Technocracy, as a concept, refers to a system of government where leadership is composed primarily of technical experts – individuals with deep knowledge and experience in specific fields, particularly those with bureaucratic expertise. In theory, technocratic governance is designed to replace political partisanship with decisions grounded in evidence, facts, and expertise. This idea was rooted in the early days of the United States, with figures like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, both renowned for their intellectual and inventive achievements.
The political landscape has shifted significantly in recent years, and the implications of technocratic leadership are now driving the worst facets of American exceptionalism, corporate greed, and corruption.
Technocracy Under Trump and Beyond
The U.S. political landscape was very different in 2016. There was a notable rejection of “elitism” and intellectualism in favor of populism during Trump’s original campaign, and Trump’s administration was defined by a rejection of technocracy, with the president himself frequently dismissing expertise and surrounding himself with figures who lacked specialized technical knowledge in areas of governance. The idea was that the “common man” should take center stage in policy decisions, rather than intellectuals or elites who were seen as disconnected from the everyday lives of ordinary Americans.
The rise of powerful tech billionaires like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos – figures who have vast technological control and immense financial influence – has led to a new form of technocratic governance in 2025. These figures are no longer outside influences. They have become central players in political decision-making, advising the government on everything from space exploration to energy policy.
This shift represents a significant departure from the earlier perception of technocracy. What was once seen as a tool for rational governance now risks becoming a form of government by a new, highly specialized elite: billionaires who hold unparalleled sway over policy decisions due to their financial power and control.
Elon Musk’s outsized influence in shaping both technological and political discourse has raised serious concerns about the concentration of power in the hands of tech billionaires. Musk’s recent push for the DOGE program – which cuts critical social programs – shows exactly how a billionaire with no accountability to the electorate can dramatically alter public policy. Musk’s disregard for the social safety nets that millions rely on underscores the dangers of technocratic governance. This unbalanced prioritization of profit and innovation over the needs of vulnerable populations highlights the problematic consequences of allowing tech moguls to have political power.
Reliance on Technocracy
The dangers of relying on technocrats, particularly in the form of Silicon Valley billionaires, are manifold. One of the very few things Trump got right in 2016 was highlighting the growing disconnect between the issues that technocrats focus on and the lived experiences of everyday citizens. Problems like the housing crisis, the rising cost of living, and food insecurity require nuanced solutions that balance economic policy with social considerations. The deeper, systemic problems that contribute to inequality cannot be addressed through the lens of efficiency, innovation, and technological solutions.
Musk often advocates for solutions that favor technological innovation over regulatory intervention. While renewable energy and AI advancements are crucial, they cannot serve as panaceas for issues like affordable housing or the economic displacement caused by automation. The over-reliance on market-driven solutions often fails to address the core issues that impact ordinary people, like income inequality and access to basic human services. Technocrats may focus on innovation, but they often lack the political will or empathy to enact policies that directly improve the lives of the most vulnerable.
Additionally, the increasing influence of tech elites in governance raises ethical concerns. When policy decisions are driven by individuals who have accumulated vast wealth through business ventures – like Musk’s dominance in the electric vehicle market or Bezos’s control of – commerce – there is an inherent conflict of interest, and decisions that affect the broader public could ultimately prioritize the financial interests of these elites over the needs of the people they govern.
Moreover, the reliance on technocratic elites undermines democratic principles. By empowering a small group of highly educated, wealthy individuals to make decisions that affect millions, there is a risk of eroding public trust in the democratic process. If the political system becomes increasingly dependent on the guidance of a select few technocrats, citizens may feel increasingly powerless in shaping the policies that govern them.
The Dangers of Technocracy in the Context of Real-World Issues
The dangers of technocratic governance become particularly apparent when we examine the broader societal challenges that currently plague the U.S. and other nations. Take the housing crisis as an example. While technocratic solutions often focus on increasing the efficiency of the housing market through technology or market-driven reforms, these approaches rarely tackle the root causes of the crisis – rising land prices, zoning restrictions, and wage stagnation. The involvement of tech elites exacerbate this problem as they favor market-based solutions that increase profits, such as luxury housing developments, which only serve to push lower-income individuals further out of the market.
Similarly, the rising cost of living and grocery prices is a problem that cannot be solved through technocratic innovation alone. While companies like Amazon and Tesla may offer technological solutions that make products more accessible, these companies are also major players in the economy, shaping wages and employment conditions in ways that often disadvantage low-income workers. Technocrats may be able to optimize supply chains or streamline operations, but they cannot solve (or rather refuse to solve) the deeper issue of income inequality, which remains the root cause of rising costs for basic goods and services.
The influence of tech billionaires on public policy also leads to a troubling trend in governance: the increasing concentration of power in the hands of a few. A technocracy dominated by billionaires can reinforce the idea that governance is a matter of optimizing systems for efficiency, rather than addressing the complex human needs that underpin societal issues. This approach ignores the broader social, cultural, and economic factors that contribute to the challenges faced by working-class Americans, and it risks creating a system that serves only the interests of the wealthy and powerful.
A Road to Inhumane Governance
While technocracy in its purest form may seem like a rational and efficient way to govern, the reality is far more complex. In a world where the line between business interests and political influence is increasingly blurred, technocracy runs the risk of becoming a vehicle for inhumane governance, prioritizing the interests of a few over the needs of the many.
The reliance on technocratic elites, whether from Silicon Valley or the corporate world, does little to solve the systemic problems facing society today. Instead, it fosters a system in which the most powerful individuals make decisions that benefit themselves, rather than addressing the core issues of poverty, inequality, and access to essential services. In the end, this form of governance may prove not only ineffective, but ultimately detrimental to the well-being of the vast majority of citizens.
If we are to build a more just and equitable society, we must move away from technocracy and embrace a more inclusive, democratic approach to governance – one that values the voices of all citizens, not just those with technical expertise or financial power. Only then can we hope to address the root causes of the housing crisis, rising costs, and other pressing issues that threaten our social fabric.