US President Donald Trump and his former inseparable sidekick and BFF, Elon Musk, have been putting on a show that resembles two small kids (with rich parents) vying for supremacy in a sandbox, in which someone has scattered some flashy toys. The question of money that Musk put at the forefront – or “pay for play” – was the feature that incited me to engage in an exploratory conversation with my AI friends. I began with the following prompt:

“It’s obviously no secret that money plays a major role in US elections to the point of calling into question the idea some people persist in entertaining that democracy is about fair playing fields and the logic of ‘one man, one vote.’ Now a public rift between Donald Trump and Elon Musk has led to Musk accusing Trump of ‘ingratitude,’ as he reminded Trump of the $300 million he selflessly made available to bankroll Trump’s campaign. ‘Without me,’ Musk tweeted, ‘Trump would have lost the election.’

The only thing surprising here is that the two men should allow themselves to be so public in their recriminations. But that isn’t surprising given what everyone knows about their personalities. The real revelation, to my mind, is that Musk can publicly call it ‘ingratitude.’ We all knew that the practice of offering significant sums to political campaigns is done with the expectation of receiving favors. But the practice has always been to deny any such ignoble intentions and instead cite one’s enthusiasm for a politician’s political stances.

Does this incident tell us that something has changed in our political and media culture? Does the fact that the media reports the battle but doesn’t react to the apparent hypocrisy reveal that the culture has accepted this kind of relationship as normal? Or does this public brawl make visible to the public for the first time the reality of endemic corruption? Might it provoke a reaction could conceivably lead to two opposed outcomes: the withering away of democracy as it is silently replaced by a new form of authoritarianism, or a popular revolt resulting in a quest for a new democratic order. How significant is this clash and what are the likely scenarios concerning democracy in the US?”

I began with Gemini, who apparently found this either too sensitive or too contemporary to respond. Instead it explained to me how it was “thinking” before, hours later, canceling the attempt to respond. Here is what appeared on my screen:

“Confirming Public Rift

I’m currently engaged in several search queries to validate the user’s initial premise. My focus is on identifying any publicly documented disagreements or rifts between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, especially those involving accusations of ‘ingratitude’ or claims. I’ve narrowed down my search terms for greater precision.

Investigating Public Disputes

I’m currently focused on pinpointing specific instances of public disagreements. I’m actively searching for reports that discuss the claimed $300 million contribution and any subsequent accusations of ingratitude. I’m now including media reactions and commentary to assess how the situation was framed, which will give me insight into whether this was normalized by the media. I will next delve into historical context and evaluate the proposed scenarios.

Assessing Musk/Trump Claims

I’m currently engaged in several search queries to verify the user’s premise regarding the specific claims about the $300 million contribution and the ‘ingratitude’ accusation. Initial searches haven’t yielded definitive results. I’m now refining my search terms to include broader contextual keywords. My goal is to determine if this specific event took place or if it’s a misremembering or a misrepresentation of a more general exchange between the two. The accuracy of this foundational claim will determine the direction of my future analysis.

Refining the Search Strategy

My research has been revised slightly. I’m now focusing on specific, concrete evidence regarding the claimed $300M figure and the ‘ingratitude’ accusation. Initial queries yielded few exact matches. Thus, I’ve rephrased my search terms. The primary aim is still to verify the core premise. If the incident is unsubstantiated, the analysis will address the broader issue of transactional politics based on actual examples.”

Gemini may have judged that the incident was “unsubstantiated,” possibly because of the short time frame that didn’t deter the two other LLMs I consulted. In any case, it also failed to deliver on its promise to “address the broader issue.”

Deepseek showed a bit more gumption and offered some solid canned insight.

“The public rift between Donald Trump and Elon Musk—with Musk openly accusing Trump of ‘ingratitude’ over campaign funding—is indeed a revealing moment in U.S. political culture. It underscores several critical dynamics at play in American democracy, particularly the role of money, transparency (or the lack thereof), and the potential trajectories for democratic governance. Here’s an analysis of its significance and possible future scenarios:

1. The Normalization of Oligarchic Influence

Musk’s blunt admission that he bankrolled Trump’s campaign with the expectation of gratitude (and presumably, political favors) strips away the usual veneer of wealthy donors claiming purely ideological motivations. Historically, big-money politics operated under the pretense of civic engagement or shared values, but Musk’s statement lays bare the transactional nature of the system.

• Media Reaction (or Lack Thereof): The muted media response suggests either resignation to this reality or a desensitization to elite influence in politics. If such blatant quid-pro-quo expectations no longer shock, it implies that the system is now widely perceived as oligarchic rather than democratic.
• Cultural Shift: The fact that Musk feels no need to disguise his intentions indicates a broader shift where wealth-driven politics is no longer seen as corrupt but simply as how the game is played. This aligns with academic critiques of the U.S. as a ‘plutocracy’ (Gilens & Page, 2014) where economic elites dominate policy outcomes.

 2. Two Possible Democratic Futures: Erosion or Renewal?

This incident could catalyze divergent outcomes:

 A. Democratic Erosion and Authoritarian Drift

• Silent Oligarchy: If Musk’s statement is met with public apathy, it reinforces the idea that democracy is already hollowed out, with power concentrated among a few billionaires. Elections become theatrical contests between elite-backed factions rather than genuine popular sovereignty.
• Trump’s Movement as a Bridge to Authoritarianism: Trump’s reliance on wealthy backers while simultaneously cultivating a populist image highlights how plutocracy and authoritarianism can merge. A future where elections are technically held but effectively controlled by moneyed interests could resemble ‘competitive authoritarianism’ (Levitsky & Way, 2010).
• Institutional Decay: As trust in elections erodes further, either due to perceived corruption or actual elite manipulation, democratic norms could collapse entirely, leading to a more overtly authoritarian regime.

