomatic upheavals, and economic manoeuvres, leaving both domestic and international observers struggling to keep pace.
While Trump has always been erratic and almost deliberately unpredictable, the scope and magnitude of changes being ushered in this Trump 2.0 administration are qualitatively different. Almost daily announcements of new tariffs, including against their closest partners, Canada and Mexico, and their subsequent withdrawals, controversial foreign policy decisions, and radical restructuring of the US government, indicate an ambitious attempt to restructure the US State, Military and its relations with the rest of the world.
One of the most striking developments has been the administration’s aggressive tariff policies. Trump initially imposed a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico, only to suspend and reinstate them intermittently. Meanwhile, tariffs on Chinese goods have been increased by 20%, with additional threats of tariffs against the European Union and India. The administration appears intent on using economic leverage to force trade concessions, even at the risk of retaliatory measures from affected nations, igniting a full-fledged trade war.
In an unexpected turn of events, Trump’s envoy, Steve Witcoff, brokered a ceasefire in Gaza, only for the administration to unveil an unprecedented redevelopment plan that includes ethnic cleansing the Gazans and transforming the territory into a luxury real estate hub, dubbed the "Riviera of the Middle East." This proposal has drawn widespread condemnation and remains logistically and politically contentious.
Trump has also revived discussions about acquiring Greenland from Denmark and has floated the idea of incorporating Canada into the United States as a hypothetical 51st state, further straining international relations.
Perhaps most consequential is Trump’s approach to the war in Ukraine. His administration has initiated direct peace talks with Russia, sidelining European allies and leading to a public fallout with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This about- turn in American foreign policy, coupled with Trump’s threats of steep tariffs on European nations, has sent shockwaves through NATO and European allies, raising concerns about US commitment to traditional alliances.
The Trump administration is also seeking to revamp US military doctrine. A key element of Trump’s strategy involves leveraging Silicon Valley’s expertise, with prominent tech billionaires, such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, and their companies playing direct roles in developing AI-based futuristic weapons and shaping future defence initiatives.
Domestically, Trump has launched an all-out assault on the federal bureaucracy. Key departments, including the Department of Education, are being targeted for elimination. Musk has been tasked with leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has already implemented deep cuts in various agencies, relying on technological solutions and use of AI (artificial intelligence) to determine alleged fraud and waste. This is driven by the libertarian ideology of Trump’s tech industry allies, who advocate minimal government intervention in economic affairs.
Additionally, the administration has slashed funding for USAID, an agency historically used for propagating American propaganda and regime-change operations. The move perhaps signals a shift away from soft power strategies in favour of economic coercion and projection of military strength.
While Trump’s erratic decision-making is often attributed to his personality, a broader strategy appears to underpin these moves: a section of the US bourgeoisie has concluded that American total global dominance with control over global institutions, international trade and endless wars, which has existed since the fall of the Soviet Union, is no longer viable.
Instead, they are pushing for reviving America’s declining economic, technological, and military strength while settling for a ‘Cold War’ with China. The US has long relied on its technological supremacy to maintain economic and military dominance, but rising competition from China has challenged that advantage. The Tech Oligarchy - the big Tech monopolies and their billionaire owners -- are at the front and centre of this ambitious effort.
Tech monopolies have come to play an increasingly important role in the American economy, and are now starting to flex their political muscle. The who’s who of tech from Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sundar Pichai, Apple’s Tim Cook to Tesla’s Elon Musk had front row seats in Trump’s inauguration, showcasing their importance. Tech billionaires, such as Musk, Thiel, David Sacks and Marc Andreessen are central characters in the Trump administration, taking on key roles and advisory positions.
Under both Trump and Joe Biden, Washington sought to curb China’s technological rise through stringent sanctions, particularly in semiconductor manufacturing. The Biden administration passed the CHIPS Act, allocating $52 billion in incentives to bring semiconductor production back to the US. However, China has made significant strides in chip design and manufacturing, undermining the intended impact of these policies. China’s breakthroughs in producing Huawei’s mobile phones with advanced 7nm chips and Deepseek, an AI model competitive with the leading US AI Models, have come as shocks - “Sputnik Moments” - to the US tech industry. Meanwhile, efforts to relocate chip production domestically have faced setbacks.
