The Tech Oligarchy Shaping A New World Order
How Tech Billionaires Are Carving Up Global Power
Introduction: The World’s New Ruling Class Is Slipping Out of View
On a recent afternoon in Miami, a Gulfstream jet descended toward the private terminal at Opa-locka. The passengers never entered the main airport. A waiting helicopter lifted them directly to a rooftop helipad on a luxury tower, where a private elevator opened into a penthouse with its own sky garage. One of their cars, stored there permanently as part of the building’s sealed circulation system, sat parked beside the living room, forty floors above the street. Their entire journey occurred inside private infrastructure. Their feet never touched public ground.¹
This is not a lifestyle observation. It is a structural one.
A small cohort of billionaires, and in particular the tech billionaires whose platforms, datasets, and infrastructure now permeate governments worldwide, has exited the physical and civic world the rest of society inhabits. They move through a parallel architecture of private terminals, rooftop access points, fortified compounds, encrypted channels, and algorithmically curated information environments. Daily life involves almost no uncontrolled interaction with public spaces.
Yet this same group now plays an outsized role in shaping national policy, global AI development, defense technology, and geopolitical alignment. Their companies sit deep inside government systems. Their platforms mediate political discourse. Their capital influences which technologies, and which threats, rise to the top of Washington’s agenda. Public and private institutions rely on their tools even as those tools erode the boundaries between private power and state function.
The contradiction is already visible. The more power they accumulate, the more aware they become of how unstable the systems beneath them are - not least because they are helping to dismantle long-standing institutional and geopolitical structures. That visibility produces a distinctive form of paranoia: the conviction that only they can see what is coming, only they can respond quickly enough, and only their version of the future is safe.
A second dynamic deepens the problem. The organizational structures around these figures (executive teams selected for alignment, advisory boards that validate existing views, and social circles that rarely introduce dissent) tend to reinforce existing convictions about exceptionalism and inevitability. If one is told for decades that one sees further, moves faster, and understands more than anyone else, it becomes unthinkable to imagine living under someone else’s design for society. The world becomes binary: either you shape the future, or someone else’s version will shape you.
This paper traces how this mindset evolved, how it consolidated into political and geopolitical power, and why the struggle for power within this small ruling cohort now poses a systemic risk far larger than any single company, technology, or personality.
Convergence: The Shared Operating System of the Tech Elite
The most striking feature of today’s tech billionaires is how closely their near-term incentives align. They do not share a philosophical worldview, but they do share the same dependency chain for power. Their business models, political ambitions, and geopolitical aspirations all require the same ingredients. As a result, they move in parallel even as they compete with one another for dominance.
The first common priority is regulatory avoidance. This applies far beyond the United States. Silicon Valley firms have pressured Washington to weaken or reverse European regulatory frameworks, including the EU AI Act and digital competition rules, and have encouraged the use of tariffs and security threats to push allies toward a lighter-touch approach.2 They understand that escaping constraint at home is insufficient if major markets abroad impose restrictions that limit global reach or force them to open their models.
The second shared priority is access to data at planetary scale. This is not limited to consumer metadata. It includes government-held datasets, industrial data, mobility data, and data flowing through cloud and workplace platforms. Despite GDPR, European datasets are still accessible to American authorities through the Cloud Act whenever there is an American provider in the tech stack.3 Companies such as Meta have reinforced this advantage through major investments in firms like Scale AI, acquiring significant stakes in companies that provide the labeling, cleaning, and integration pipelines required to industrialize model training.4 The competition for data has become a contest for strategic positioning: the more a company knows about a population, government or industry, the more leverage it has over markets and political systems.
The third point of convergence is the strategy of embedding their infrastructure directly into governments around the world. This is the Trojan horse. American cloud providers host the majority of public-sector workloads across Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.5 AI firms are now embedding their models, agents, consultants, and training programs inside ministerial and regulatory bodies. Palantir supplies analytics to border security agencies, health ministries, defense departments, and police forces in multiple jurisdictions.6 Once embedded, these systems become operational dependencies. Governments lose the capability to run core functions without them, while simultaneously sharing a treasure trove of data with these tech titans.
