A Comprehensive Framework for Analyzing How Political Decisions Really Get Made
Introduction
When citizens look at the political system, they often find themselves caught between two unsatisfying narratives.
One narrative says that shadowy forces secretly control everything—elections are theater, policy is predetermined by hidden networks, and ordinary people have no real influence. This view offers certainty but relies on assumptions that are difficult to prove and often collapse under scrutiny.
The other narrative says that the system is fundamentally open and responsive—democracy works as intended, power is widely distributed, and citizens ultimately get what they vote for. This view offers comfort but struggles to explain persistent inequality, regulatory capture, and the remarkable consistency with which policy serves the already powerful.
Both are too simple.
A more useful approach begins not with conclusions but with questions. Who actually has power? What kind? How do they exercise it? And how can we know? In the 21st century, these questions have grown even more urgent as power has migrated into algorithmic systems, physical supply chains, and the management of public attention itself.
This article presents a framework for analyzing political power, elite networks, and policy formation that avoids both the conspiracy trap and the naïveté trap. It is not a theory of who controls the world; it is a set of tools for figuring out who controls what—and how.
The Core Problem: Power Is Multidimensional
One of the greatest obstacles to understanding power is that we use a single word for many different phenomena.
Consider the difference between:
- The President’s legal authority to sign executive orders
- A billionaire’s ability to fund political campaigns
- A central banker’s control over interest rates
- A career bureaucrat’s knowledge of how to implement complex regulations
- A media mogul’s ability to set the public agenda
- A foreign state’s leverage over a country dependent on its resources
- A tech billionaire’s control over satellite internet access in a war zone
- A nation’s export ban on rare-earth minerals essential for fighter jets
Each is “power,” but each operates differently—with different sources, mechanisms, limitations, and visibility.
Real example: In 2025, during the first year of his second term, President Trump signed 220 executive orders—far more than Biden (77 in his first year), Obama (40), or even Trump’s own first term (55). Many invoked “emergency” or “national security” clauses, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose “reciprocal tariffs” on all trading partners. This demonstrates how formal power (presidential executive authority) can be exercised massively, while also triggering institutional checks—over 20% of those orders were challenged in court.
The Managerial Revolution: A Foundational Lens
Before we map the specific actors, resources, and mechanisms of power, we must understand a profound historical transformation that reshaped how power actually operates in modern societies.
In agrarian and early industrial societies, power was relatively straightforward: those who owned the land, the factories, or the armies commanded. Formal authority and ownership were tightly coupled. The king owned the realm; the factory owner commanded the workers. Power flowed from possession.
But as societies grew more complex, a fundamental shift occurred. The sheer scale of modern institutions—national grids, global supply chains, central banks, military alliances, digital networks—made it impossible for any single owner, monarch, or elected official to personally understand, coordinate, or direct them. This created a new class of power: the managers, administrators, experts, and technocrats who possess the specialized knowledge and organizational capacity to make complex systems function.
This is the managerial power tradition, and it provides a foundational lens for everything that follows.
The Separation of Ownership from Control
The first major insight of this tradition is that ownership no longer guarantees control.
In a modern corporation, shareholders legally own the firm, but they do not manage its day-to-day operations. The managers—CEOs, executives, department heads, technical specialists—actually direct the organization. They possess the information, the expertise, and the institutional position to make consequential decisions.
Real example: In 2025, a shareholder of Palantir might own a fraction of the company, but they have no say in whether Palantir signs a $100 million contract with the Pentagon, or how its algorithms are calibrated. The managers and technologists within the firm make those decisions. The owner is a legal fiction; the manager is the operational reality.
This separation extends far beyond corporations. In government, elected officials hold formal authority, but career bureaucrats possess the expertise, institutional memory, and implementation capacity that actually determine how policies are executed. In universities, boards of trustees own the institution legally, but faculty senates, department chairs, and professional administrators shape the curriculum, research priorities, and admissions standards.
The implication is critical: Power is no longer located primarily in those who possess things. It is located in those who possess the knowledge, position, and organizational machinery to direct how things are done.
The Rise of the Technostructure
John Kenneth Galbraith, in his analysis of the modern corporation, identified what he called the technostructure—the vast group of experts, engineers, scientists, marketers, and planners who collectively make decisions. No single individual, not even the CEO, possesses all the knowledge required to run a complex enterprise.
Key implication: Decision-making becomes collective and distributed. This does not mean power is democratic—it means power becomes embedded in organizational processes, standard operating procedures, and institutional routines.
The technostructure does not issue commands like a feudal lord. It establishes frameworks, defines categories, sets performance metrics, and creates the conditions within which others make choices. This is a more subtle but often more pervasive form of power.
Real example: An investment fund’s risk-assessment algorithm does not command anyone to do anything. But by classifying certain borrowers as “high-risk” and others as “low-risk,” it structures the flow of capital in ways that shape entire industries, neighborhoods, and life trajectories. The power is in the metric, the classification, the organizational routine—not in any single commanding individual.
Epistemic and Disciplinary Power
Michel Foucault provided a crucial extension: power does not only operate through commands, laws, or ownership. It operates through knowledge, measurement, and discipline.
Modern institutions do not simply coerce compliance; they define what counts as normal, efficient, healthy, or successful. They create categories that classify people and behavior—”productive worker,” “good student,” “law-abiding citizen,” “efficient department”—and then measure performance against these categories. Individuals and organizations internalize these standards and discipline themselves accordingly.
This is disciplinary power: it makes people act in certain ways because they believe those ways are correct, rational, or simply the default way of doing things.
Real example: In 2025, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Musk’s DOGE demanded that federal employees report their weekly accomplishments in a standardized format. This was not merely a request for information; it was an act of disciplinary power. It defined what counted as “productivity,” required employees to perform their value in a specific bureaucratic language, and created a framework within which non-compliance became visible and punishable. The power was not in the command to work harder—it was in the definition of what counts as work.
