Patrimonialism has been making a comeback recently as a framework for interpreting Trumpian governance.  Kopstein and Rauch set out masterful dissections of why Trump’s actions fit in with this schema;  Fukuyama argues that the United States is being repatrimonialized. Others use different terminology — such as “Neo-Royalism,” “Neo-Feudalism,” and “Kleptocracy” — but they are all talking about basically the same thing.

In patrimonial systems, the pre-modern state is an extension of the personal household of its ruler. Citizens’ rights depend on their personal connections with the ruler. Potentially disruptive client-elites are paid off with side-payments and positions in the regime — from which they can extract rents through self-dealing, bribery, and other forms of corruption. In modern (or neo-) patrimonial regimes, officials are technically “public actors,” but they use their positions for personal enrichment. They treat public assets as personal property. Whilst the elements of a modern state ostensibly exist, neo-patrimonial leaders undermine or defang mechanisms designed to prevent them from betraying the “public trust” and use arbitrary policies and methods to generate loyalty and to prevent rival coalitions from developing their own networks or challenging their rule. 

If we look at how the US is being governed today, patrimonial interpretations explain dynamics well. In true patrimonial style, the President frequently legislates in terms of his own wants or those of his clients, acts out emperor fantasies and persecutes perceived enemies. In addition, Trump’s simple but compelling all American hero routine helps to bolster loyalty and authority through a patrimonial father-of-the-nation role. 

Whilst these (neo- and classical) patrimonial interpretations are well tuned in to Trump’s dealings with elites (whom he exerts a certain power over) and his attempts to weaken institutions, my argument is that existing patrimonial accounts focus too much on Don and his lust for power, wealth and adulation, and consequently miss where this might take us over time. More specifically, I contend that systemic changes are happening in the way that power and politics are structured, and that Trump is paving the way for higher feeders who need a restructured state in order to properly run their business model. 

As power (in various forms) is becoming more heavily concentrated in the hands of tech-lords, patronage relations are gradually inverting, so rather than elites being dependent on the ruler, as in classical and neo-patrimonialism, the ruler is becoming increasingly dependent on a tight-knit group of tech moguls with their own, unique ideas on the role and power of the state. In this sense, the Tech Bros function as a very narrow familial clan, rather than a broader social group, and the state is being progressively run as an extension of their household. We may thus end up with a system of proxy patrimonialism, where the state is restructured around private patronage and authority. 

The Process

Tech monopolists are cleverly cultivating their power by embedding their tools in the military, police, cybersecurity systems and other public services, which allows them a high degree of penetration of public authority. Tech, in this sense, subverts state-society relations, creating opportunities for surveillance and control of the population, and allows business groups to infiltrate the state apparatus with minimal oversight. Whereas in other systems leaders have agency and can flip away from a traditional oligarchic class and side with the people or rival elites, as Putin did, in proxy patrimonialism disloyalty to tech patrons can mean the withdrawal of the very tools the state depends on to function, thereby severely limiting presidential autonomy.   

Stoking up populism is another step on the path towards proxy patrimonialism. Populism leans into more authoritarian decision-making and less compliance with established process to get things done, as people want results and don’t care too much if a few rules get broken along the way. So when tech-lords talk up the evils of wokeism and associate these with cultural and economic losses that democracy cannot deal with, they promote a flimsier institutional structure and a less deliberative form of governance. This more personalizable type of institutional setting suits tech-lords’ aims of channeling patronage towards themselves and setting their own regulatory standards without going through niggly control mechanisms.  

What’s more, the polarization and culture wars that social media and its owners have whipped up also fragment, distract and disarticulate potential opposition to the project. And, as public space has become increasingly digital, all resistance is futile, as dissenters can simply be algorithmed out of public debate or branded as anti-progress decelerationists.

The logical next stage is to get tech-monarchy fanboy and democracy skeptic JD Vance fully galvanized and financed for a presidential run in 2028. Vance has previously worked under Peter Thiel – chairman of Palantir’s board – who lined him up as Trump’s running mate for the last presidential campaign. Vance, who is being pushed as a show pony for project tech, is heavily invested in tech and strongly aligned with the authoritarian blueprint Project 2025. 

The endgame is full capture of the state, with tech leaders ushering in their very close proxies to take control of a transitional state with weakened accountability mechanisms. This represents a real shift in political authority that goes beyond the idea of the elected public officials contracting out certain services to tech-lords to increase government efficiency while remaining in full control of state functions. 

So in proxy patrimonialism, whilst the president gets to play at being emperor and can use patronage and symbols to gain consent, shadow players are hovering around and controlling crucial policy areas. The structural dynamics of the model lead to political actors embracing their subordinate social location and lauding their tech-patrons as progressive savants. In a neat turn, this routinization of charisma adds further legitimacy to shadow-rule by unelected tech bureaucrats. 