Fourth, they align around a geopolitical frame in which technological supremacy determines national survival. China is the most visible example, but not the only one. Conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the Pacific region have all been used to justify accelerated AI, surveillance, and defense-platform spending. At a recent AI summit convened by President Trump, tech leaders openly framed AI as the decisive battleground of global power, and emphasized the need to outpace both rivals and allies.7
Fifth, and closely related, is the AI–defense–capital flywheel. Rising AI valuations increase political influence. Political influence generates defense and military contracts. Defense contracts fund the infrastructure required to train larger models. The infrastructure reinforces AI dominance. This loop merges public and private incentives in ways that benefit the companies at the center and concentrate power in their hands.
The final shared priority is access to ever-larger pools of capital. Their visions require trillions of dollars. When Sam Altman publicly estimated that advanced AI infrastructure could require several trillion dollars of investment, it signaled to his peers that capital scarcity would determine the winners and losers of the next decade.8 Each new announcement of a multibillion-dollar investment forces rivals to call in favors, raise new rounds, or partner more aggressively with sovereigns and defense agencies. The competition for capital becomes a competition for geopolitical relevance.
These convergences explain why the tech elite appears unified at the tactical level. They cooperate when it strengthens all players’ positions. The divergence appears only when they begin to pursue incompatible endgames.
The Feedback Loop: Power Accumulation, Systemic Strain, and Exit Planning
The tech elite is not setting out to destabilize society. Their goal is power. Yet the methods they use to increase that power often require dismantling the institutional, regulatory, and geopolitical structures that once provided stability. As those structures weaken, the environment becomes more unpredictable, and the consequences of their own actions become harder to contain. This is the ouroboros dynamic: they feed on the system and then fear what the system becomes.
The clearest expression of this dynamic is their investment in escape routes.9 These range from fortified compounds to island-scale refuges to interplanetary ambitions. Peter Thiel obtained New Zealand citizenship after spending only twelve days in the country, bypassing ordinary residency requirements, and purchased land in a remote region of Lake Wanaka that local reporting described as a high-security retreat. Sam Altman has publicly acknowledged keeping weapons, potassium iodide, medical supplies, and an evacuation plan that includes traveling to New Zealand with another billionaire in the event of severe civil unrest or a catastrophic bio-event.¹⁰ Mark Zuckerberg has constructed a vast, heavily protected compound on Kauai that includes large underground structures, multiple security layers, and extensive perimeter control.¹¹ Larry Ellison’s near-total ownership of the Hawaiian island of Lanai functions as a self-contained operating environment, complete with secure infrastructure, private policing, and island-wide control over utilities and development.¹²
These preparations intensify at the same time their actions amplify systemic instability. Elon Musk’s restructuring of the federal workforce through the DOGE program disrupted core government functions and triggered widespread confusion across multiple agencies.¹³ Reporting indicates that the program also resulted in significant leakage of sensitive data, including information from departments that were previously ring fenced.¹⁴ Musk treated this disruption as a necessary break in the old order, but others saw it as an example of how concentrated private power can generate unpredictable public consequences.
Larry Ellison, by contrast, has pursued influence by acquiring significant digital and physical infrastructure. Oracle has become a cornerstone of federal and state cloud systems,¹⁵ His path to power does not involve demolishing institutions. It involves quietly absorbing the systems they depend on.
These examples are not isolated. They highlight a broader pattern. Each titan is pursuing influence through a different mechanism, whether through platforms, data, cloud infrastructure, defense technology, or political patronage. Their actions often collide unintentionally, like particles in a stochastic system, producing aggregate effects far more destabilizing than any single strategy would achieve alone. And because each understands, at some level, that the system is becoming more fragile, they invest ever more in the infrastructure of retreat.
In the background, the most extreme version of this dynamic is Musk’s insistence that humanity must become a multi-planetary species. His Mars ambitions are framed as a civilizational safeguard, but they also function as the ultimate exit from a world he believes may be irreparably compromised. Whether realistic or not, the existence of this plan underscores the logic that runs through the entire cohort: if the world becomes ungovernable, the solution is not to repair it, but to escape it.