From Government to Governance
The managerial tradition also transformed the state itself. In the modern era, the state does not simply “command and control.” It increasingly manages networks, commissions services, sets standards, and evaluates performance.
The shift from government (direct provision of services by state employees) to governance (steering and coordinating a mixed economy of public, private, and voluntary providers) means that state power now operates through:
- Contracting: specifying what goods or services are to be delivered, and by whom.
- Regulation: setting rules that private actors must follow.
- Performance measurement: evaluating whether providers meet targets.
- Incentive design: structuring rewards and penalties to guide behavior.
This means the power of the state is no longer simply the power of the official with a badge. It is the power of the contract-writer, the regulator, the evaluator, the data analyst—the people who define the terms of the relationships between the state and everyone else.
Real example: In 2025, the Pentagon’s shift toward AI-driven targeting, cloud-based logistics, and algorithmic intelligence analysis means that military power increasingly depends on engineers, data scientists, and software architects—not just generals and grunts. The person who writes the code for an autonomous drone’s targeting algorithm may not hold formal military rank, but they define the operational possibilities of the entire system.
The Managerial State and Democratic Tension
The managerial revolution creates a fundamental democratic tension:
- Efficiency requires expertise. No citizen assembly can run a central bank, design a semiconductor supply chain, or evaluate the safety of a pharmaceutical drug. Modern societies depend on specialized knowledge.
- Expertise threatens democracy. When experts gain the ability to define which goals institutions pursue—not just how to achieve already-decided goals—they substitute their judgment for the judgment of the people or their elected representatives.
This is the core problem of the managerial power tradition: The same complexity that makes society possible also makes it opaque and less accountable.
Real example: In 2025, the Federal Reserve’s decisions on interest rates were presented as purely technical, based on inflation data and employment figures. But those figures are themselves produced by statistical methods, categorization choices, and survey designs. The same inflation data could be presented differently—focusing on housing costs, food prices, or asset inflation—producing entirely different policy recommendations. The “technical” power of the central bank is, at its core, a power to define reality.
The Ultimate Question of the Managerial Tradition
The managerial tradition ultimately asks:
Who possesses the knowledge, institutional position, organizational machinery, and technical capacity to determine what society does—and who decides what counts as efficiency, success, progress, and the public good?
This is not a question of “who secretly controls everything.” It is a question of how control is embedded in systems, routines, metrics, and categories. The manager does not need to be a conspirator; they only need to be in a position where their expertise is treated as authoritative and their categories are treated as neutral.
With this foundational understanding, we can now turn to the specific actors, resources, positions, and mechanisms that populate this managerial landscape.
The Actors: Who Has Power?
A comprehensive analysis requires an actor map that spans multiple power centers, each with distinct resources, institutional positions, and capacities.
The Full Actor Map
POWER CENTERS
│
┌──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┐
│ │ │
EXTERNAL DOMESTIC SOCIETAL
│ │ │
Foreign states State institutions Media
Global finance Military Academia
Multinationals Intelligence NGOs
International orgs Bureaucracy Labor
Political parties Movements
│ │
└──────────────┬───────┴──────────────┐
│ │
CAPITAL / FINANCE TECHNOLOGY
│ │
Corporations AI
Banks Cloud
Funds Platforms
Investors Satellites
External Power Centers
No country operates in isolation. Foreign states, global financial institutions, multinational corporations, and international organizations all exert influence through capital flows, trade, debt, security alliances, diplomatic pressure, and control over strategic resources.
The question is not whether they have influence—they clearly do. It is what kind, through what mechanisms, and with what degree of constraint on domestic actors.
Real example: In 2025, the U.S. exerted layered coercive pressure on Venezuela by deploying multiple warships in the Caribbean under the banner of “drug interdiction”—even though the UNODC’s 2025 World Drug Report recognized Venezuela as a non‑producer of illicit narcotics. From September onward, U.S. forces sank over 20 vessels allegedly carrying drugs, killing more than 80 people. Simultaneously, the U.S. used tariffs as a weapon—imposing 40% ad valorem duties on Brazilian exports (on top of an existing 10% “reciprocal tariff”), so that roughly 35.9% of Brazilian exports faced 50% total tariffs. President Trump also threatened to retake the Panama Canal, annex Greenland, and even absorb Canada. In December 2025, Secretary of Defense Hegseth visited Panama and other countries, vowing to “take back the Panama Canal from China’s influence.”
Resource Chokepoints: Physical Leverage in a Fragile World
Economic power is not only about capital—it is increasingly about control over critical physical assets that cannot be easily substituted. These include rare-earth minerals, semiconductors, port infrastructure, undersea data cables, and energy pipelines. A country or corporation that controls a chokepoint can exert leverage disproportionate to its overall economic size.
Real example: China’s export controls on gallium and germanium in 2023–2025 effectively constrained Western defence and semiconductor production, as these minerals are essential for radar systems, night-vision goggles, and advanced chips. Conversely, Trump’s 2025 threats to “retake” the Panama Canal were explicitly about controlling a maritime chokepoint that handles 5% of global maritime trade. Control over these physical resources operates as structural leverage—it shapes the options available to other actors regardless of their formal authority.
Economic and Financial Power
Domestically, economic power is a major force: large corporations and their owners, financial institutions, wealthy individuals, concentrated private wealth, and central banks—which occupy a distinctive position combining formal public authority with deep involvement in financial markets.
Real example: Oxfam’s January 2026 report showed that in Trump’s first year back, global billionaire wealth surged 16.2% to $18.3 trillion—an 81% increase since 2020. The number of billionaires exceeded 3,000, and Elon Musk’s net worth became the first to surpass $500 billion. The report noted that the administration’s policies—tax cuts, protecting multinationals from international pressure, and relaxing antitrust enforcement—directly fueled this growth. Billionaires are 4,000 times more likely than the average person to hold political office, and more than half of major global media companies are owned by billionaires.
