When discussing the influence of capital in the political landscape, it is by no means a recent phenomenon. Claims of the United States being or transitioning into an oligarchy have been pervasive for decades. However, the second term of President Trump ushered in a new dynamic, redirecting the focus towards the more intangible power of attention than tangible financial resources. It was rather remarkable to observe how Trump’s highly esteemed inauguration privileged the representatives of digital platforms, the barons of online attention, compared to his numerous billionaire supporters.
The coveted positions were occupied by the frontrunners of major digital platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, Amazon, and Google. This seemed to depict Trump’s keen interest in harnessing the power of these platforms. The common assumption in Washington is that powerful entities see value and potential gains in spending their financial resources on lobbying and fundraising which is certainly valid, but Trump’s approach added a new twist.
The pervasiveness of corruption in American politics — supported by Supreme Court rulings that equate money with free speech and by Republican congressmen resisting even modest campaign finance reforms — unfortunately, is no longer surprising. Still, there exist limitations and tracking mechanisms pertaining to the financial influence in politics. Intriguingly, the emergent arena of attention politics lacks such regulations.
Consider the hypothetical scenario of Trump facilitating the survival of TikTok, which in turn, may promote content favoring Trump in the 2026 elections by virtue of its algorithm, influencing its popularity. It brings a whole new challenge – can it be deemed illegal? And even trickier – would we be cognizant of this symbiotic relationship?
Now, extend this situation to Elon Musk adjusting X’s strategy to potentially steer the discourse towards the Republican party in the 2028 elections. Absent clear regulations, who possesses the authority to challenge such actions? Undeniably, attention has evolved into the new propellant of American politics.
In 2022, Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter for $44 billion, though initially seen as an exorbitant price, later unraveled a different aspect. If assessed purely in monetary terms, it was an overpriced deal, considering X’s monetary profits. However, the real value surfaces once we consider Musk’s substantial attention leverage attained from this move.
From an attention economy perspective, purchasing Twitter elevated Musk’s status to such an extent that he became arguably the most influential figure globally, only second possibly to Trump. But how does one quantify the worth of such vast attention?
This scenario isn’t merely about corruption; it is about merging wealth and governance – a definition of oligarchy. Musk’s aims go beyond just securing favorable contracts or soliciting benefits; he is fundamentally after influence and a prominent role in the discourse. His offer to Trump is a fusion of both financial resources and a robust attention platform.
Evidently, Trump has been more than willing to engage in this exchange so far. Historically, leaders have had their affluent supporters who have been granted access and rewards, but Trump introduced a new paradigm in this context.
The explicit transactional approach adopted by both Trump and Musk in trading power has added a new perspective to the modern era. By making their exchange so public, they have undoubtedly erected a trail that other concentrations of attention may wish to follow.