Why We Need It

This model coincides with ideas which the Tech Bros themselves have started floating around regarding their property rights over a minimally restrained political administration. Thiel has argued that democracy gets in the way of freedom and technological progress and sets out a narrative wherein traditional, masculinized Christianity must be empowered to vanquish the forces of wokeness in order for the West to prevail in a hostile world and avoid Armageddon (Vance shares these views on integrating traditionalist religion into public life and the approaching ‘end times’). In a cruel twist of irony, AI-generated Armageddon is not a worry.

Unlike first-generation tech-moguls, Thiel and Alex Karp (Palantir’s CEO) are steeped in social theory and have a deep understanding of discourse, power and the human condition, and they appear to be setting themselves up as fathers of the nation who can provide purpose to a society at the edge of a new frontier. In a thinly veiled pitch for his own global leadership, Thiel argues that we need the brilliance of a visionary savior to make the world safe for capitalism. He has even gone so far as producing a touring lecture series which weaves together strands of theology, philosophy and political theory into an account that talks up Western tech predominance  — unhindered by democratic controls or international rules — to save us from the woke agenda of a stalking Antichrist.

Alex Karp has defined the tech-state as the key to guaranteeing the survival of a superior Western civilization in a dangerous world. So, the rise of other civilizations (read China) through tech leads to necessary institutional restructuring in order to maintain freedom and US predominance. The ultimate aim here is to justify a transfer of political authority to private actors in the name of defending the national interest. 

Tapping into neo-reactionary ideas on authoritarian capitalism, Thiel and other techno-capitalists are, in fact, gaming out new forms of bureaucracy and authority with experimental enclaves in Central America which have minimal tax and regulation yet maintain their own systems of non-democratic political administration. In this sense digital overlords are not just another group of oligarchs hustling for private goods in the form of favors and handouts, but are rather trying to build new types of political structures that ensure the full integration of their models and beliefs into a rejigged social contract.  

Why Categories Matter

As an analytical category, proxy patrimonialism links to classical and neo-patrimonialism through its focus on vertical power relations, institutional tensions and how the ruler generates loyalty and authority through patronage and their embodiment of the nation. Crucially though, what differentiates proxy patrimonialism from other variants is that it unpacks the way in which private actors are taking on patronage functions and assuming political authority. 

Proxy patrimonialism also considers discourse and how private actors are able to produce meanings related to the role of tech, state-society relations and efficient government, and how they push for institutional changes that legitimate and embed their rights within governmental and social structures. In this sense, we can map out how shifts in dependence structures, institutional mechanisms, rights and perceptions fit into a structural whole and how authority relations are being reconfigured.   

It is also worth highlighting the ways in which proxy patrimonialism differs from oligarchy. Relations in oligarchy are more horizontal, with elites — incorporating economic, social and security actors — bargaining with each other and moving behind the scenes to get contacts within the administration to tweak policies and splash out patronage, rather than unilaterally pushing forward a project to restructure the state. So, whilst that state is a useful cash cow for oligarchs to milk, there’s not a sense that it is an extension of their household or that they should give up valuable leisure time to restructure its institutions. Proxy patrimonialism also differs from oligarchy in that there is not a significant symbolic or discursive role for oligarchs as fathers of the nation who are tied into state identity. 

The Past as the Future

In principle patrimonialism is doomed to fail in modern republics, as, unlike monarchies, where there is a clear process of succession, in republics there are inevitably succession crises which tear patrimonial regimes apart as client-elites desert the outgoing leader in search of a new patron as term limits approach. If the emperor can no longer manage elites, then the system collapses, so, according to this interpretation, the Trump regime is a blip after which we can return to politics as usual. 

However, proxy patrimonialism gets round the succession crisis, as the dynamics of dependency are reversed. Incoming presidents pledge loyalty to the established tech cartel, which has groomed and funded them for office. They then subsequently roll out policy and chip away at institutional constraints in line with the preferences of their sponsors. 

Whereas traditional patrimonialism shows a clear divide, and tensions, between public and private actors which in some ways limits the excesses of potential absolutism, proxy patrimonialism would fully hand over the levers of the state to unaccountable private actors with no countervailing forces to keep them in check. Purging government departments, bypassing Congress, favoring loyalty over competence, controlling discourse, dividing society, instrumentalizing political parties and challenging the rule of law are all part of a process which smooths the path for a gradual private takeover of the state. 

This is, of course, an idealized model, and it won’t necessarily play out  — public resistance may consolidate, or tech as a collective may splinter and weaken — but the fact that highly powerful actors are putting us on a pathway towards this should at least make us aware of the process and how it moves us away from the impersonal rule and universal rights of modern statehood.