State Power
The state contains multiple distinct power centres: political institutions (presidency, legislature, parties), military institutions (Pentagon, combatant commands), and bureaucratic institutions (career officials, agencies, regulators, technical experts). Each has its own sources of power.
Real example – Political power: On his first day back in office (January 2025), Trump issued over 40 executive orders—a record. By December, he had signed 220. The Political Science Quarterly noted his “unconventional executive power,” grounded in the “unitary executive” theory that breaks with orthodox U.S. constitutional interpretation. Meanwhile, Congress—controlled by Republicans—offered weak checks, and a 43‑day federal government shutdown occurred in 2025.
Real example – Military power: A new “Silicon Valley‑military‑industrial complex” is emerging. In June 2025, the Secretary of the Army commissioned four current or former executives from Meta, OpenAI, and Palantir as lieutenant colonels in the newly formed “Detachment 201.” Palantir, thanks to its contracts for data‑analytics software with the U.S. government and military, saw its market cap soar to $375 billion—surpassing the combined value of traditional defence giants like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics. Anduril invested $1 billion in an Ohio hyperscale software factory. This marks a complete reversal: Silicon Valley tech firms, once opposed to weapons and war, have plunged headlong into the military‑industrial complex.
Real example – Bureaucratic power: Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Musk, to cut the federal bureaucracy. Musk demanded that about 2 million federal employees report their weekly accomplishments, warning that non‑responders would be considered resigned. Yet the bureaucracy and judiciary pushed back hard: in September 2025, a federal judge ruled his civil‑service overhaul violated the Federal Employees Rights Protection Act; 14 state attorneys general sued DOGE for violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Administrative Procedure Act; and federal courts permanently blocked several executive orders that sought to dismantle federal agencies. As one analysis put it, “the fusion of the U.S. bureaucracy with non‑state power centres also makes deep reform extremely difficult.”
Technological and Algorithmic Infrastructure: The “Fourth Branch”
The current framework must include a distinct power centre for algorithmic infrastructure—the owners of cloud computing, artificial intelligence models, data brokers, and satellite networks. These actors do not merely lobby; they structure reality. They control the discovery of information, credit allocation, predictive policing, military targeting, and even access to the internet itself.
This can be divided into four distinct forms:
Platform power — Who controls distribution?
Computational power — Who controls computing infrastructure?
Model power — Who controls advanced AI systems?
Infrastructural power — Who controls physical/digital infrastructure?
Real example: Elon Musk’s control over Starlink gives him unilateral leverage over Ukrainian military communications and global internet access in disaster zones—a form of power that fits neither “formal” nor “informal” neatly but operates as structural infrastructural power. Meanwhile, when OpenAI partners with the Pentagon, it grants the state access to reasoning engines that are opaque to the public. Google dropping its ban on AI for weapons in 2025 was not a lobbying decision—it was a structural shift in how algorithmic power is deployed. This is not just about owning the means of production (Marx) or the means of communication (Gramsci); it is about owning the means of computation and prediction.
Social, Cultural, and Cognitive Power
Beyond the state and the economy, other actors exercise influence through agenda‑setting, ideology, and legitimacy: media organisations, academia, think tanks, cultural institutions, NGOs, labour unions, professional associations, and advocacy groups.
Real example: U.S. think tanks are often called a “fifth power” alongside the executive, legislative, judicial, and media branches. Trump’s policies on reciprocal tariffs, government cuts, immigration, and military diplomacy largely followed the blueprint of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. However, in late 2025, the Heritage Foundation suffered an internal rupture—more than a dozen senior staffers and insiders defected to former Vice President Pence’s “Advancing American Freedom” group, dissatisfied with the Foundation’s support for isolationism, tariffs, and its shift away from Ukraine. In September 2025, at the FCC’s request, CBS News appointed the former head of the conservative Hudson Institute as its ombudsman to ensure coverage included “diverse political and ideological perspectives.” Meanwhile, the Hudson Institute established a “China Center,” and its scholars frequently appear in mainstream U.S. media to spread unsubstantiated allegations against China.
Resources: What Can Be Converted into Power?
Having identified the actors, we must understand what resources they possess. These are the raw materials from which power is constructed.
| Dimension | Example | Illustrative Personalities |
|---|---|---|
| Financial capital | Large private fortunes, investment capital, corporate ownership | Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett |
| Corporate capital | Control of large firms and productive assets | Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg |
| Financial capital / credit | Banks, investment funds, lending and asset management | Jamie Dimon, Larry Fink |
| Political capital | Elections, parties, donors, political organizations | Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders |
| State authority | Legal power to command government action | President, Congress, cabinet officials, governors |
| Coercive capacity | Military, police and intelligence capabilities | Pete Hegseth; senior military commanders |
| Knowledge/expertise | Specialized information unavailable to most decision-makers | Senior regulators, intelligence officials, scientists, economists |
| Technology | AI, cloud computing, platforms, satellites, communications | Musk, Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, Sam Altman |
| Legitimacy | Ability to obtain compliance because authority is regarded as valid | Judges, elected leaders, central-bank officials, military commanders |
Position: Where Is the Actor Located?
Having resources isn’t enough. Institutional position determines how resources can be converted into outcomes.
| Position | Example | Illustrative Personalities |
|---|---|---|
| Executive | President controls enormous formal executive machinery | Donald Trump |
| Legislative | Congressional leaders control legislative agendas | Mike Johnson, John Thune |
| Judicial | Supreme Court justices can invalidate government actions | John Roberts |
| Bureaucratic | Agency officials possess expertise and implementation authority | Agency heads and senior career officials |
| Military | Senior officers possess strategic expertise and operational authority | Dan Caine |
| Financial | CEOs/investment managers occupy critical market positions | Jamie Dimon, Larry Fink |
| Technological | Platform/cloud/AI executives control infrastructure | Musk, Zuckerberg, Altman |
| Media | Owners/editors/platform executives influence information flows | Bezos, Zuckerberg |
| Think-tank | Organizations develop policy ideas and personnel pipelines | Kevin Roberts |
Capacity: Can the Actor Actually Do Something?