This destabilization does not require intent or conspiracy. Each actor makes individually rational decisions to maximize their leverage, secure their infrastructure, and protect their interests. But when multiple actors simultaneously pursue these strategies at scale, the aggregate effect weakens the institutional and regulatory structures that provided stability. They are not trying to break the system: they are optimizing within it. The brittleness emerges as an unintended consequence of concentrated power pursuing divergent goals through the same institutions.
This is the ouroboros. Power requires breaking the existing order. Breaking the order fuels instability. Instability fuels fear. Fear fuels escape planning. And escape planning hardens the belief that the existing system is unfixable. The loop reinforces itself, one decision at a time.
Divergence: Power Competition at the Top of the System
The apparent unity of the tech elite dissolves as soon as these tactical objectives are met. Once regulatory pressure, data acquisition, government embedding, and geopolitical alignment are secured, what emerges is not a coherent class but a fractured cohort pursuing incompatible endgames. Each has a distinct civilizational blueprint, and each is surrounded by teams that reinforce his sense of exceptional insight and historical importance. Cooperation exists only where incentives temporarily overlap. Strategy, however, diverges sharply.
Larry Ellison is building a data and influence empire anchored in institutional dependence. Oracle has become a critical component of federal and state cloud infrastructure, including defense, intelligence, healthcare, and emergency response systems.¹5 Ellison supplements this with political and intellectual influence: major contributions to policy institutions, advisory networks across the United States and the United Kingdom, and financial backing for entities shaping public discourse.¹6 His power comes from integration. The deeper his systems sit inside the state, the more leverage he holds over how those systems evolve.
Elon Musk operates from a different theory of power. His empire combines global communications, social media, launch vehicles, energy systems, and satellite infrastructure.¹7 Starlink has become indispensable in several conflict zones, including Ukraine, where its connectivity decisions affect real military outcomes.¹8 Musk’s influence comes not from integration but from indispensability. States depend on him for battlefield communications, space access, and digital distribution. That dependence gives him unilateral leverage unmatched by any private actor in modern history.
Peter Thiel represents yet another divergence. He has spent two decades cultivating a network that blends venture capital, defense technology, ideological movements, and political influence.19 His companies operate deep inside intelligence, border protection, and predictive analytics, giving him visibility into some of the most sensitive corners of government.²0 Thiel’s divergence is anchored in worldview. He has long argued that democratic constraints limit technological progress and that alternative governance models should be taken seriously. His strategy is not simply commercial or geopolitical. It is governmental.
Sam Altman’s divergence is shaped by scale. By positioning OpenAI at the center of global AI development, he has created dependencies that span consumers, industry, government, and academia.²1 His push for massive investment in compute and fabrication, and his positioning of OpenAI as a default supplier of frontier AI capabilities, has triggered a race among sovereigns, investors, and corporations. Altman’s divergence lies in centralization. His goal is to build an AI ecosystem so essential that it becomes the substrate for every other actor’s plans, with OpenAI at the center of this ecosystem.
Mark Zuckerberg remains a significant competitor because Meta controls one of the largest behavioral datasets on earth. Internal documents have repeatedly shown that the company has maintained engagement even when aware of harm to users.22 Although he has lost ground in the newest wave of AI investment, his control over global communication channels still gives him extraordinary influence over information exposure, narrative flows, and political sentiment.
These strategies do not coexist easily. Ellison’s integrated public-private empire collides with Musk’s preference for unilateral control. Thiel’s ideological projects clash with Altman’s centralizing instincts. Zuckerberg’s platforms intersect with all of them, amplifying or weakening their narratives depending on algorithmic choices. Each believes his vision is the rational one. Each is surrounded by loyalists who reinforce that belief. And each sees the others as obstacles to the future he intends to build.
