'Everything Is Subservient to the Big Guy': Fiona Hill Discusses Trump and the Rise of American Oligarchy
The seasoned expert on Russia discusses the reasons behind the conversations involving Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump.
TroibNews 
Recent news has highlighted several seemingly minor developments: Donald Trump has had multiple phone calls with Vladimir Putin since leaving office, Elon Musk is also engaging frequently with the Russian leader, and owners of some newspapers have opted against endorsing candidates in the upcoming presidential election. However, to Fiona Hill, a former adviser to Trump and a leading authority on Russia, these activities suggest a troubling trend.
During an interview with PMG Magazine, Hill articulated concerns shared by scholars focused on authoritarian regimes, pointing to a drift toward autocracy within the American political landscape, even prior to Trump potentially regaining office. A significant indicator is the behavior of the wealthy elite, who increasingly resemble oligarchs.
Hill explains that viewing Trump, Putin, and Musk as a collective of oligarchs sheds light on their mutual fascination. She observed that they form a small, exclusive cohort wielding enormous financial resources and political clout that transcends national borders, choosing to collaborate with one another rather than representing their populace or businesses.
“They aren’t driven by the people they represent or the companies that they represent, but by the peer group that they are in, which is an extraordinarily small group of people,” Hill stated. “Their interactions are all about them figuring out how to exercise power together.”
This dynamic can be seen in Musk's support of Trump's campaign and his interactions with Putin, all of which, according to Hill, align with his personal ambitions: “His loyalty is not necessarily to the United States.” The following is a condensed and clarified account of their conversation.
In light of the recent communications between Putin and both Trump and Musk, what are your thoughts on these interactions?
President Trump appears eager to showcase his rapport with Putin, claiming that such connections could ultimately benefit the U.S. However, in the context of the adversarial nature of U.S.-Russia relations, this perspective is flawed. The reality is that residing in an adversarial partnership does not guarantee favorable outcomes, as precedents suggest.
Putin perceives the conflict in Ukraine as a confrontation with the U.S. and its allies, and he has garnered support from other nations like China, Iran, and North Korea, which undermines U.S. interests. A former president fixating on personal ties with Putin, while ignoring the broader geopolitical implications, raises red flags.
What does Putin seek from Trump?
Putin's clear interest lies in undermining U.S. strength and withdrawing it from global affairs. It is reasonable to infer that he consults with Trump to promote his agenda and exhibit Russian dominance. Putin is indifferent to both American citizens and Trump himself; his focus remains solely on Russian interests.
In private discussions, he is likely urging Trump to adopt viewpoints that align with Moscow's aims. Regrettably, this influence appears effective, as many statements from Trump and his circle echo Putin's preferences concerning the Ukraine conflict.
Additionally, Musk is often in communication with Putin. What insights can you provide regarding this?
The question arises: Why does Trump admire Putin? The same inquiry applies to Musk's admiration for Trump. Musk has emerged as a critical financier and vocal advocate for Trump's reelection, displaying his support at rallies and doing so through significant financial contributions. Both Musk and Trump view themselves as part of an elite club of powerful men eager for global influence.
Musk represents an unprecedented figure, gaining comparisons to historical industrial magnates. His wealth is comparable to that of a medium-sized country, and his bonuses rival the defense budgets of numerous nations.
Musk's financial backing of Trump is paralleled by his ongoing dialogues with global leaders, including Putin. His international business interests connect him to a wealthy class that perceives itself as peers with leaders like Xi and Putin, aiming to exert joint power.
For Musk, the goal is clear: leverage Trump's electoral success to further his own business endeavors, seeking similar advantages from Putin. Global operations require Musk to grasp the intricacies of international relations, particularly vis-à-vis Russia and China, to protect his satellite systems and business interests.
Furthermore, Musk heads a powerful social media platform that amplifies not only his political views but also allows disinformation from various adversarial states to proliferate unchallenged. “We have to ask, why is Musk not stopping that?"
His allegiance, Hill emphasized, is global rather than specifically American. These connections suggest that the current dynamics are markedly different from the past, as technological advancements enable unprecedented overlaps between business and politics.
Musk has positively impacted the U.S. economy through innovation but also harbors ambitions to consolidate power, closely aligning with Trump on this front.
Musk appears to pursue not merely contracts but the broader aim of capturing state authority. His future aspirations are evident in his overt support of Trump, raising questions about the long-term consequences for the economy and the nation.
Evidence from various countries indicates that the rise of an oligarchic structure often correlates with more authoritarian governance. Such a shift leads to the erosion of legal protections and the favoring of specific interests while constraining opportunities for others in the market.
Do you view Musk's role as indicative of a nascent oligarchy in the United States?
The U.S. has been on this trajectory for years, particularly after the financial crisis in 2008 and the pandemic, resulting in a landscape where fewer robust businesses dominate their sectors. Musk, along with other billionaires, exerts significant control over their industries, making it increasingly difficult for small enterprises to thrive.
