Title: A 'Tech Oligarchy'?

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Look who's agreeing with each other that America has a tech oligarchy issue. Here's the first clip. It's President Biden from his farewell address last week. Many of you have heard this.

President Biden: Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights, and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America, and we've seen it before.

Brian Lehrer: President Biden last week. Now, here's right-wing firebrand and frequent Trump advisor, Steve Bannon, on NPR's Weekend Edition on Sunday, saying Democrats didn't use to have a problem with oligarchs.

Steve Bannon: Remember, for the last four years, they had no problem at all with the oligarchs until they flipped and surrendered after we won. Elon Musk came a little earlier, and he came earlier because he saw the writing on the wall. This smart guy could see actually the true polling and saw where this was going. He's the first man out. Zuckerberg came and surrendered afterwards. Bezos came and surrendered afterwards.

Brian Lehrer: Steve Bannon from his podcast. Biden and Bannon both don't like oligarchs. Did you notice the difference there, though? Biden thinks America is surrendering to the oligarchs. Bannon thinks the oligarchs are surrendering to Donald Trump. Let's talk about this, and not just as a parlor game of who's getting over on who, but about the potential effects on every American who's not in the top one-tenth of 1% of wealth in the world.

With me now, Ashley Parker, staff writer at The Atlantic, which she just joined, moving from her previous job as senior national correspondent at The Washington Post. As her bio page notes, Ashley is a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner who covered Donald Trump's first term and covered the Biden administration as White House bureau chief. Ashley's first article for the Atlantic, co-written with Michael Scherer, who also just came over from The Washington Post. The first article is called The Tech Oligarchy Arrives. Donald Trump's inauguration signaled a new alliance for now, we'll talk about that for now part, with some of the world's wealthiest men. Ashley, thanks for joining us in your new role, and welcome back to WNYC.

Ashley Parker: Yes, thank you for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, are you concerned about a Trump-era oligarchy? 212-433-WNYC. Are you more concerned about business leaders surrendering to Trump than the other way around, what Steve Bannon was saying there? Does the difference matter? Also, I'll throw this in and we'll get more into it later. Have you heard Mark Zuckerberg's new line that the American workplace needs more male aggression? We'll play that clip. Is your workplace not masculine enough or does it lack aggression? 212-433-WNYC on any of those things. 212-433-9692, call or text. Ashley, to set the scene for us, especially for those of our listeners who didn't visually watch the inauguration, the optics of where some tech billionaires were seated raised a lot of eyebrows. Can you describe some of that from Monday?

Ashley Parker: Sure. A lot of these tech leaders, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Elon Musk, folks from Google and TikTok, when President Trump was getting sworn in, these folks were mixed in with his family members as if they were almost honorary members of the Trump plan. They were seated in front of Trump's Cabinet. Because the inauguration was moved indoors, so the available space got a bit smaller, you had not all, but you had a lot of Republican senators and governors and House members, and especially those in Congress. Let's just remind listeners, these are the people who Donald Trump will actually need to get his legislation through Congress to get his Cabinet picks confirmed. A lot of them were in the overflow room.

Brian Lehrer: You wrote, "The scene announced a remarkable new dynamic in Washington, far more so than in his first term. The ultrawealthy and tech billionaires in particular are embracing Trump and the new president is happy to entertain their courtship, setting up the possibility that Trump's second turn in the White House could be shaped by person-to-person transactions with business and tech executives, a new kind of American oligarchy." Reading from your article. Would you take a step back for a second and define what you mean by oligarchy? It sounds ominous. What does it actually mean or suggest for the general population?

Ashley Parker: It means that in this case, these ultrawealthy individuals and, in particular, these tech billionaires who, it's worth noting just eight years ago had kept quite a distance from Donald Trump when he first became president. Many of them were openly critical. It means that these folks will have a literal and physical, as we saw at the inauguration, seat right around the president of the United States and that it works both ways. They can both potentially be incredibly influential. A perfect example of that is Elon Musk. He wrote a huge check to Donald Trump during the campaign. He got on board after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.