Read Also: DeepSeek's Deep Shock to the US AI Behemoths
Trump administration now appears to favour a more aggressive economic policy, using tariffs and corporate pressure to force foreign firms—such as Taiwan’s TSMC, the world’s most cutting-edge chip manufacturer — to establish factories within US borders. The underlying belief is that economic coercion, rather than subsidies, will restore American manufacturing strength.
Along with tariffs is a deep commitment to deregulation, especially regarding AI safety and environmental concerns. The belief is that spectacular advances in AI on the back of massive investments in datacentre hardware, cheap energy and crippling China’s tech capabilities using sanctions would enable the US to extend its technological edge and maintain its economic pole position.
The Ukraine war has also reshaped US military strategy. Initial expectations that Russia would collapse under Western sanctions have proven unfounded, with Moscow emerging more resilient, both economically and militarily. Furthermore, Russia and China have demonstrated superior military technology in areas such as hypersonic missiles, highly sophisticated air defence systems, 6th generation fighter planes and autonomous drone warfare.
The Russian demonstration of the most advanced Oreshnik missile, which is estimated to be capable of reaching of speeds of Mach 10 or 12000 Km/hr, and the Chinese demonstration of their 6th generation J36 stealth fighter jets acted as another set of “Sputnik moments” for the US in the military sphere. Even Yemeni Houthi rebels have managed to disrupt Red Sea shipping despite the presence of US naval forces, raising concerns about the effectiveness of American military assets.
The Ukraine war has shown that the backbone of the US Military, with its reliance on expensive “gamechangers” such as aircraft carriers and battleships, nuclear submarines, B-52 bombers, Abrams tanks and Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems, to be largely ineffective or of little use. Modern warfare has evolved to use swarms of cheap drones which can overwhelm weapons which are orders of magnitude more expensive. Next generation systems have proved far more effective.
Musk’s StarLink systems have kept the command-and-control communications of the Ukrainian Military running despite much of the ground telecommunication system being knocked off by the Russians. Thiel’s company Palantir has played a pivotal role in Ukraine’s war efforts. Palantir’s software, which uses AI to analyse satellite imagery, open-source data, drone footage, and reports from the ground to present commanders with military options, is responsible for most of the weapons targeting, including artillery and anti-tank missiles, in Ukraine. Hence, automated drone armies using advanced artificial intelligence figure centrally to this administration’s vision of the future of warfare.
A newly established cryptocurrency sovereign fund further underscores the administration’s libertarian bent as far as domestic economic policies are concerned. Several billionaires within Trump’s circle such as Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, David Sacks and Marc Andreessen, hold significant crypto investments, stand to benefit. Moreover, elements within the administration have called for an audit of the Federal Reserve, with some even questioning its necessity—an extreme libertarian stance that reflects the entrenched influence of these ideological trends within the administration’s economic policy.
The overarching theme of Trump’s second term appears to be a rapid and radical attempt to revive US strength in the face of mounting economic and military challenges. The administration’s approach suggests a transition from a unipolar world order to a new Cold War, with China as the primary rival. The peace initiatives with Russia may also be prompted with an expectation of trying to pull Russia away from its “friendship without limits” relationship with China in hopes of isolating China.
However, Trump’s policies are riddled with contradictions and ideological blind spots. Without first building the necessary Industrial capacity and technical know-how to run modern industry hollowed out by decades of outsourcing, the aggressive use of tariffs in the hope of regaining economic self-sufficiency may backfire, while alienating allies could weaken the US position on the global stage. Ultimately, Trump 2.0 represents a radical and highly unpredictable experiment in reshaping US power - one that carries profound risks and an uncertain future for the US empire.
The writer is a veteran technologist interested in the impact of technology on society and politics. The views expressed are personal.
Fearing Cartel, Retd.Top Bureaucrat Urges DoT to Review Allowing StarLink to Usurp Spectrum
New Delhi: Opposing the reported collaboration of two domestic telecom majors – Reliance Jio and Airtel India – with Elon Musk’s Starlink for providing hi-speed internet access in India, former Government of India Secretary, EAS Sarma, has demanded a review of the decision by Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to safeguard national security.
