Why America’s Billionaires May Regret Their Embrace of Trump’s Authoritarianism

In a striking shift from their traditionally liberal affiliations, many of America’s most powerful tech titans and business magnates are now backing Donald Trump. From donations to public endorsements, figures like Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, and other billionaires are aligning with an administration that is increasingly authoritarian in tone and agenda. While these moves may appear to be strategic efforts to protect business interests and wealth, history suggests this embrace of power could come at a high cost.

With Trump’s return to office, America appears to be drifting toward an oligarchic model where extreme wealth and extreme power are merging. This fusion promises short-term gains for the billionaire class—through deregulation, tax breaks, and diminished oversight—but risks long-term consequences for democracy and for the oligarchs themselves.

A Cautionary Tale from Russia

The scenario bears an eerie resemblance to Russia’s evolution in the 1990s. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, a small group of businessmen rose to extraordinary power by aligning themselves with Boris Yeltsin’s government. These so-called oligarchs—figures like Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Vladimir Gusinsky—secured stakes in key industries through insider deals and privatizations. While they enjoyed immense wealth and influence, their fortunes changed quickly with the rise of Vladimir Putin.

Initially seen as a loyal bureaucrat, Putin soon flipped the script. Just months into his presidency, he began arresting, exiling, or imprisoning the very oligarchs who had helped elevate him to power. Media assets were seized, political dissent was punished, and state control was reasserted over key economic sectors. The message was clear: wealth was tolerated only under complete loyalty—and silence.

Parallels in the U.S.

Though America is far from Russia in its institutions and values, there are unsettling echoes. Trump has signaled disdain for institutional checks and balances, hinted at a third term, and promoted loyalty over competence. Critics point to his attacks on civil servants, his reshaping of regulatory bodies, and his willingness to use federal power to punish opponents and reward allies.

Billionaires like Musk, who style themselves as independent thinkers, have increasingly used their platforms and wealth to influence political discourse. Some have embraced libertarian ideals, pushing for reduced government oversight and greater privatization. But the very system they are helping to dismantle—the courts, the free press, independent agencies—is the same system that once protected their right to challenge authority.

Short-Term Gains, Long-Term Risks

Trump’s policies may temporarily benefit the elite: less regulation, fewer corporate taxes, and a weakened labor force. But if America follows a more authoritarian trajectory, those same billionaires could find themselves at the mercy of a president with unchecked power. In Russia, oligarchs who stepped out of line—financially or politically—met swift retaliation. Some lost fortunes. Others lost their freedom—or their lives.

Already, the chilling effects of authoritarian influence are being felt in America. From proposed restrictions on protest and speech to aggressive use of executive power, the warning signs are clear. History suggests that when the rule of law is eroded, no one—no matter how wealthy or powerful—is safe from arbitrary justice.

The Cost of Obedience

The U.S. remains a democracy, for now. Its institutions are strong, its civil society active, and its Constitution still holds weight. But that resilience is not guaranteed. As Trump’s grip tightens and his billionaire backers cheer him on, they may be laying the groundwork for a system that ultimately turns against them.

As history has shown, authoritarian regimes often turn on their own supporters when power becomes absolute. America’s billionaires would be wise to consider the long-term risks of enabling unchecked authority. Safeguarding democratic institutions is not just a civic duty—it’s a matter of self-preservation.