The outcome is not a coordinated elite. It is a set of competing warlords, each armed with unprecedented financial resources, political access, technological leverage, and global reach. Their rivalry creates instability that cascades through markets, governments, and societies. Citizens, institutions, and even nations are not participants in this contest. They are pawns.
Exceptionalism and the Closed Cognitive Loop
The divergence at the top is not only strategic. It is psychological. The tech elite operates inside a closed social and ideological loop that reinforces exceptionalism and weakens their connection to the societies they influence. This mindset is not incidental. It is one of the forces intensifying the competition among them.
A key component of this worldview is the producer–parasite hierarchy popularized by Ayn Rand. Her framing casts a small group of superior individuals as society’s indispensable creators and positions everyone else as impediments who slow progress or demand resources without contributing. This hierarchy has long been embedded in Silicon Valley culture and has been openly endorsed by several founders and investors.²3 The logic is straightforward: if you believe you are the engine of human advancement, it becomes easy to justify extraordinary power and to dismiss constraints placed on that power.
This logic is intensified by deep social insulation. The tech elite tends to live in the same neighborhoods, send their children to the same schools, and circulate within networks that rarely expose them to dissent. Their lives are buffered by private security, sealed transportation, and curated digital environments built to filter noise. Over time, the absence of friction produces a shift in perception. Their intuition becomes the standard of truth, and signals from the outside world lose credibility.
Larry Ellison represents a distinct version of this worldview. Ellison has argued publicly that safety requires the surveillance and biometric identification of every person, with the state and its private partners holding comprehensive, real-time data on individuals.²4 He has advocated for a unified national database that consolidates identities and behaviors and has linked this system directly to Oracle’s vision of national security.²5 Ellison does not frame this ideology as subversive. He frames it as rational. In his view, total visibility produces total safety. Yet this visibility is not intended to apply to him. His advocacy reinforces a broader pattern: the elite are exempt from the systems they build for everyone else.
Peter Thiel’s version of this worldview is different. Thiel has challenged the viability of democratic governance and has argued that technological acceleration is incompatible with political constraint.²6 His investments in surveillance infrastructure serve an ideological project in which technology companies play governing roles and traditional institutions are weakened or replaced. Unlike Ellison, Thiel does not frame surveillance in terms of public safety. He frames it as a tool that enables alternative power structures, free from democratic oversight.
These worldviews are strengthened by personal histories. Several members of this cohort have publicly discussed formative experiences of feeling like outsiders or underdogs, experiences that appear to have fueled decades of ambition to become singular, exceptional, or visionary. Their successes reinforced this narrative. Capital amplified it. Flatterers hardened it. Over time, the belief that they alone see clearly and that they alone should set the rules becomes part of their identity.
This is not simply a psychological pattern. It is a geopolitical force. When a small ruling cohort believes it is uniquely capable, morally superior, and existentially threatened by rival elites, it competes more aggressively, seeks more control, and treats the rest of society as an input rather than a constituency. That worldview now shapes decisions that affect billions of people across regions far beyond the United States.
Fragmented Sovereignty: How Tech Oligarchs and Their Ecosystems Carve Up the State
The modern state is no longer a unified sovereign actor. It is becoming an arena in which competing tech oligarchs and their ecosystems embed their infrastructures, incentives, and worldviews into government systems. These individuals are not supplying neutral technology. They are inserting the architectures of their empires into the core functions of governance, each carving out domains that reflect their own strategic interests and ideological assumptions.
Their methods differ. Ellison seeks control through dependency. Musk seeks it through indispensability. Thiel seeks it through alternative governance models. Altman seeks it through codependence and centralization. Zuckerberg seeks it through behavioral architecture. Each of these strategies has already been embedded into public institutions in different ways, turning the state into a patchwork of competing logics rather than a coherent system governed by a single public mandate.
