There's other reasons to hope.

-Tech CEOs are unpopular, and keep doing things to make themselves more so

-Americans remain skeptical of AI

-Resistance to AI data centers and tech in general is growing

But there's reason for some optimism.

Other countries have wrestled with the oligarch problem in politics. And while it's messy and unfinished, Ukraine also offer some hope and lessons. See www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/wa...
and 
 successfulsocieties.princeton.edu/sites/g/file...

The tech CEOs have shown they are willing to sacrifice civil liberties and U.S. democracy in exchange for preferential treatment and market protection.

Trump offers tech elites protection.

-From regulation and legal exposure in Europe
www.cnn.com/2026/01/12/t...

-From AI regulation here in the U.S.
www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/t...

Tech elites get to move fast, break things, and avoid accountability.

The tech oligarch-Trump nexus is particularly insidious.

-Palantir’s massive ICE contracts www.forbes.com/sites/tylerr...

-Musk and DoD/AI contracts www.axios.com/2025/07/14/x...

Amazon’s “government modernization” deals qz.com/amazon-web-s...

It's corrupt, rent-seeking behavior.

Tech oligarchs now control key media infrastructure.

Musk (X), Bezos (WaPo), the Ellisons (CBS/TikTok).

The pattern is similar:

-degraded products (because the product isn't the goal)
-slanted coverage favorable to the incumbent (Trump)

In exchange for regulatory favors and gov't contract $$$.

As scholars like @gabrielzucman.bsky.social, @adambonica.bsky.social, and @jakemgrumbach.bsky.social show, extreme wealth concentration profoundly distorts U.S. politics:

data4democracy.substack.com/p/money-does...

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

paulkrugman.substack.com/p/talking-wi...

*leaders

Finally, Trump II lacks the strategic patience seen in other autocratic eaders (Orban, Erdogan, Putin etc.).

The Trump II approach has been erratic, impulsive, and quick to use force.

That combination can make a regime more brittle, but also more dangerous.

Successful opposition movements tend to be:

-Broad & diverse coalitions (see: Euromaidan)

-Willing to bear real costs for dissent

-Adaptive and experimental

U.S. political elites aren’t used to behaving like an opposition.

That learning process takes time

Second, organizing a successful opposition to an incumbent regime is hard.

A few thoughts on why there hasn’t been more pushback from the business community:

1) Coordination is hard

2) Crony capitalism benefits many of them

3) They agree with his policies

4) It’s a new era for US political economy and so there’s uncertainty on how to navigate it

5) They’re scared

Business elites in particular have been super hesitant to criticize.

Just look at Jamie Dimon’s interview in Davos.

www.cnn.com/2026/01/21/b...

The book is officially out on February 16 with @academic.oup.com.

Pre-orders:

-OUP (30% discount code: ASFLYQ6) global.oup.com/academic/pro...

-Bookshop: bookshop.org/p/books/no-o...

-Amazon: www.amazon.com/No-Option-bu...

At its core, the book examines how repression shapes activists, social movements, and their choice of tactics.

2) Given the threat from climate change, the backsliding on environmental issues, and the increasing state repression—what are activists willing to do?