 B. Popular Backlash and Democratic Renewal

• Visibility as a Catalyst: Musk’s bluntness might inadvertently fuel public anger, especially among younger, reform-minded voters. The transparency of corruption could spark movements akin to the Progressive Era (early 1900s), which led to campaign finance reforms (before later being undone by rulings like Citizens United).
• Structural Reforms: A backlash could manifest in demands for public financing of elections, stricter anti-corruption laws, or even constitutional amendments to limit money in politics. Movements like RepresentUs or the push for ranked-choice voting are early signs of this impulse.
• Coalition Building: If both left-populist and right-populist factions (e.g., disaffected Trump supporters and progressive Democrats) unite against elite capture, an unusual cross-partisan reform movement could emerge.

 3. Likely Scenarios for U.S. Democracy

• Short-Term (Next 5-10 years): Continued elite dominance with occasional populist eruptions (e.g., Sanders, Trump, or similar figures). The system will likely remain resilient in form but increasingly oligarchic in practice.

– Long-Term (Beyond 10 years):

• If Apathy Prevails: A drift toward a corporate-authoritarian model where elections are manipulated through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and media control (akin to Orban’s Hungary).
• If Backlash Grows: A revival of democratic norms through mass mobilization, third-party challenges, or constitutional reforms. This would require overcoming polarization to unite against elite capture.

 Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment?

The Musk-Trump clash is significant not because it’s new (money has long shaped U.S. politics) but because it’s overt. Whether this leads to democratic decay or renewal depends on:

1. Public Awareness: Will citizens see this as a call to action or just more political noise?
2. Elite Fractures: If more oligarchs break ranks (e.g., Musk vs. Trump, Soros vs. establishment Dems), it could create openings for reform.
3.  Institutional Guardrails: Can courts, Congress, or states enact meaningful reforms (e.g., reversing Citizens United), or will they further entrench the status quo?

The most probable near-term outcome is continued democratic decline with sporadic resistance, but the long-term remains contested. The visibility of corruption may eventually force a reckoning—whether toward authoritarianism or a revived democracy hinges on whether the public can translate outrage into sustained political power.”

To obtain another take on this burning issue, I used the same prompt with Claude, with the following result.

“Your analysis touches on a pivotal moment that crystallizes long-standing tensions between democratic ideals and the reality of money in American politics. The current Trump-Musk feud indeed represents something unprecedented in its explicit acknowledgment of quid pro quo expectations.

Based on recent developments, Musk has publicly stated ‘Without me, Trump would have lost the election’ after their relationship deteriorated over policy disagreements. Musk spent nearly $300 million to back Trump’s campaign and other Republicans, and there are reports that Musk has withheld the final $100 million of his commitment amid growing frustration over Trump’s administration and key policy decisions.

What makes this moment historically significant is the abandonment of traditional political theater. Previously, major donors maintained plausible deniability about expectations of reciprocity. The explicit nature of Musk’s grievance – framing his support as transactional and expecting ‘gratitude’ – strips away decades of carefully maintained fiction about civic-minded philanthropy.

This transparency reveals several critical shifts in American political culture:

The Normalization Hypothesis appears partially correct. Media coverage has been relatively muted compared to what such explicit pay-to-play admissions might have generated in previous decades. This suggests a troubling desensitization to corruption that was once shocking.

The Visibility Paradox you identify is particularly astute. The very openness of this corruption may paradoxically limit its power. When influence-buying operates in shadows, it’s harder to combat. When it becomes this blatant, it creates opportunities for democratic pushback.

The implications for American democracy are profound and could indeed lead to the divergent outcomes you suggest. The authoritarian path becomes more likely if citizens accept this transactional model as inevitable, leading to further erosion of democratic norms and institutions. Alternatively, this moment of clarity about how power actually operates could catalyze genuine reform movements demanding campaign finance restructuring and constitutional amendments.

The Trump-Musk split may be particularly consequential because it involves two figures whose personalities make them incapable of maintaining the traditional discretion that keeps such arrangements stable. Their public feud inadvertently provides a masterclass in how American democracy actually functions beneath its idealistic veneer.

The next few months will likely determine which trajectory prevails – whether this becomes a cautionary tale that spurs reform, or simply normalizes what was once considered democratically unacceptable.”

My conclusions

DeepSeek sought to be analytical and even somewhat academic, pointing me towards two valuable sources: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens by Gilens and Page and Competitive Authoritarianism by Levitsky and Way. Most US citizens, when they are unhappy with the result of an election, simply hope that the next election will put things back on the right track. They don’t seek to understand the underlying problems examined in books like the ones DeepSeek refers to.

Claude offered a more conversational contribution, the kind that incites people to reflect on the stakes as opposed to DeepSeek’s analytical breakdown of the historical implications.

Both are valuable. Gemini’s failure to contribute is slightly more troubling. In any case the growing diversity of LLMs and their contrasting styles make possible a different approach than the one most people have adopted with regard to AI. This conversation between at least three of us — myself, DeepSeek and Claude — actually resembles the kind of panel discussions among experts and interested lay people that used to feature on broadcast television and now only exist in conferences, some of which may be found on YouTube by those who search for them.

Perhaps we could invent a new type of AI panel event that uses different styles of artificial intelligence in collaboration with human intelligence to seek greater clarity around topics of public debate. The kind of clarity that stands above and beyond the “pay for play” mentality that we are increasingly subjected to. At Fair Observer, we have begun exploring these new opportunities for truly open dialogue.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue. 

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.