When Trump won, he was not quite this starkly, but he was rewarded by hanging out at Mar-a-Lago every single day, and we reported. Then I was at The Washington Post, but at the time, we at The Washington Post and others reported that Elon Musk was sitting in on meetings about who Cabinet picks should be and not just areas that touch on where he has some expertise, but all sorts of Cabinet picks where he doesn't necessarily know more or have any more experience or insight than the average person.

He was wielding some real influence and power there. Then when it flows the other way, which is that clip you played from Bannon, and he said something similar to me when I spoke to him for this story, you are seeing these tech billionaires, rather than resisting the way they did during Trump's first term, submitting in advance. They are making changes to their platforms and to their public rhetoric that are in line with what they seem to think Donald Trump wants. Mark Zuckerberg and Meta is a classic case. He changed some of the fact-checking on his platform that Donald Trump--

Brian Lehrer: Changed, as in eliminated?

Ashley Parker: As in eliminated, yes. He eliminated the fact-checking that Donald Trump had railed against. He went on Joe Rogan's podcast and he talked about the importance of masculine energy, which is a line you could imagine Donald Trump saying at a rally.

Brian Lehrer: We'll play that clip in a little bit, but go ahead.

Ashley Parker: Oh, yes. The last thing I'll say is when Donald Trump was inaugurated the first time, Mark Zuckerberg very clearly distanced himself. He wrote an open letter on Facebook criticizing Trump's rhetoric and actions on immigration and likening his own ancestors and his wife's parents, his in-laws, to the plight of the immigrants Trump was demonizing and going after.

This cycle we reported after Trump won. He's been down to Mar-a-Lago a couple times. He's actively and personally involved. He had been working to settle a lawsuit that Trump had filed against him that at the time a number of people had said was frivolous. There was this party with the ultra-elite who didn't want to slum it at the populist balls in 2008. This time, same party happened, black tie gala. This time, he ingratiated himself and got on the invitation as a co-host, and it made it one of the most coveted parties of the weekend.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. I hear you on Musk exerting influence over Trump's selections of people and possible policies, but your article's emphasis is really on-- It's like Bannon's emphasis. It's on these tech titans surrendering to Trump. Do you think, or do any of your sources in your reporting think, that it's better, or at least less bad for regular Americans that the government is controlling the oligarchs rather than, as Biden suggested, the oligarchs are controlling the government?

Ashley Parker: Well, it depends on who you talk to, which way they think it's flowing. The one thing about Donald Trump, and I've covered him in some form or fashion since 2015, is that he's always been incredibly transactional. Number one, he likes people who like him. He likes people who say what he wants, who flatter him, and who do what he wants. That is one way that these tech billionaires or these oligarchs will have power, which is to stay on Trump's good side. That's a limited type of power because they can't really do or say or influence in any way they want. They can do it while they're in the MAGA world in espousing those views.

At one point, someone said to me, they were talking about his populist appeal, which sometimes made it hard to manage him as president, but which a lot of people found appealing. They said, "Look, if Lara Trump is in the Oval Office with her sorority sisters--" To be clear, I don't actually know if she was or was not in a sorority, but this is how this person in Trump world put it to me. He is just as like, and he's thinking about what to do on Afghanistan. He is just as likely to turn and ask his generals as he is to turn and ask her in the Tridelts and weigh that information similarly. Some people love that about him, and that drives other people crazy that a golf caddy of his may have as much influence as a Cabinet pick in certain ways. Just by their sheer proximity, these folks, while they remain in Trump's good graces, could wield that sort of influence.

Brian Lehrer: We have a few callers who want to make a similar point. I'm going to take Dominic in the Bronx to speak for them. Dominic, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Dominic: Hi, Brian. I love your show. I think that's required to say. No, I'm kidding. I think that this is like the same-- It's like the MCU. It's the same frigging movie but just with a slightly different character cast. Jack London in 1908 published a book called The Iron Heel. Orwell a few years later, because nobody listened, puts out Animal Farm. Then he follows with 1984 and still no one listened. His teacher at Eaton wrote a book called Brave New World, but nobody listened.