Resources and position are necessary but not sufficient. The actor must have the capacity to act.
Organizational capacity
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 is a good example. Its importance wasn’t simply the personal wealth of one person. It involved: hundreds of policy contributors; institutional research; personnel recommendations; policy proposals; organizational coordination.
Illustrative personality: Kevin Roberts.
Mobilization capacity
A political leader can convert personal popularity into millions of votes, volunteers and donations.
Illustrative personalities: Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders.
Enforcement capacity
A government agency may have relatively little popular support but enormous practical power because it has the personnel and legal authority to enforce rules.
Illustrative personalities: Agency heads, attorneys general, prosecutors.
Technological capacity
A technology company can possess the ability to deploy infrastructure at a scale that governments themselves may depend upon.
Illustrative personality: Elon Musk.
Mechanisms: How Does Power Actually Operate?
This is perhaps the most important section of the framework. It moves beyond who has power to how power works.
Persuasion
An actor changes another actor’s preferences.
Example: A think tank convinces legislators that deregulation is desirable.
Illustrative personalities: Economists, policy intellectuals, think-tank leaders.
Lobbying
An organized interest attempts to influence legislation or regulation. Examples include pharmaceutical companies; defense contractors; financial institutions; technology companies; labor organizations. The personality isn’t necessarily the CEO. Often the important actor is the professional lobbyist who knows how to navigate the institution.
Agenda-Setting
The actor determines which questions receive political attention. A media organization can make one issue dominate public discourse while another receives little attention.
Illustrative personalities: Media owners, editors, television personalities, platform executives.
Framing / Epistemic Power
The actor influences how a problem is understood. For example: “The problem is excessive government spending” produces different policy possibilities from “The problem is insufficient taxation.” The person or institution successfully establishing the frame may influence the eventual policy without directly ordering anyone to do anything.
Illustrative personalities: Think-tank intellectuals, economists, political strategists, media figures.
Real example: In 2025, the Trump administration framed the budget deficit as a crisis caused by “wasteful bureaucracy.” This allowed Musk’s DOGE to justify sweeping federal layoffs. However, the actual deficit was largely driven by tax cuts and military spending. The power move was framing the solution (cutting bureaucracy) before the public could frame the cause (revenue shortfalls). This epistemic capture preceded and enabled the policy capture.
Coercion
An actor changes another’s behavior by making noncompliance costly. Examples: military force; sanctions; criminal prosecution; regulatory penalties; economic retaliation.
Illustrative personalities: Presidents, defense officials, military commanders, prosecutors.
Dependency
Actor A controls something Actor B cannot easily replace. Examples: energy; financial liquidity; critical minerals; semiconductor technology; cloud infrastructure; military protection. This is where the resource-chokepoint concept becomes particularly powerful.
Real example: China’s export controls on gallium and germanium in 2023–2025 effectively constrained Western defence and semiconductor production. This is dependency power in action—not through formal authority, but through control of irreplaceable resources.
Gatekeeping
A particularly important category. The gatekeeper doesn’t necessarily decide the outcome. They decide who gets into the room. Examples: party leadership deciding committee assignments; financial institutions deciding who receives credit; universities deciding who receives credentials; media deciding who receives exposure; government agencies deciding who receives contracts; professional organizations determining accreditation.
Illustrative personalities: Party leaders, editors, regulators, investment executives, university administrators.
Jurisdictional Power
The key question: Who gets to decide which institution has jurisdiction? Examples: federal vs. state government; Congress vs. executive; agency vs. court; military vs. civilian authority; domestic vs. international jurisdiction. The important insight is that sometimes controlling the decision-making venue is more important than controlling the decision itself.
Illustrative personalities: Presidents, congressional leaders, judges, attorneys general, agency heads.
Personnel Power
Who chooses the people? This can operate through: appointments; promotions; hiring; firing; party nominations; board appointments; professional credentials. The U.S. presidency is particularly powerful here because presidential administrations can change thousands of political appointments and thereby alter the personnel composition of government. But personnel power also exists in corporations, universities, financial institutions, militaries and political parties.
Illustrative personality: Donald Trump.
Network Power
Here the important thing isn’t necessarily an individual’s wealth. It’s where they sit in the network.
CORPORATION
│
│
THINK TANK ─── POLITICAL ─── GOVERNMENT
│
│
MEDIA
│
│
FINANCE
An individual occupying several of these networks simultaneously can become disproportionately influential. This is the territory of C. Wright Mills’ power-elite analysis.
Real example: Robert McNamara, who moved between major corporate and governmental institutions, illustrates how network position can amplify influence. More recently, the interlocking of Silicon Valley tech executives, military officials, and political appointees—as seen in the “Detachment 201” commissions—demonstrates this dynamic in contemporary form.
The Temporal Dimension: Normal Politics vs. State of Exception
Power operates completely differently during moments of rupture—pandemics, financial crashes, hyperinflation, or war. In a crisis, the Overton Window expands radically, bargaining collapses, executive authority expands exponentially, and the speed of decision-making bypasses bureaucratic checks. Power asymmetry spikes not because the actors changed, but because the time horizon for opposition shrinks to zero.
During normal politics:
proposal → committee → debate → vote → implementation
During a crisis:
CRISIS → EXECUTIVE ACTION → MARKET/MILITARY RESPONSE → CONSEQUENCES → COURTS/LEGISLATURE RESPOND
The actor capable of acting first can gain enormous temporary power. This produces the concept of temporal asymmetry—the ability to make consequential decisions faster than opposing institutions can respond.