Consolidation across various sectors means that consumers are often left with fewer choices, contributing to higher prices and reduced competition. An oligarchy diminishes the chances for aspiring entrepreneurs to reach their goals, which is likely not the path most Americans desire.
What are the dangers of having individuals like Musk and Trump in power?
The primary concern is their self-serving nature. Individuals close to Trump have reaped substantial rewards as a result of their proximity to power. Such a pattern mirrors numerous countries plagued by oligarchic rule, where economic opportunities become increasingly restricted to an elite cadre rather than the broader populace.
Hill connects Putin’s KGB background with his current leadership style, noting his adeptness at manipulation and the cultivation of favorable ego dynamics with those in power. Trump’s admiration for strongmen like Putin further complicates the dynamics at play.
Putin exploits individuals' insecurities to garner influence, paralleling his interactions with Musk in the context of perceived mutuality. The implication is that resolving issues rests not on broader dialogue but rather on partnerships formed among an elite few — a perilous foundation.
What relationship do you see between oligarchy and autocracy?
The interplay between oligarchy and autocracy was evident in Russia during the 1990s, when oligarchs wielded significant influence before ultimately being subdued by Putin. Modern autocratic regimes thrive on the entrenchment of powerful interests, leading to extensive corruption and a concentration of wealth and political control.
We observe a trend of billionaires influencing the media landscape in the U.S., exemplified by actions taken by these owners as they shape editorial policies. This scenario is concerning, as it fosters conducive conditions for oligarchy and, potentially, autocracy.
Are there indications that 2024 is distinct from previous election cycles?
Yes, there is a concerning sense that media owners are increasingly prioritizing their business interests over journalistic integrity, drastically impacting public discourse and oversight. Trump's history of targeting media figures intensifies apprehension about their independence.
This transactional approach to governance represents significant vulnerabilities, potentially leading to an erosion of institutional integrity necessary for a functioning democracy.
Could autocrats initially gain power democratically?
Indeed, many autocrats secure authority through popular elections, as seen in various global contexts. With the American political structure potentially skewed toward favoring a strong executive, the risk of this dynamic intensifying is present.
The capture of traditional checks and balances, particularly in the context of political party transformations, highlights the delicate balance we currently face in the U.S. political landscape.
Might the appeal of a "strong leader" carry hidden risks for ordinary citizens?
Yes, strong leaders often prioritize their agendas over the needs of the populace. The absence of mediating institutions means that citizens may find themselves marginalized, resulting in a climate of fear and repression.
Over time, as seen in other autocratic regimes, individuals may retreat into smaller social circles to avoid conflict with authority. Those who support such leaders risk becoming targets, facing the consequences of even minor deviations from prescribed loyalty.
How close is the U.S. to this scenario?
We might be just one election away.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
During an interview with PMG Magazine, Hill articulated concerns shared by scholars focused on authoritarian regimes, pointing to a drift toward autocracy within the American political landscape, even prior to Trump potentially regaining office. A significant indicator is the behavior of the wealthy elite, who increasingly resemble oligarchs.
Hill explains that viewing Trump, Putin, and Musk as a collective of oligarchs sheds light on their mutual fascination. She observed that they form a small, exclusive cohort wielding enormous financial resources and political clout that transcends national borders, choosing to collaborate with one another rather than representing their populace or businesses.
“They aren’t driven by the people they represent or the companies that they represent, but by the peer group that they are in, which is an extraordinarily small group of people,” Hill stated. “Their interactions are all about them figuring out how to exercise power together.”
This dynamic can be seen in Musk's support of Trump's campaign and his interactions with Putin, all of which, according to Hill, align with his personal ambitions: “His loyalty is not necessarily to the United States.” The following is a condensed and clarified account of their conversation.
In light of the recent communications between Putin and both Trump and Musk, what are your thoughts on these interactions?
President Trump appears eager to showcase his rapport with Putin, claiming that such connections could ultimately benefit the U.S. However, in the context of the adversarial nature of U.S.-Russia relations, this perspective is flawed. The reality is that residing in an adversarial partnership does not guarantee favorable outcomes, as precedents suggest.
Putin perceives the conflict in Ukraine as a confrontation with the U.S. and its allies, and he has garnered support from other nations like China, Iran, and North Korea, which undermines U.S. interests. A former president fixating on personal ties with Putin, while ignoring the broader geopolitical implications, raises red flags.
What does Putin seek from Trump?
Putin's clear interest lies in undermining U.S. strength and withdrawing it from global affairs. It is reasonable to infer that he consults with Trump to promote his agenda and exhibit Russian dominance. Putin is indifferent to both American citizens and Trump himself; his focus remains solely on Russian interests.
In private discussions, he is likely urging Trump to adopt viewpoints that align with Moscow's aims. Regrettably, this influence appears effective, as many statements from Trump and his circle echo Putin's preferences concerning the Ukraine conflict.
Additionally, Musk is often in communication with Putin. What insights can you provide regarding this?