This produces fragmentation rather than consolidation. Government operations begin to reflect the priorities of the oligarch whose systems they rely on. Identity frameworks echo Ellison’s surveillance logic, reinforced by the Oracle-controlled infrastructure that underpins critical government systems across the United States and abroad. Threat classifications mirror Thiel’s predictive worldview, propagated through intelligence and border-analysis platforms governments cannot easily dislodge. Communications, launch capability, and space access depend increasingly on Musk’s companies, whose infrastructure now underpins key elements of national security. Interpretive layers inside bureaucracies reflect Altman’s probabilistic models, which are becoming embedded in agency workflows. Civic exposure and public sentiment continue to be shaped by Zuckerberg’s platforms, despite internal findings on social harm. These competing infrastructures pull public institutions in incompatible directions because they embody the conflicting priorities of their creators.
None of these oligarchs act alone. Each sits at the center of an ecosystem that magnifies his power. Ellison’s includes Oracle, political networks, and the policy institutions he funds. Musk commands a constellation of companies, engineers, influencers, and a vast digital following. Thiel directs a disciplined network of founders, venture funds, ideological circles, and defense ventures. Altman’s influence flows through AI labs, investors, and industry partners built around OpenAI’s trajectory. Zuckerberg guides a platform complex whose subsidiaries and research groups shape global information flows. These ecosystems move as coordinated blocs, extending each billionaire’s reach far beyond any single firm.
The fragmentation is global, not national. European governments depend on Ellison-aligned cloud systems.²7 Middle Eastern ministries run key functions on platforms controlled by American oligarchs and their networks. The Indo-Pacific and Eastern Europe rely on Musk’s companies for space access and wartime communications.28 African and Latin American governments use analytics, identity frameworks, and civic platforms shaped by Thiel-, Altman, and Zuckerberg-aligned ecosystems.29 Across continents, public institutions now operate on architectures influenced by the incentives and worldviews of a small cluster of American tech oligarchs.30
The TikTok case reveals how these actors police territorial boundaries. TikTok was allowed to operate in the United States only on the condition that its data, algorithms, and operational controls be subordinated to Oracle’s oversight. Rival ecosystems, including Zuckerberg’s, lobbied aggressively to constrain its access. The message was clear. Participation in the system requires deference to the domains already carved out by entrenched tech empires. Any entity, especially a foreign one, that encroaches on those domains is forced to align or be excluded.
This pattern has historical echoes. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin’s weakness allowed competing oligarchs to carve the state into private fiefdoms. A similar dynamic is emerging today, but within the world’s most powerful democracy and across global networks of governance rather than domestic industries.
All of these figures understand that fragmentation cannot last indefinitely. Each is building beachheads inside public institutions while avoiding open conflict with the others until they can secure a decisive advantage. The underlying logic is zero sum. Either you dominate or you are subordinated. Either your worldview becomes embedded in the state or you are forced to operate under someone else’s. The state becomes the terrain on which this contest unfolds. Sovereignty erodes not through a single collapse, but through the silent accumulation of incompatible private infrastructures and ecosystems that now shape how nations see, decide, and act.
Washington as the Chessboard: Tech Concentration and State Capture
The political realignment underway in Washington is not a subplot. It is the fulcrum that connects domestic oligarchic influence to global power projection. The tech elite has not simply drifted into politics. They have become the decisive donor class for both parties, shifting the center of gravity in American policymaking. Bipartisan donor data now shows a migration of capital away from traditional industries and toward Silicon Valley and the investors who orbit them.³1 Once the Democrats’ greatest financial engine, tech money now moves fluidly across party lines, reshaping alliances, priorities, and access.
Trump’s political resurgence accelerated this shift. His administration relies heavily on a constellation of Silicon Valley elites who see him as a vehicle for deregulation, geopolitical confrontation, and the consolidation of domestic influence.³2 He, in turn, sees them as the only group capable of delivering the capital, technology, and narrative power necessary to sustain his agenda. This is not ideological alignment. It is strategic alignment. They offer him unprecedented leverage over information flows, surveillance tools, and AI-enabled influence. He offers them freedom to operate without constraint.
Crypto PACs form a second pillar of this realignment. Flush with capital and backed by the same billionaires reshaping the AI landscape, they have become one of the most aggressive political forces in the country.³3 They punish regulators who challenge them, reward those who fall in line, and shape legislation through targeted electoral pressure. Their influence extends beyond financial regulation. Crypto money now funds campaigns that determine national stances on AI, data governance, export controls, and security posture.