Real example: In 2020, the Federal Reserve moved trillions of dollars in hours. In 2025, Trump’s use of the IEEPA to impose sudden global tariffs created a “shock and awe” dynamic where markets crashed before Congress could even hold a hearing. The framework must ask: Who has the capacity to act fastest when the system breaks down? Usually, it is the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Executive—not the legislature, not civil society, and not the courts (which move slowly by design). This temporal power—the ability to dictate the clock—is often overlooked but is one of the most potent forms of leverage available.
Illustrative personalities: Presidents, Treasury officials, Federal Reserve officials, military commanders.
Cognitive Power: Managing Attention
Cognitive power concerns attention. The actor doesn’t necessarily need to convince you. They might instead: distract you; overwhelm you; polarize you; exhaust you; flood the information environment; make every claim appear equally uncertain.
That produces: “I don’t know what’s true, so I don’t know what to do.” That can be politically powerful even without propaganda producing a particular belief.
Potential actors include: media corporations; social-media platforms; governments; political campaigns; influencers; foreign information operations.
Real example: The Epstein files release in December 2025. The Justice Department released about 300,000 pages of documents, but extensive redactions—including one 119‑page grand jury file entirely blacked out and all 254 names of massage therapists redacted—provoked bipartisan outrage. The sheer volume combined with the opacity created a Rorschach test: every faction claimed it proved their conspiracy theory, but the actual effect was that the public became more confused and cynical, while institutional actors (the DOJ) maintained plausible deniability. The power play was not in the content of the files, but in the management of information volume.
Epistemic Power: Defining Problems
Cognitive power manages attention. Epistemic power manages knowledge and interpretation. The critical questions are: Who gets to define the problem? Who gets to decide what counts as evidence? Who is considered an expert? Which measurements matter? Which categories are used? Which explanations become “serious”?
This brings in: academics; economists; intelligence analysts; regulators; think tanks; journalists; scientific institutions.
Real example: Milton Friedman historically illustrates how an intellectual framework can influence political problem-definition over decades. More recently, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 supplied not only policy but ideological framing—establishing the categories and assumptions within which policy debates would occur.
The Interaction: How Power Operates
Power is not static. It operates through interaction: cooperation, competition, bargaining, conflict, and coalition‑building—all under conditions of radical inequality. Actors do not come to the table with equal resources, access, information, or ability to impose costs.
Real example: The relationship between Trump and Musk perfectly illustrates this complexity. They allied during the campaign—Musk contributed heavily, and Trump appointed him to head DOGE. Yet within a year, they fell out. Musk was reported to have clashed violently with Trump’s cabinet, left DOGE in late May, and claimed he had been made a “scapegoat.” He then announced on social media that he would form a new “American Party,” in part because he opposed Trump’s flagship “Big and Beautiful” bill (which eliminated EV subsidies). Political scientist Francis Fukuyama said Trump used Musk to “do the dirty work,” and when Musk became a liability, he was discarded without mercy. A UAE think‑tank analysis noted that they came together through converging interests, but their “friendship” was always fractured and soon turned to mutual resentment. This shows how power flows through cooperation, competition, bargaining, and betrayal.
Elite Conflict: Not One Unified Elite
There isn’t necessarily one elite. There can be:
CORPORATE ELITE
↕
FINANCIAL ELITE
↕
POLITICAL ELITE
↕
MILITARY ELITE
↕
TECHNOLOGICAL ELITE
↕
BUREAUCRATIC ELITE
And they can disagree profoundly.
Real example: Trump vs. Musk demonstrates: convergence → cooperation → institutional power → conflict → separation. That’s exactly the kind of case the framework should be designed to analyze—rather than assuming “they were secretly part of one unified ruling group.”
Power Asymmetry: A Spectrum, Not a Binary
Power exists on a continuum—not just “powerful” vs. “powerless.”
Real example: Musk funnelled over $300 million through his own PAC to Republican candidates in the 2024 election. In 2025, the Supreme Court heard a case that could further remove limits on billionaire contributions to federal candidates. Oxfam noted that the surge in billionaire wealth “has been accompanied by a concentration of political influence.”
At the same time, asymmetry provokes resistance. On April 19, 2025, nationwide “No King” protests erupted across the U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders launched a “Fighting Oligarchy Tour,” drawing large crowds even in Trump‑leaning areas. In August 2025, Vermont refused a federal request to send its National Guard to Washington.
Counter-Power
The framework needs this because otherwise it becomes overly deterministic. Counter-power includes: elections; courts; labor; protests; investigative journalism; competing corporations; state governments; whistleblowers; social movements; rival bureaucracies.
Real example: A president may possess enormous executive authority. But: Executive action → Court challenge → Judicial ruling → Implementation or nonimplementation. The president’s formal authority therefore doesn’t automatically translate into unlimited practical power.
Illustrative personality: John Roberts as an example of judicial counter-power—not because he personally controls the Court, but because the Chief Justice occupies a position capable of participating in institutional resistance to executive action.
The Question of Coordination: Conspiracy or Convergence?
Real example – Convergent interests: Trump’s policies—tax cuts, deregulation, protecting multinationals—benefited billionaires collectively. That does not require them to sit together and plot; their interests are structurally aligned. Oxfam stated that “billionaires are using their wealth to exert political influence and control media.”
Real example – Internal coordination: The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 provided a systematic policy blueprint for the Trump administration—a think‑tank coordinating internally, then with government. That is coordination, but not a system‑wide “master conspiracy.”
Real example – Institutional incentives: Silicon Valley tech firms once opposed weapons and warfare, but in 2024 OpenAI partnered with Anduril on counter‑drone systems; in 2025 Google dropped its ban on AI for weapons. This did not require the companies to conspire with each other—they all faced the same institutional incentive: massive defence contracts.