The question arises: Why does Trump admire Putin? The same inquiry applies to Musk's admiration for Trump. Musk has emerged as a critical financier and vocal advocate for Trump's reelection, displaying his support at rallies and doing so through significant financial contributions. Both Musk and Trump view themselves as part of an elite club of powerful men eager for global influence.
Musk represents an unprecedented figure, gaining comparisons to historical industrial magnates. His wealth is comparable to that of a medium-sized country, and his bonuses rival the defense budgets of numerous nations.
Musk's financial backing of Trump is paralleled by his ongoing dialogues with global leaders, including Putin. His international business interests connect him to a wealthy class that perceives itself as peers with leaders like Xi and Putin, aiming to exert joint power.
For Musk, the goal is clear: leverage Trump's electoral success to further his own business endeavors, seeking similar advantages from Putin. Global operations require Musk to grasp the intricacies of international relations, particularly vis-à-vis Russia and China, to protect his satellite systems and business interests.
Furthermore, Musk heads a powerful social media platform that amplifies not only his political views but also allows disinformation from various adversarial states to proliferate unchallenged. “We have to ask, why is Musk not stopping that?"
His allegiance, Hill emphasized, is global rather than specifically American. These connections suggest that the current dynamics are markedly different from the past, as technological advancements enable unprecedented overlaps between business and politics.
Musk has positively impacted the U.S. economy through innovation but also harbors ambitions to consolidate power, closely aligning with Trump on this front.
Musk appears to pursue not merely contracts but the broader aim of capturing state authority. His future aspirations are evident in his overt support of Trump, raising questions about the long-term consequences for the economy and the nation.
Evidence from various countries indicates that the rise of an oligarchic structure often correlates with more authoritarian governance. Such a shift leads to the erosion of legal protections and the favoring of specific interests while constraining opportunities for others in the market.
Do you view Musk's role as indicative of a nascent oligarchy in the United States?
The U.S. has been on this trajectory for years, particularly after the financial crisis in 2008 and the pandemic, resulting in a landscape where fewer robust businesses dominate their sectors. Musk, along with other billionaires, exerts significant control over their industries, making it increasingly difficult for small enterprises to thrive.
Consolidation across various sectors means that consumers are often left with fewer choices, contributing to higher prices and reduced competition. An oligarchy diminishes the chances for aspiring entrepreneurs to reach their goals, which is likely not the path most Americans desire.
What are the dangers of having individuals like Musk and Trump in power?
The primary concern is their self-serving nature. Individuals close to Trump have reaped substantial rewards as a result of their proximity to power. Such a pattern mirrors numerous countries plagued by oligarchic rule, where economic opportunities become increasingly restricted to an elite cadre rather than the broader populace.
Hill connects Putin’s KGB background with his current leadership style, noting his adeptness at manipulation and the cultivation of favorable ego dynamics with those in power. Trump’s admiration for strongmen like Putin further complicates the dynamics at play.
Putin exploits individuals' insecurities to garner influence, paralleling his interactions with Musk in the context of perceived mutuality. The implication is that resolving issues rests not on broader dialogue but rather on partnerships formed among an elite few — a perilous foundation.
What relationship do you see between oligarchy and autocracy?
The interplay between oligarchy and autocracy was evident in Russia during the 1990s, when oligarchs wielded significant influence before ultimately being subdued by Putin. Modern autocratic regimes thrive on the entrenchment of powerful interests, leading to extensive corruption and a concentration of wealth and political control.
We observe a trend of billionaires influencing the media landscape in the U.S., exemplified by actions taken by these owners as they shape editorial policies. This scenario is concerning, as it fosters conducive conditions for oligarchy and, potentially, autocracy.
Are there indications that 2024 is distinct from previous election cycles?
Yes, there is a concerning sense that media owners are increasingly prioritizing their business interests over journalistic integrity, drastically impacting public discourse and oversight. Trump's history of targeting media figures intensifies apprehension about their independence.
This transactional approach to governance represents significant vulnerabilities, potentially leading to an erosion of institutional integrity necessary for a functioning democracy.
Could autocrats initially gain power democratically?
Indeed, many autocrats secure authority through popular elections, as seen in various global contexts. With the American political structure potentially skewed toward favoring a strong executive, the risk of this dynamic intensifying is present.
The capture of traditional checks and balances, particularly in the context of political party transformations, highlights the delicate balance we currently face in the U.S. political landscape.
Might the appeal of a "strong leader" carry hidden risks for ordinary citizens?
Yes, strong leaders often prioritize their agendas over the needs of the populace. The absence of mediating institutions means that citizens may find themselves marginalized, resulting in a climate of fear and repression.
Over time, as seen in other autocratic regimes, individuals may retreat into smaller social circles to avoid conflict with authority. Those who support such leaders risk becoming targets, facing the consequences of even minor deviations from prescribed loyalty.
How close is the U.S. to this scenario?
We might be just one election away.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