In a letter to DoT Secretary, Neeraj Mittal, Sarma said satellite spectrum instead should be reserved exclusively for strategic uses, such by defence services and Indian Space Research Organisation.
The former top bureaucrat, who has been flagging the issue for some times and has earlier written to the DoT secretary as well, flagged latest reports about the US threatening to “shut off” StarLink in Ukraine, “unless Ukraine allows a lion’s share in its mineral resources in favour of the US”, adding that “your Department should tighten safeguards against StarLink.”
“Moreover, StarLink is known to work in close collaboration with the US defence services and it will gain an undue strategic advantage in the Indian skies, if India allots satellite spectrum to it” Sarma wrote.
He also highlighted that if reports of collaboration were true, “it implies that Jio, Airtel and StarLink will together form a cartel to dominate satellite spectrum use at the cost of millions of telecom customers in India, in outright violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the 2G spectrum case.”
Read the full letter below:
To
Dr. Neeraj Mittal
Secretary
Dept of Telecommunications (DOT)
Govt of India
Dear Dr Mittal,
I refer to my letter of 23rd February 2025 pointing out that, in view of the latest reports about the US threatening to “shut off” StarLink in Ukraine, unless Ukraine allows a lion’s share in its mineral resources in favour of the US, your Department should tighten safeguards against StarLink.
In my letter of 19th December 2024 addressed to the Cabinet Secretary (https://countercurrents.org/2024/12/satellite-spectrum-should-be-exclusively-reserved-for-strategic-uses-do-not-compromise-national-security-to-accommodate-foreign-telecom-players/) and in my earlier correspondence with your Department (https://countercurrents.org/2024/11/reserve-satellite-spectrum-for-isro-defence-applications-imprudent-and-illegal-to-allot-it-to-elon-musks-starlink/),
I had proposed that satellite spectrum be reserved for defence and other stratehgic uses in India.
I am surprised that DOT should go out of the way to accommodate Elon Musk’s StarLink by allotting it strategic satellite spectrum, in outright violation of the Supreme Court’s stipulation that it should be allotted only through a transparent auction process.
Moreover, StarLink is known to work in close collaboration with the US defence services and it will gain an undue strategic advantage in the Indian skies, if India allots satellite spectrum to it.
While the DOT, evidently for extraneous reasons, has chosen to ignore these serious public concerns, the latest reports (https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/airtel-starlink-jio-starlink-partnership-airtel-and-jios-agreements-and-disagreements-with-elon-musk-starlink-ambani-11741752470119.html) suggest that the two domestic telecom operators,namely, Jio and Airtel, who in the past had appropriated domestic 5G spectrum without any competition worth its name, have since entered into agreements with Elon Musk’s StarLink to offer Starlink’s broadband and other internet services to its customers in India.
If this is true, it implies that Jio, Airtel and StarLink will together form a cartel to dominate satellite spectrum use at the cost of millions of telecom customers in India, in outright violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the 2G spectrum case.
How is it being permitted by DOT and TRAI?
I understand that StarLink has demanded that DOT should relax some security clauses in the license being given to it for satellite spectrum use. If it is so, it is detrimental to the national interest.If DOT allows such a regressive cartelisation to materialise, I am afraid that it is wading into a scam far worse and more egregious than the 2G spectrum scam of the earlier UPA days!
It is unfortunate that the DOT, perhaps fully supported by the political leadership at the Centre, should allow a cartel of domestic and overseas telecom operators to appropriate highly strategic satellite spectrum, permitting them to compromise the interests of millions of mobile and broadband users in the country.
I demand that the DOT review its decision to permit StarLink to appropriate satellite spectrum, stop its machinations to form a cartel with domestic telecom operators and allot satellite spectrum exclusively for strategic uses such by defence services and ISRO.
Yours sincerely,
E A S Sarma
Former Secretary to the Government of India
Visakhapatnam
Courtesy: Countercurrents.org
No comments:
Post a Comment