The key point: The outcome alone does not tell you which mechanism produced it.
Co‑optation: How Systems Absorb Resistance
A system doesn’t necessarily have to crush opposition. It can absorb it.
OPPOSITION → MOBILIZATION → SUCCESS → ACCESS TO INSTITUTIONS → RESOURCES/POSITIONS → MODERATION → INCORPORATION
The interesting question is: Did the movement change the institution, or did the institution change the movement? This can apply to: political parties; NGOs; social movements; activists; labor organizations; intellectual movements.
Real example – General co‑optation: The rise of democratic socialism in the U.S.—including Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 mayoral win in New York City—illustrates this dynamic. Historically, when such figures win, they face a structural financial veto (bond markets threatening to spike municipal borrowing costs) or bureaucratic sabotage. The system “permits” the election but uses structural economic and institutional power to neuter the policy. Similarly, Bernie Sanders’ “Fighting Oligarchy Tour” drew massive crowds, but the Democratic establishment simultaneously worked to co-opt the anti-oligarchy rhetoric while sidelining the substantive policy demands (e.g., wealth taxes, Medicare for All). The framework should treat resistance not just as an input, but as a resource that the power structure actively works to absorb.
Minority Co‑optation and Identity Management
Dominant power structures do not merely repress or ignore minority groups (whether defined by race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or ideology); they actively manage them through a sophisticated combination of symbolic inclusion, selective incorporation, surveillance, and divide‑and‑conquer tactics. The goal is to preserve systemic hierarchies while projecting an image of progress and fairness—and, crucially, to turn a small segment of minority actors into gatekeepers and legitimizers of the existing order.
This is distinct from the general co‑optation of movements because it operates specifically on identity categories that are historically marginalized. The power structure uses identity both as a shield (claiming diversity) and as a weapon (fragmenting opposition). Understanding this dimension is essential because it explains why formal representation often fails to translate into substantive power for minority communities.
1. Tokenism and Symbolic Representation
Appointing a small number of minority individuals to visible, high‑status positions—judgeships, cabinet posts, corporate board seats, or media anchors—provides powerful legitimacy for the system. The power structure can claim to be inclusive while leaving underlying economic, educational, and health disparities intact. The individuals elevated often become gatekeepers, deflecting more radical demands by demonstrating that “the system works” and that advancement is possible for those who play by the rules.
Real example: The appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court was a landmark symbolic victory, yet the racial wealth gap remained virtually unchanged over subsequent decades. More recently, corporate DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives have created a cohort of minority executives, but these positions rarely affect policies that shape hiring practices at lower wage tiers, discriminatory lending, or unequal access to capital. The presence of a Black or Latina CEO does not automatically translate into structural change for the broader workforce—and often, these executives become vocal defenders of the corporate model.
2. Selective Incorporation (Moderate vs. Radical)
The power structure consistently elevates minority leaders who advocate for incremental, institutionally acceptable change, while isolating, delegitimizing, or prosecuting those demanding structural transformation. This is a deliberate strategy to redirect minority energy into established channels and to defund or discredit movements that threaten underlying power arrangements.
Real example – Historical: During the civil rights era, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program actively targeted the Black Panther Party and Malcolm X for surveillance, infiltration, and disruption, while the establishment provided more support—legally, politically, and in media coverage—to mainstream figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Notably, when King shifted his focus toward poverty and anti‑war activism, he too faced intensified surveillance and opposition. The pattern is consistent: the system tolerates minority leaders who work within its boundaries and attacks those who seek to redraw those boundaries.
Real example – Contemporary: In the 2020s, this pattern persists. Leaders who focus on criminal justice reform or economic redistribution through structural means (e.g., defunding police, reparations) face significant political and institutional pushback. Meanwhile, those emphasizing “inclusion” within existing corporate and political frameworks—who seek seats at the table rather than changing the table itself—receive funding, media coverage, and institutional support. The corporate funding of certain civil rights organizations, while other grassroots groups are starved of resources, exemplifies this selective incorporation.
3. Divide and Rule (Inter‑Minority Conflict)
By stoking tensions or perceived competition between minority groups, the power structure prevents the formation of a unified coalition against dominant economic and political interests. Media framing, preferential policies, resource allocation, and even policing strategies are used to foster resentment and redirect grievances horizontally rather than upward toward the power elite.
Real example: The “model minority” stereotype has historically pitted Asian‑American communities against Black and Latino communities in debates over affirmative action and university admissions. This directs the grievances of one marginalized group toward another rather than toward the structural inequality underlying educational access, inherited wealth, and legacy admissions. Similarly, policing practices and media coverage often drive wedges between different minority neighborhoods, channeling competition for scarce public resources into conflict between groups rather than into coordinated demands for systemic reinvestment.
Real example – Political: Political gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics also exploit racial divisions, while campaign strategies sometimes deliberately amplify racial resentment to fracture multiracial working‑class coalitions. The long‑term effect is a minority population that remains politically fragmented and therefore structurally weaker.
4. Surveillance and Securitization
Minority advocacy networks—particularly those addressing police brutality, environmental racism, economic exploitation, or political mobilization—are frequently designated as security threats. This justifies surveillance, infiltration, and pre‑emptive legal or administrative action, cooling out dissent before it gains momentum and delegitimizing its leaders in the public eye.
Real example: Post‑9/11 surveillance of Muslim communities in the U.S. continues to this day, with community leaders, mosques, and advocacy organizations monitored by federal and local law enforcement. More recently, monitoring of Black Lives Matter organizers by state and federal agencies—including the use of facial recognition, social media tracking, and intelligence-sharing with local police—demonstrates how identity‑based advocacy is treated as a public‑order problem rather than a legitimate political demand. This securitization forces minority movements to spend resources on legal defense and privacy protection rather than on organizing and policy change.