Here in the United States, it can't happen here. We've been writing about this, we've been thinking about this. What kills me about this is that these multibillionaires are terrified not so much of Trump but of his black shirts, his fascisti. That's what it is. It's fascism. It's fascism that's always been in bed with the rich, and they will do the bidding of whomever is willing to pay. Unfortunately, the media, WNYC in particular, and I love you guys, we're doomed. The New York Times is already kowtowing to Trump and so is The Washington Post. So are all the major media. They're softening their stance. They're covering him. It's good. While they cover this clown in the White House, the stuff that he's doing is going to make what Reagan did to the United States look like nothing. We miss George W. Bush.

Brian Lehrer: That's probably hard for you to say, Dominic, but I'm going to leave it there. There's Dominic's view of all this. I'm going to take Mitchell in Stuyvesant Town, who is another one who I thought was going to be on the same note as Dominic. Mitchell, I think you are, more or less, but you're going to give us, I think, a slightly different emphasis, which I thought we were going to hear from Dominic too. Mitchell, you're on WNYC. Hello. Mitchell, you there? Hello, Stuytown.

Mitchell: Hello. Hi, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Hi. Oh, there you go. Hi there.

Mitchell: Yes, here I am. Sorry, I was running from the other room. First of all, you know I love you and I love the show. It's fantastic.

Brian Lehrer: Dominic says you're required to say that. Otherwise, I don't know what. [crosstalk] I'm going to cancel the fact-checking or something if you don't say that. I'm kidding. Go ahead.

Mitchell: Someone told me to say it. I'm kidding. I want to just create a little context around this idea of oligarch, like, oh my God, it's now happening in front of our very eyes. I would like to just offer the idea that there's been an oligarchy in the United States of America, maybe even going back to Washington, to varying degrees, granted, and it has gotten worse. You could very much say that a series of large companies, fossil fuel companies, big pharma companies, and the like, Monsanto, other enormous chemical companies, have been a revolving door in our federal agencies for decades. This is just not new federal. Think of even back with the Rockefeller and Rothschilds during the Federal Reserve Act, and Wilson. There's a long history of oligarchic activity in the United States.

Brian Lehrer: Certainly, Bernie Sanders probably would have put it more or less that way throughout his whole career. In fairness, from your point of view, Mitchell, and then, Ashley, I'm going to ask you too, does Bannon have a point when he says the Democrats didn't have a problem with the oligarchs the last four years before they turned friendly to Trump? These oligarchs, when Facebook was actually fact-checking for misinformation, for example, which the right saw as censorship, or maybe Michael Bloomberg as another example. He hasn't been in the current conversation, but Bloomberg is one of the richest men in the world too, and he was spending a lot of campaign money to help Democrats.

Mitchell: True. Yes, I think that's true.

Brian Lehrer: Does Bannon have a point?

Mitchell: Oh, very much so. I think Bannon is on it for once. I think there's a truism in that. The main thing is, what do we do, if you don't mind my saying, as Americans to stand up to this madness? Who benefits? You asked the question. I think both sides benefit. It's a win-win scenario. Trump loves being surrounded by power and money and he's getting his way. They are getting government contracts and lots of Bernies for their behavior and their subservience.

Brian Lehrer: Mitchell, thank you very much, Ashley. Anything on that?

Ashley Parker: Yes. It's interesting. First of all, it's worth noting that wealthy people have always had an outsized voice in our nation's politics and outsized influence. When Bloomberg's group, for instance, is spending money on causes that align with Democrats, most notably on immigration and on gun restrictions, you don't hear these complaints. I think Bannon does have a point.

The flip side, of course, is even when Biden or Democrats were close to this crew of tech titans, it is hard to imagine, for instance, an inauguration where these folks would be personally invited by then President Biden, as they were, we reported, by now President Trump to join him on the dais and to sit among Biden's family and to sit ahead of Biden's Cabinet and to force Democratic lawmakers to be in an overflow room. Even that level of coziness, when it has happened and likely will again happen on the Democratic side, just the images from Inauguration Day feel very different than anything we've seen from Democrats so far and I think would have seen from Harris had she won the election.

Brian Lehrer: On the implications of a Trump and tech oligarchs alliance for average Americans concerned with things like fair wages and the cost of living, I'm going to play a little more from the Biden farewell address warning about an oligarchy. This comes right after what we played before. He talks here about actions the government took in the robber barons era against the oligarchs in the interest of American workers.