CEOs are increasingly shaping national security doctrine directly. Figures like Musk, Thiel, Altman, and Ellison brief senior officials, advise on geopolitical threats, and frame the strategic stakes of U.S. rivalry with China.34 Their interpretations of risk now influence how Washington allocates defense funds, prioritizes alliances, and evaluates escalation thresholds.34 When private citizens define national threats, national strategy becomes inseparable from their worldviews.
The AI bubble strengthens this influence. Washington treats AI supremacy as both an economic and geopolitical imperative. The tech elite uses this urgency to secure favorable treatment, carveouts, and investment commitments.36 Every dollar poured into the AI race strengthens the oligarchs’ control over infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and national priorities. In Washington, the AI race is both a justification and a bargaining chip.
The result is an administration thick with tech insiders. Silicon Valley figures now staff advisory boards, task forces, and strategic working groups across defense, intelligence, and industrial policy.37 These are not marginal appointments. They are the channels through which private incentives flow into public decision-making. When founders, venture capitalists, and crypto financiers shape federal policy from within the system, the line between national interest and private interest collapses.
This influence also alters America’s approach to the world. Washington has become increasingly willing to break long-standing norms on tariffs, sanctions, and diplomatic conduct because the tech giants empower it to do so.38 Access to surveillance capabilities, data monopolies, satellite networks, and generative AI gives the United States unprecedented leverage over allies and adversaries. With this leverage comes a more aggressive form of statecraft: coercive alignment, forced concessions, and transactional diplomacy built around control of technology rather than shared democratic values.
This is the moment when domestic oligarchy and global power projection converge. The same billionaires carving up public institutions at home are shaping the geopolitical order abroad. Washington has become their chessboard. The stakes, increasingly, are not national competitiveness. They are control over the future architecture of global governance.
Conclusion: A World Shaped by Private Power and Public Blindness
The argument running through this paper has been simple: a small cluster of tech oligarchs now exercise decisive influence over the institutions, infrastructures, and geopolitical systems that shape the modern world. Their power flows not only from platforms or technologies but from the worldviews, incentives, and rivalries embedded in the empires they command. The danger is not artificial intelligence or any other tool. The danger is the concentration of global influence in the hands of individuals whose relationship to reality has drifted far from the people and institutions they now direct.
Across the preceding sections, a pattern emerges. Their insulated lifestyles create distance. Their ideological frameworks justify exceptionalism. Their competing strategies fracture the state. Their embedded infrastructures reshape public institutions and democratic accountability. Their political capture aligns national priorities with private ambitions. These forces do not operate independently. They reinforce one another. Together, they produce a system in which the gravitational center of power is shifting from public authority toward private empires.
This shift does not stop at national borders. The oligarchs use the United States as a staging ground, but the terrain of competition is global. European ministries rely on their cloud systems. Middle Eastern and Asian governments run critical operations on their platforms. African and Latin American institutions depend on their analytical tools, communications networks, and civic information channels. As their infrastructures spread across continents, their worldviews travel with them. Nations increasingly navigate not only American statecraft but the private directions and incentives of the individuals who control the technologies that underpin it – undermining domestic sovereignty.
The deeper risk sits beneath the surface. When public institutions become dependent on private architectures, and when those architectures reflect the assumptions of insulated elites, the system becomes vulnerable to elite misperception. History shows that when ruling classes detach from reality, they do not simply misjudge conditions. They misjudge the trajectory of the entire society. Versailles, the Russian aristocracy, and the Roman elite all collapsed not because their worlds were too small, but because their distance from reality made them blind to the pressures building around them.
We are moving toward a similar inflection point. A world in which geopolitical alignments, national security posture, public governance, and civic life are shaped by competing private empires is a world that cannot rely on stable incentives or coherent strategy. The trajectories now visible point toward consolidation by one or two dominant actors, or toward a fragmented global system in which public institutions lack the capacity to manage crises generated by private competition. Neither path offers stability.
