When Political Access Becomes a Product
The uneasy alliance among Trump, Big Tech, major donors, and the information economy
By Fred Devellano
The most revealing part of a recent Morning Joe discussion was not simply that many technology executives and wealthy business leaders have moved toward Donald Trump. Political alliances change. Business leaders regularly support the party they believe will reduce regulation, encourage investment, or give their industries room to grow.
What deserves closer scrutiny is what may happen when access to political power—and even access to a president’s words—becomes a product sold to those who can profit from receiving it first.
The segment described a dramatic shift in the relationship between Silicon Valley and Washington. During the Biden administration, according to economic analyst Steve Rattner, many executives felt ignored, unwelcome, or treated as though success in business made them suspect. Whether or not that perception was always fair, it mattered. People who believed the administration viewed them as adversaries became more receptive to a political leader promising lower regulatory barriers and a friendlier climate for technology, cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, and finance.
That helps explain the procession of technology titans who received prominent seats at Trump’s inauguration. It also helps explain the flow of enormous political donations. The chart shown during the segment, based on a Washington Post analysis of federal filings for the 2026 election cycle, portrayed nine of the ten largest listed donor entries as supporting Republicans. George Soros was the sole Democratic donor represented, while the Republican side included Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, Elon Musk, Jeff and Janine Yass, Elizabeth and Richard Uihlein, Miriam Adelson, Greg and Anna Brockman, Paul Singer, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, and Ken Griffin.
Political donations are legal, and supporting a candidate does not by itself establish corruption. But the concentration of money raises an unavoidable question: When a handful of extraordinarily wealthy individuals can spend tens of millions of dollars to influence elections, how much louder are their voices than those of ordinary citizens?
The more troubling issue raised by the segment concerns Trump Media’s reported sale of real-time access to leading Truth Social accounts, including President Trump’s posts. According to the discussion, more than ten customers had signed up, with high-frequency trading firms reportedly paying between $60,000 and $100,000 per month. Those firms make money by acquiring and acting on information faster than competitors—sometimes by mere milliseconds.
That distinction is critical. Presidential statements can move markets. A post about tariffs, oil production, cryptocurrency, defense policy, a particular company, or relations with another country could immediately affect stock and commodity prices. If paying customers receive that information through a faster feed than the general public, the advantage is not merely convenient. It may be commercially valuable.
Rattner characterized the arrangement as essentially insider trading. Legally, that is a serious conclusion that would depend on facts not established by a television discussion: what information is being distributed, whether it is already public, whether anyone receives advance access, how much faster the paid feed is, and whether securities laws governing material nonpublic information apply. Those questions belong with regulators, ethics experts, and Congress—not with television commentators alone.
But even if the arrangement does not meet the legal definition of insider trading, the ethical concern remains. A sitting president should not appear to profit personally from market-moving communications tied to his public office. The presidency is a public trust. Its influence should not become a premium data service whose greatest value lies in helping well-funded traders beat everyone else to the market.
There is also a lesson here for Democrats. If the Biden administration shut business leaders out, dismissed their concerns, or filled important positions without enough private-sector experience, that deserves honest examination. Government must regulate powerful industries, but regulation works better when officials understand the industries they oversee and maintain serious lines of communication with the people building them. Treating every executive as a villain can drive the business community toward anyone promising an open door.
Still, feeling disrespected by one administration does not justify overlooking the conduct of another. Frustration with regulation is not a moral blank check. The promise of growth in AI, cryptocurrency, and technology cannot excuse conflicts of interest or a system in which political support appears to purchase proximity, favorable policy, or faster access to valuable information.
Artificial intelligence may transform medicine, education, business, and nearly every other part of modern life. That transformation makes responsible public oversight more important, not less. We need leaders who can encourage innovation without surrendering the public interest, and business executives who can pursue profit without confusing access to power with entitlement to power.
The central issue is bigger than Trump, Biden, Democrats, or Republicans. It is whether America will allow political influence to become another luxury product—available in its fastest and most valuable form only to those who can afford the subscription price.
Democracy cannot operate on a premium tier.
The Genie Chronicles explores tomorrow’s.
Read The Genie Chronicles
Explore the books • Continue to Amazon