President Biden: More than a century ago, the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts. They didn't punish the wealthy, just made the wealthy play by the rules everybody else had to. Workers won rights to earn their fair share. They were dealt into the deal and helped put us on a path to building the largest middle class, most prosperous century any nation in the world has ever seen. We've got to do that again.

Brian Lehrer: Biden talks about trust-busting, Ashley. That's antitrust legislation to prevent monopoly power that could set prices at will. He talks about workers being dealt into the deal paving the way for the largest middle class the world has ever known. I'm curious, and maybe you don't know, but would Steve Bannon as a populist agree with that history as told by Joe Biden or be a hawk on antitrust as Biden actually was? Tell me if you disagree, but I think this was one of the undercovered aspects of the Biden administration. He was a hawk on antitrust. He tried to stop big mergers. He tried to break up some big conglomerates. I wonder if that's part of the MAGA populist base as reflected by Steve Bannon philosophy too. Could we see it under Trump?

Ashley Parker: First of all, I would never purport to speak on behalf of Steve Bannon. He is perfectly capable of speaking for himself and frankly, often far more colorful and evocative than I am. I will just answer that in a slightly different way because it touches on something broader that I've been thinking about, which is that this election, Biden and then Harris and Democrats writ large, no longer had the mantle of being the party in favor of the American worker.

Again, you can argue whether that's fair or unfair. You can argue whether that's even accurate if you look at the different policies. It was just clear that the nation writ large thought that Donald Trump, because of things he was saying and doing, was going to be the person who was fighting on behalf of middle-class Americans and the American Worker. That is so striking for a number of reasons, but including the idea that Scranton Joe could lose that mantle.

I was talking to someone who was making the point that Biden was older, he was less of a good communicator. Part of that is his ability that he might have had 20 years ago to just go out and energetically articulate that case was diminished. We've talked about that in general as a nation ad nauseam. Also, there were policies. Tariffs may end up raising costs. Those are often borne out by the consumer. It's not necessarily Mexico who totally pays the price. It's also people in the United States who-- They call it the guacamole tax, who the price of their avocados goes way higher. Tariffs hold incredibly well and it has made people think that Donald Trump and Republicans are fighting on their behalf.

Again, that's a long way of saying it was just a striking dynamic where you see some unions supporting Trump this time, the president of the Teamsters speaking at his inauguration in a way that feels very upended from traditional party lines historically.

Brian Lehrer: Ashley Parker with us with her first article now that she joined The Atlantic as a staff writer called The Tech Oligarchy Arrives. Ashley, who was a senior Washington correspondent, including White House bureau chief for a number of years at The Washington Post. Ashley, I'm sure a number of listeners are wondering. One of them wrote it in a text message. "I wonder if the behavior of Jeff Bezos has something to do with this reporter leaving The Washington Post," writes that listener.

Ashley Parker: I will just say I love The Washington Post. I love it in my bones. It was probably the most gutting professional decision I've ever made. The reason I left, I can only speak for me personally, is I've also always wanted to do magazine writing. I graduated from college thinking that's what I was going to do, that I was going to move to New York and wait tables and pitch to Vanity Fair and Esquire and New York Mag. This offer from The Atlantic would have been a dream offer that would have been tough to turn down in any moment.

I will just say, and again, I know reporters at The Post, myself included, it feels very uncomfortable when you watch your owner practically sitting on the president-elect's, or the president once he was sworn in, lap during an inauguration. That's not because it's President Trump in particular. That would be true if Bezos had sat next to President Obama or President George W. Bush or Kamala Harris.

I will say again, for the entire time I was at The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos is an owner. I covered all four years of the Trump White House when I was there. He never once meddled in our copy. You would have heard about it immediately if he had. There would have been, and I imagine will be, mass resignations if that ever happens. I remember thinking at the time how striking it was because we were doing as we do for, again, all presidents, Democratic, Republican, very tough accountability coverage on Donald Trump. Donald Trump in the first term was actively trying to punish Bezos for that. We never heard a word, which is what you want from an owner.