The core warning is clear. Artificial intelligence is not the existential risk. The technologies themselves are not the threat. The real danger is a ruling class in epistemic free fall directing the most powerful tools ever created, backed by massive amounts of financial, economic and political capital. A political economy that outsources strategic direction to insulated private actors invites systemic miscalculation at a scale no society has experienced before.
What happens next depends on whether public institutions can reclaim coherence and sovereignty, or whether the future will be shaped by the expanding ambitions of individuals who increasingly treat the world as a contest of private visions. The stakes are no longer technological. They are civilizational.
Endnotes
The Wall Street Journal, “The Ultrarich Are Spending a Fortune to Live in Extreme Privacy,” November 2025, https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/travel/the-ultrarich-are-spending-a-fortune-to-live-in-extreme-privacy-3f400e55
The Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Says Europe’s Tech Rules Are a Trade Barrier,” April 2025, https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-tariffs-trade-war-stock-market-04-02-2025/card/u-s-says-europe-s-tech-rules-are-a-trade-barrier-CN7lcNSYycXTKcbyXgY1
Lexology, “Use of US Cloud Providers under the Trump Administration,” April 2025, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=485a768a-1d6e-4c59-8d86-f140cbd0b149
Reuters, “Meta poaches 28-year-old Scale AI CEO after taking multibillion dollar stake in startup,” June 13 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/meta-finalizes-investment-scale-ai-valuing-startup-29-billion-2025-06-13/
Substack (DR Foresight), “Techno-Colonialism and the Trojan Horse,” June 2025, https://drforesight.substack.com/p/techno-colonialism-and-the-trojan?r=5t7jro
Financial Content, “Palantir’s Global Expansion: Can the Growth Continue?”, July 2025, https://www.financialcontent.com/article/marketminute-2025-7-10-palantirs-global-expansion-can-the-growth-continue
Techcrunch, “Trump’s AI strategy trades guardrails for growth in race against China,” July 2025, https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/23/trumps-ai-strategy-trades-guardrails-for-growth-in-race-against-china/
CNBC, “OpenAI CEO Sam Altman seeks as much as $7 trillion for new AI chip project: Report,” February 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/09/openai-ceo-sam-altman-reportedly-seeking-trillions-of-dollars-for-ai-chip-project.html
The New Yorker, “Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich” January 2017, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich
The New York Post, “Sam Altman — who warned AI poses ‘risk of extinction’ to humanity — is also a ‘doomsday prepper,” June 2023, https://nypost.com/2023/06/05/sam-altman-who-warned-ai-poses-risk-of-extinction-to-humanity-is-also-a-doomsday-prepper/
Wired, “ Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Top-Secret Hawaii Compound,” December 2023, https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-inside-hawaii-compound/
Pressfarm,”Life on Larry Ellison’s Hawaiian Island: Lanai,” October 2025, https://press.farm/life-on-larry-ellisons-hawaiian-island-lanai/
Time, “What DOGE Is Doing Across the Federal Government,” February 2025, https://time.com/7222251/doge-musk-federal-workers-government/
Techcrunch, “The biggest breach of US government data is under way,” February 2025, https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/07/doge-biggest-breach-of-united-states-government-data-under-way/
Cloudcurated, “How Is Oracle Transforming Cloud Services for U.S. Federal Agencies?,” April 2025, https://cloudcurated.com/cloud-providers/how-is-oracle-transforming-cloud-services-for-u-s-federal-agencies/
New Statesman, “Inside the Tony Blair Institute,” September 2025, https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/09/inside-the-tony-blair-institute
Wired, “Mapping Elon Musk’s Global Empire,” January 2025, https://www.wired.com/story/mapping-elon-musk-global-empire/
Reuters, “Musk ordered shutdown of Starlink satellite service as Ukraine retook territory from Russia,” July 2025, https://www.reuters.com/investigations/musk-ordered-shutdown-starlink-satellite-service-ukraine-retook-territory-russia-2025-07-25/