5. Economic Co‑optation of a Minority Elite
A small segment of minority entrepreneurs, developers, and professionals is integrated into the economic power structure through government contracts, preferential procurement programs, access to capital, or public‑private partnerships. This creates a class of minority actors with a vested interest in preserving the system that enriches them, even as the vast majority of their communities remain marginalized. This co‑opted elite becomes a buffer—demonstrating that “opportunity exists” while systematically undercutting broader community demands.
Real example: Federal minority business contracts or urban development public‑private partnerships often elevate a few minority‑owned firms to prominence. While this appears as economic progress, it frequently undermines broader community demands for wage equity, public housing, community land trusts, or direct cash transfers, as the co‑opted elite becomes invested in the existing contract‑based economy. Similarly, the appointment of minority executives to major banks or investment firms can give the appearance of financial inclusion, but these individuals rarely redirect capital toward community‑controlled institutions or anti‑predatory lending regulations.
Real example: In the political realm, minority politicians who receive substantial corporate and donor-class funding often moderate their positions on issues like taxation, regulation, and public spending. Their presence in power provides legitimacy to policies that may harm their broader constituencies, while their personal success is held up as proof that the system is fair.
The Outcome of Minority Co‑optation
By applying these mechanisms simultaneously—tokenism, selective incorporation, divide‑and‑rule, surveillance, and economic co‑optation—the power structure ensures that minority inclusion does not translate into minority power over system‑critical decisions. The few who gain positions of authority become legitimizers and gatekeepers of the system, while the majority remain structurally subordinate. The system becomes more resilient because it can claim to have “solved” the problem of exclusion, while its underlying hierarchies—wealth, opportunity, authority, and coercive capacity—persist largely unchanged.
Legitimacy Power
Max Weber provides an especially useful framework here. Authority can derive from: tradition; charismatic leadership; legal‑rational institutions.
Consider the difference between: “Do this because I can punish you” and “Do this because I legitimately have the authority to tell you.” Those are completely different mechanisms of power. And legitimacy itself can become a resource that other actors compete to control.
Illustrative personalities: Judges, elected leaders, central‑bank officials, military commanders.
The Great‑Man Dimension
Rather than “Great individuals cause history,” the framework should frame it as: Under particular institutional conditions, individuals can accumulate enough resources, authority, networks and strategic autonomy that their personal decisions materially alter the trajectory of institutions. That allows the theory to coexist with structural theories.
Examples: Donald Trump — personal political movement + presidency. Elon Musk — wealth + technology + infrastructure + political access. George Soros — wealth + philanthropic networks + political influence. Jeff Bezos — wealth + media ownership + corporate infrastructure. Steve Jobs — individual leadership shaping corporate and technological development.
The key analytical question is: What could this individual actually do because of their position that another individual could not? That’s much stronger than simply labeling someone a “great man.”
The “Deep State” Question
The term “deep state” should be treated as a narrower concept within the broader power structure—not a synonym for all concentrated power.
POWER SYSTEM
│
┌──────────────────┼──────────────────┐
│ │ │
ECONOMIC POLITICAL SOCIAL
│ │ │
└──────────────────┼──────────────────┘
│
STATE APPARATUS
│
┌────────────┼────────────┐
│ │ │
MILITARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAUCRACY
│ │ │
└────────────┼────────────┘
│
POSSIBLE "DEEP STATE"
The deep‑state hypothesis becomes a specific empirical claim: Certain relatively permanent, autonomous, secretive or security‑related networks within or around the state possess the ability to influence or determine policy independently of, or in opposition to, elected political leadership.
That claim can then be tested. It shouldn’t be assumed merely because: bureaucrats have institutional interests; intelligence operations are classified; military officials influence policy; wealthy people influence politics; corporations lobby government; or elites have social networks.
Real example: The term originated in Turkey, referring to a hidden network of military, intelligence, and organised crime operating above the law. After the 2016 U.S. election, the Trump administration and conservative media popularised it to mean “a shadowy compound of government bureaucrats, the military‑industrial complex, finance, intelligence, and propaganda machines.” Trump campaigned in 2024 on dismantling the “deep state.”
Real example – The Epstein files controversy: As noted above, the December 2025 release of 300,000 pages with massive redactions sparked accusations that the DOJ was protecting the powerful rather than victims. A University of Oklahoma political scientist warned that Trump risked “becoming the deep state” himself. This case illustrates the complexity: is the DOJ protecting elites? Is the bureaucracy resisting transparency? Is it politicised intelligence covering up? Or merely institutional secrecy culture? Different interpretations point to different definitions of “deep state.”
Theoretical Lenses: Multiple Ways of Seeing
Marx asks: Who owns capital and the means of production, and how does that ownership structure political institutions?
Real example: Oxfam’s report: global billionaire wealth reached $18.3 trillion in 2025, while one‑quarter of the world’s population struggles to eat regularly. New York City elected democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as mayor in 2025—some observers link this to “growing distrust of capitalism among Americans.”
Gramsci asks: How do dominant ideas become “common sense”?
Real example: Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 supplied not only policy but ideological framing. Think‑tank scholars appear frequently in mainstream media to disseminate particular narratives. Over half of major global media are billionaire‑owned—this is how ideological hegemony works, not through coercion but by shaping what is “imaginable” and “commonsensical.”
Mills asks: Who occupies the commanding positions in major institutions?
Real example: Trump and Musk are seen as America’s “two most powerful billionaires.” Silicon Valley tech executives were commissioned as Army lieutenant colonels. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Miller sold stock in a rare‑earth company at an all‑time high just one month after the administration announced a procurement deal with that firm. These illustrate the “interlocking” of corporate, political, and military elites.
Pluralism asks: Which organised interests compete, and which succeed?
Real example: In 2025, various interest groups fought fiercely over the “Big and Beautiful” bill—Musk opposed it (because it eliminated EV subsidies), while Trump pushed it. Think tanks also split along ideological lines. This shows plural competition, but not on equal terms.