Brian Lehrer: One follow-up. Your article here does report on Bezos as one of the oligarchs, including part of the story you just told. The contrast being that now Bezos donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee. I'll add, as you well know, that Bezos famously canceled The Post's editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris before the election and then canceled the cartoon by a cartoonist who had a satirical sketch of exactly what your article is about, Bezos and of these other tech billionaires bending their knee to Trump. Then the cartoonist resigned over what she saw as censorship. Do you think you could have written this article if you were still at The Washington Post?

Ashley Parker: I do. It's interesting. Someone else at The Washington Post wrote a similar article. Someone who just joined their White House team or it was two reporters, actually, Michael Birnbaum and Kat Zarkowski. Again, it was written in a slightly different style because I am now at a magazine and I'm trying to learn how to write for a magazine and they're writing for a newspaper, but it was the same article. Definitely, I will say I understand that concern because when an endorsement gets polled--

The irony is, I don't know how much you want to go into this, but I've always found that newspapers endorsing presidential candidates is problematic because the average reader doesn't understand the church and state wall between the two, so I cannot tell you how many times when I worked for The New York Times or The Washington Post and I was covering Republicans, they would be furious and saying, "You came out and supported Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama." It's like, "Not me, the editorial board. I have nothing to do with that."

There's a lot of flack you get, and it makes you seem, as a reporter, biased when you're not. The flip side is, with all due respect to both of my former employers, The Washington Post and The New York Times, and maybe you disagree, Brian, but I've never known a voter who was going to vote one way and then said, "Wait a minute, The New York Times said to support Kamala Harris. I'm going to totally change my vote." I don't think they matter that much. The timing of pulling that endorsement after it had already been written in favor of Kamala Harris. Jeff Bezos came out, he gave his explanation, but the timing gave people good reason to believe the most nefarious things they wanted to believe.

Same with the cartoon getting pulled. That was done by David Shipley on the editorial side, which has nothing to do with the news side. In a moment of deep uncertainty for the country of what Trump is going to do and uncertainty for the newspaper industry in general and for The Washington Post in particular, I do understand that the people who want to implant their conspiracy theory or their deepest concerns over it, it gives them reason to be suspicious.

Brian Lehrer: I'm curious, since we're getting into the weeds a little bit, which I think our listeners will find interesting, of newspaper best practices on the editorial side and hearing your concern that it confuses ordinary readers about the purpose of the newspaper and makes it maybe harder for those on the news reporting side to have credibility and have people understand because they don't think about it that deeply, that there is a difference between the opinions that the opinion page puts out, or the editorial page per se, and what the news reporters are doing for their job, not necessarily trying to push that opinion, but just report the news.

Do you think it's different when it comes to local political race endorsements? Because I believe Bezos made that specific distinction. To your question, do I know anybody who's ever changed their vote because of a newspaper editorial? I do think there are a lot of people in the New York area who may look at The New York Times endorsement, for example, for local races when they don't know the candidates very well and make some of their decisions on those.

Ashley Parker: Yes, I think that's a totally fair argument for local races. Often those, unfortunately, local media, newspapers on the whole are getting decimated and have been. Yes, I think that is a much more personal relationship between the reader and the paper because it's really telling you what's going on in your community, at your children schools, at the new construction site down the street from your home. I think there is an argument that local endorsements, I imagine they may make local reporters' jobs harder, but they do actually inform readers in their thinking in a way that national endorsements don't.

Last thing very briefly, since we are in the weeds about my current informer employer, if you don't mind a point of personal privilege, I'll just say I love The Atlantic. I'm so excited to try to figure out how to do that sort of journalism. Of course, everyone should read it and subscribe. When I was at The Post, I felt like I was desperately trying to claw back individual subscribers who had unsubscribed because they were angry with the decision Jeff Bezos had made or someone on the editorial page had made. I would just say The Washington Post is a great paper. It's a storied, critical institution, and there's a ton of incredibly talented, and fair, and objective hardworking reporters and editors there. I'd urge anyone to not cancel because you're mad at Jeff Bezos or the publisher, Will Lewis. Subscribing helps the journalists do really good, important accountability journalism.