The Guardian, “The gospel according to Peter Thiel: why the tech svengali is obsessed with the antichrist,” October 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/13/peter-thiel-the-antichrist-and-why-the-world-should-listen
Global Economic Review, “ Palantir’s Global Governmental Reach: A Comprehensive Analysis,” July 2025, https://globaleconomicreview.com/palantirs-global-governmental-reach-a-comprehensive-analysis/
Reuters, “ Altman touts trillion-dollar AI vision as OpenAI restructures to chase scale,” October 2025, https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/land-use-biodiversity/altman-touts-trillion-dollar-ai-vision-openai-restructures-chase-scale-2025-10-29/
Reuters, “Meta buried ‘causal’ evidence of social media harm, US court filings allege,’November 2025, https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/meta-buried-causal-evidence-social-media-harm-us-court-filings-allege-2025-11-23/
Politico, “ A laser eye on Silicon Valley’s weird new politics,” January 2024, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2024/01/30/a-laser-eye-on-silicon-valleys-weird-new-politics-00138636
Fortune, “ Larry Ellison once predicted ‘citizens will be on their best behavior’ amid constant recording. Now his company will pay a key role in social media,” September 2025, https://fortune.com/2025/09/28/larry-ellison-ai-surveillance-oracle-tiktok-deal-social-media/
Fortune, “ Larry Ellison wants the U.S. to ‘unify all the national data’ and then feed it to AI,” February 2025, https://fortune.com/2025/02/14/larry-ellison-ai-centralized-database-citizen-data/
The Atlantic, “ Peter Thiel Is Taking a Break From Democracy,” November 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/11/peter-thiel-2024-election-politics-investing-life-views/675946/
Oracle, “European Commission Selects Oracle Cloud Infrastructure”, October 2023, https://www.oracle.com/europe/news/announcement/european-commission-selects-oracle-cloud-infrastructure-2023-10-30/
Modern Diplomacy, “Elon Musk’s Influence on Asian Satellite Development: South Korea and Indonesia,” January 2025, https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/01/02/elon-musks-influence-on-asian-satellite-development-south-korea-and-indonesia/
Atlantic Council, “Why US technology multinationals are looking to Africa for AI and other emerging technologies: Scaling tropical-tolerant R&D innovations,” April 2023, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/geotech-cues/why-us-technology-multinationals-are-looking-to-africa-for-ai-and-other-emerging-technologies/
Talk Markets, “ The Invisible Hand: How Big Tech Shapes Global Policy and Governance,” November 2025, https://markets.financialcontent.com/talkmarkets/article/tokenring-2025-11-19-the-invisible-hand-how-big-tech-shapes-global-policy-and-governance
Fortune, “ From Elon Musk to Reid Hoffman, where Silicon Valley is spending its millions in political donations, charted,” September 2024, https://fortune.com/2024/09/25/silicon-valley-political-donations-elon-musk-peter-thiel-reid-hoffman/
AP News, “ Trump’s new AI plan leans heavily on Silicon Valley industry ideas,” July 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-ai-artificial-intelligence-3763ca207561a3fe8b35327f9ce7ca73
CNBC, “ Crypto industry super PAC is 33-2 in primaries, with $100 million for House, Senate races,” June 2024, https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/26/crypto-pac-house-senate-elections.html
Georgetown Journal of International affairs, “A Playbook for Winning the AI Race: Compete, Counter, Cooperate,” November 2025, https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2025/11/18/a-playbook-for-winning-the-ai-race-compete-counter-cooperate/
Responsible Statecraft, “Booming tech sector wants govt intervention for ‘national security’,” November 2025, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/national-security-tech/
Financial Times, “Beware America’s AI colonialism ,” August 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/80bc0d67-faaf-4373-ad18-db15da721054
New York times, “ Silicon Valley Heads to Washington,” December 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/23/business/dealbook/silicon-valley-trump-administration.html
Politico, “ EU readies counterstrike on Big Tech and US banks over Trump’s mega tariffs,” March 2025, https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-tariffs-counter-strike-big-tech-us-banks-donald-trump/