Brian Lehrer: Point of privilege taken. I will note, as we put this part of our conversation to rest, that we're getting a lot of texts and calls on both sides of the question. Are the oligarchs controlling Trump or is Trump controlling the oligarchs? Not that people in either camp think it's good, whichever side they're landing on, but it is interesting, having raised that question and played that contrast between what Steve Bannon said and Joe Biden said, that a lot of people see it on one side or the other of who really holds the power here and who probably does have implications.

Now, when we continue in a minute, folks, we're going to play a clip of one of the notable ways that Mark Zuckerberg seems to be playing his Trump card by puffing up masculinity, including aggression, he uses that word, and we're going to invite listener calls on that. Also, the contradiction of Trump running as a working-class hero and surrounding himself with the oligarchs. The plot on that is thickening as Steve Bannon is firing verbal darts at Elon Musk now over being too much of an oligarch. Again, we'll relate it to the interests of non-oligarch American workers because there are policy disputes breaking out now on at least two fronts. Stay with us for that. Brian Lehrer with Ashley Parker, now of The Atlantic on WNYC.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Ashley Parker, now a staff writer at The Atlantic with her first article after leaving The Washington Post. It's called The Tech Oligarchy Arrives. The article points out that in 2017, during the first week of Trump's first term, Mark Zuckerberg invoked his own family's immigrant roots, said the issue was personal for him, and expressed concern about Trump's positions toward immigrants of that year, 2017. Compare that to Zuckerberg going on Joe Rogan's podcast last week and invoking one of Trump's and the culture war rights favorite themes, real man masculinity.

Mark Zuckerberg: The kind of masculine energy I think is good. Obviously, society has plenty of that, but I think corporate culture was really trying to get away from it. I do think that there's just something-- It's like, I don't know, all these forms of energy are good. I think having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits.

Brian Lehrer: Zuckerberg last week on Joe Rogan. Listeners, for the last stretch of this segment, we're going to open the phones for you specifically on that. Listeners who work in tech or really anywhere in corporate America, do you think we need a workplace culture that celebrates aggression a bit more, as Zuckerberg put it there? 212-433-WNYC. Has the American workplace become not aggressive enough? If you actually work at Facebook or any other division of Meta, has your company become too feminized? I guess another way to say what Zuckerberg is saying. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Call or text. Ashley, as those calls and texts are coming in, where'd that come from? Aren't the vast majority of corporate CEOs and top execs men? Aren't tech companies, in particular like Meta, still predominantly male in their workforces?

Ashley Parker: I have not checked the recent stats, for instance, on Fortune 500 companies, but yes, I believe that dynamic has not changed where the upper C-suite echelon of major companies is still very heavily dominated by men. As to where that came from, I think it's quite obvious. It's not just what he said, which, again, is something that is music to President Trump's ears, but it's also, of course, where he said it. He said it on Joe Rogan's podcast, which is where Trump appeared in the final weeks of the election. It's a place that people thought maybe really helped Trump with some critical votes in the final stretch.

Brian Lehrer: It's a podcast that appeals specifically, or at least probably, more than to any other demographic, to relatively young and relatively conservative men. Is that fair to say?

Ashley Parker: Yes, that's fair to say. A lot of the things, we outlined this in our story on this tech oligarchy or technologarchy, I keep trying to make happen, that Zuckerberg did that are just out in the public view feel very deliberate, going on Joe Rogan's show in particular and extolling the virtues of masculine energy in particular. Dana White is someone who is very close to Trump. He's been a Trump supporter. I was there on the floor when he spoke at the Trump's convention. Zuckerberg just added him, I believe, to Meta's board. You look at all this public stuff and a lot of it, like many people in Trump's orbit, are trying to get in Trump orbit. It feels geared towards an audience of one. That one is obviously Donald Trump.

Brian Lehrer: The Dana White wrestling executive. Is that who that is?

Ashley Parker: Ultimate Fighting.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, right, of course.

Ashley Parker: UFC. There's a lot of overlap in that Venn diagram, but yes.

Brian Lehrer: Ultimate Fighting, kind of even more that than wrestling, which is theater, which is staged. Rebecca in Cambridge, Mass, you're on WNYC. Hi, Rebecca.

Rebbecca: Hi, Brian. I know you can hear me. Now, I just wanted to comment this overwhelming, unbelievable avalanche of misogyny. I heard Kristi Noem the other day talk. She's the nominee to be the secretary of something. She's complaining about immigrants and wants to close the borders because immigrants are responsible for sex crimes. I would ask her to look right and left at her fellow nominees and the person who nominated them, and then let her ask the question, who is responsible for sex crimes? Do you get my point?

Brian Lehrer: I get your point. Rebecca, thank you very much. Oh, did you want--

Rebecca: I'm so angry. [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: I hear you. Thank you. I'm going to get somebody else on here. I did look up the stat, Ashley, and everybody. According to Investopedia, in the United States, about 68.5% of CEOs are men, while 31.5% are women. 68 to 31, roughly. Just saying. Let's see. Mike in Manhattan, a lawyer, you're on WNYC. Hi, Mike.

Mike: Hello, this is Mike. I just wanted to make a point about depositions. I've been doing depositions for many years, starting with the World Trade Center case. Just this last year, there's been something changing in a civil deposition. Usually, it's called discovery. It's before the trial. It's an exploration of what the issues are. You ask a lot of questions. It doesn't have to be perfect. People do the best they can with the circumstances.

Lately, it's been almost impossible because lawyers have been just-- I realize now it's like this aggressive dance where they'll argue over minutiae. They won't let the questions be asked. It's created a real problem when trying to get down all the information so you could possibly settle the case. I think it has a lot to do with this issue that you're talking about.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. You think the political environment has affected what goes on in depositions?

Mike: I think it must. Then oftentimes, if there's a problem, you call the judge on the phone because everything's being done virtually now. I haven't had a live deposition in several years. You call the judge, but the judges are not taking the calls anymore, for whatever reason. They're just overwhelmed or they're also at home. You can't resolve this emotional inability to get over your position as far as supposedly protecting your client. It's supposed to be like a procedure where you just ask a lot of questions. You find out what the issues are. I've noticed it just lately. I was always down at the courthouse when Donald Trump was being tried for various things. I just noticed this new-- just a different procedure altogether. It's changed over there, I think.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. Mike, thank you from that report, from the front. Listener writes, "As a Latina woman who works in nonprofit tech, I know my aggression will never be welcome in any workplace." That's an interesting one, Ashley, right? Zuckerberg talked about masculinity and aggression in the workplace, almost as two different things. There's a Latina listener who says, "Yes, maybe their aggression, but not my aggression. That won't be welcome." A listener who sometimes writes critical of me writes, "Brian could not be more of a femboy."

Ashley Parker: [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: I'll take that as a badge of honor. Rachel in Stamford, you're on WNYC. Hi, Rachel.

Rachel: Hi, Brian. I just want to talk about something that the late Bell Hooks was always mentioning in her works about the difference between patriarchy and masculinity. I worked at a tech company for eight years and I saw women fall into the trap, women leaders that is, that you have to be aggressive in order to get taken seriously because we live in a patriarchal society that values that kind of behavior. When we're talking about masculinity, we should celebrate masculinity and separate it from our critiques of the patriarchy and the aggression that comes with that. We as feminists are not being critical of men in the way that they're of their masculinity per se, but just of their aggressive, dominant behavior. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Well, that's a really deep thought. What traits would you associate with masculinity since you're saying aggression can be separated from that? What would be positive masculine traits that are different from positive feminine traits, if you have any of those in mind?

Rachel: Yes, great question. I would say that men should value being kinder people, that they don't have to prescribe to an aggressive tone or behavior to be taken seriously, that they can be strong in a kinder way that doesn't dominate other people. It's really just valuing that there's just a difference between the two.

Brian Lehrer: Rachel, thank you very much. I think we have to do a separate follow-up segment on that. What really is masculinity? What is femininity? There's so much talk about gender, even when we talk about non-binary people, Ashley, I know this is not on your beat, or trans people. What is it to feel like a boy if you were identified at birth as a girl or vice versa? You know what I mean? That somehow doesn't identify with whatever is seen as negative in the case of men about masculinity. That's a deep conversation to have that I assume you don't want to say anything about and it's off your beat, right?

Ashley Parker: That's correct, yes. [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: Let's finish up with something that is on your beat and, in fact, was in the subtitle of your article, that the tech billionaires and Donald Trump have an alliance for now. You see potential fault lines?

Ashley Parker: Yes, absolutely. It's a couple things. First of all, you just look at history and the people who were close to Donald Trump, whether they were Cabinet members or top aides. Many of them, over time, have been cast out by him or have turned against him. Although I will say Trump world is a little bit like the Hotel California. You can never really leave. There is this group of people Bannon was in. He was in the White House. He was then out of the White House. There were tensions. He was then in prison and now he's back. It's the same cast of characters. When I look at this, one of the things Donald Trump really hates is the idea of people profiting off of him and getting rich because of their proximity to him, or say a low-level aide getting a book deal because they happen to work in the Trump White House. What's interesting about this is I think some--

Brian Lehrer: Even though Trump can do that all he wants, apparently, right? His family is selling meme crypto coins based on his second election and all that stuff.

Ashley Parker: Yes, sneakers, bibles. He himself puts that in a different category of acceptable. When it's someone else who's not him or a family member, it really bothers him. Again, what's interesting here is Elon Musk, in certain ways, does not need Donald Trump. Now, if he wants to run Doge, or he wants to influence the federal contracting process, or undo regulations, or try to have a say in what DHS is doing, then Elon Musk needs Donald Trump. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

Elon Musk is the richest person in the world. He's far wealthier than Donald Trump. If Donald Trump was to cast him out, Elon Musk would still be Elon Musk. He would still have all the money, he would still have all the companies, he would still have a huge platform for his voice on X. In certain ways, I wonder, because sometimes being a Trump reporter also means being a bit of a Trump amateur psychologist, if that makes that relationship last a bit longer than you might otherwise expect.

Brian Lehrer: Just on Musk, I don't know that this goes for the others we've been talking about, Zuckerberg, Bezos, and some of the others, but there are already some fault lines breaking out. Musk wants H-1B visas, which are these visas for immigrants who are seen as having skills in short supply in the American workplace. In the tech sector, Steve Bannon is already out there saying no, Musk just wants to be able to hire immigrants rather than native-born Americans because he can get the immigrants cheaper. I think that's the implication of Bannon's critique.

There's another issue like that that broke out this week, something about Musk trashing-- Well, Politico says Trump's key aides and allies are furious with Elon Musk for publicly trashing his $500 billion artificial intelligence megadeal. I admit I don't know what that is. Are we seeing the beginnings of what might erupt as a bigger oligarch Trump split when their interests diverge?

Ashley Parker: Two thoughts on that. The first is the person you are seeing, the most outspoken is Elon Musk. I think some of that goes back to the answer to your previous question, which is that Elon Musk is Elon Musk with the money and the platform and the businesses, with or without Donald Trump. He seems to feel emboldened, at least for now, to speak out in a way that, say, Mark Zuckerberg is not. Mark Zuckerberg is going on Joe Rogan's podcast and talking about masculine energy and Elon Musk is disagreeing on a small portion but of an issue Trump cares tremendously about, which is immigration.

The next thing I will say is, yes, this is very specifically what Bannon is railing against. There is a sense that an oligarchy dilutes the purity of a movement. Bannon has made clear he is speaking on behalf of the true hardcore MAGA base that has been with Donald Trump since 2015 when he rode down that golden escalator. What's fascinating in this moment, as Bannon has described it to me, is that he's fashioning himself as the field general for this fight. He's the most public person. That's a role Bannon is very comfortable with, but that he's getting a lot of private kudos from the pure MAGA populist base because some of those folks are afraid to go up against these tech guys, but appreciate the fact that Bannon is doing that. There's certainly already fault lines and it will be interesting to see if and when they fully fracture.

Brian Lehrer: Ashley Parker, now at The Atlantic. Thanks for this, Ashley. Congratulations on your new job. We look forward to having you on from time to time in that role.

Ashley Parker: Perfect. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Much more to come.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.