Bureaucratic theory asks: How much power derives from institutional position?
Real example: When Trump tried to cut the federal bureaucracy through DOGE, he met stiff resistance—court rulings, state lawsuits, congressional pushback. Career bureaucrats wielded enormous institutional power through expertise, procedures, and legal protections.
Great Man theory asks: How much historical change can be attributed to exceptional individuals?
Real example: Musk alone announced a new “American Party” with one social‑media post, drawing 65.4% support from 1.249 million poll respondents. Trump signed over 40 executive orders on his first day back. Individual wealth, charisma, and political authority can indeed have outsized impact.
Wolin asks: Can a system remain formally democratic while substantive power shifts elsewhere?
Real example: The U.S. still holds elections, but billionaire wealth jumped 16.2% in 2025; the Supreme Court considers further lifting donation caps; partisan gridlock caused a 43‑day shutdown; Trump issued 220 executive orders bypassing Congress. These phenomena point to what Wolin called “inverted totalitarianism”—democratic forms remain, but substantive democratic control erodes.
Infrastructural lens: Who controls physical chokepoints (minerals, ports, cables) and digital infrastructure (cloud, AI, satellites)?
Real example: China’s gallium/germanium export controls and Musk’s Starlink constellation represent forms of leverage that bypass traditional state‑to‑state diplomacy.
Cognitive lens: How is public attention being managed—persuaded or merely exhausted?
Real example: The 300,000‑page Epstein file dump created more confusion than clarity, weaponizing volume itself.
Epistemic lens: Who defined the problem, and whose framing became dominant?
Real example: The administration’s framing of the deficit as “bureaucratic waste” rather than “revenue shortfall” predetermined the solution of DOGE layoffs.
Temporal lens: Who gains authority and speed during a crisis?
Real example: Trump’s use of IEEPA tariffs in 2025 created economic shockwaves before Congress or courts could respond.
Minority Co‑optation lens: How are identity populations managed—through tokenism, selective incorporation, divide‑and‑rule, surveillance, and economic co‑optation?
Real example: The corporate DEI model that elevates a few minority executives while wage gaps persist; the historical distinction between how the establishment treated MLK vs. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers; the “model minority” framing that drives wedges between Asian, Black, and Latino communities; and the surveillance of Muslim and BLM organizers as security threats.
The Most Important Distinctions
Power ≠ Coordination
Coordination ≠ Conspiracy
Informal ≠ Secret
Formal ≠ Transparent
Secret ≠ Illegal
Influence ≠ Control
Convergence ≠ Coordination
Benefit ≠ Causation
Power ≠ Absolute Power
Volume ≠ Truth
Speed ≠ Legitimacy
Definition ≠ Reality
Representation ≠ Substantive Power
Real example – Benefit ≠ causation: Billionaires benefited from Trump’s policies, but that does not mean they caused those policies. The policies could arise from ideological commitment, institutional incentives, campaign contributions, or a mix. Leaping from benefit to causation is an analytical error.
Real example – Secret ≠ illegal: The Epstein files were heavily redacted—that is secret behaviour, but it may be legal (under privacy or national security exemptions). Likewise, classified military planning is secret but entirely lawful.
Real example – Convergence ≠ coordination: Multiple Silicon Valley firms simultaneously entered the defence sector—they faced the same market incentive (massive defence contracts), not necessarily a secret pact.
Real example – Representation ≠ Substantive Power: The appointment of a minority official does not automatically mean that minority communities gain policy influence. Co‑optation explains why symbolic victories often coexist with structural inequality.
These distinctions are not academic quibbles; they are essential for clear thinking about politics.
The Analytical Process
The framework does not start with “Who secretly controls everything?” Instead, ask:
Who is involved? Identify the relevant actors.
What resources does each possess? Capital, authority, expertise, access, strategic position, coercive capacity, algorithmic control, physical chokepoints.
Where is each institutionally located? Formal positions, organisational affiliations, networks, cloud‑provider status.
What capacity does each have? Organization, mobilization, enforcement, technology.
How can each exercise influence? Mechanisms from persuasion to lobbying to coercion to dependency to gatekeeping to jurisdictional power.
Is there evidence of deliberate coordination? Look for communications, agreements, joint planning.
Could similar behaviour arise from convergent interests? Consider whether independent incentives produce the same outcome.
How visible is the activity? Transparent, documented, classified, secret, clandestine?
Does the actor have formal authority? Or only informal influence?
Can the actor credibly reward, punish, constrain, veto, or withdraw? Leverage.
How does this actor’s power compare to competitors? Relative strength.
What policy or institutional result occurred? Be specific.
Who benefited? Who lost?
What evidence demonstrates causation? Not just correlation or benefit, but actual causal influence.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS:
- Who controls the infrastructure of computation and prediction? (Cloud, AI, data, satellites.)
- Who holds the physical chokepoints? (Minerals, ports, cables, energy.)
- How does the power structure change during a crisis? (Who gains speed and emergency authority?)
- Is the public being persuaded, or merely exhausted/confused? (Is the goal consensus or cynicism?)
- How is resistance being co‑opted and absorbed? (Are critics being integrated or neutralized?)
- Who defined the problem, and whose framing became dominant? (Epistemic capture precedes policy capture.)
- Who decides who gets into the room? (Gatekeeping power.)
- Who decides which institution has jurisdiction? (Jurisdictional power.)
- Who chooses the people? (Personnel power.)
- What could this individual actually do because of their position that another individual could not? (Great‑Man question, precisely framed.)
- Is the actor exercising influence, constraint, or control? (Distinguishing mechanisms.)
- How are minority populations being managed—through tokenism, selective incorporation, divide‑and‑rule, surveillance, or economic co‑optation? (Minority co‑optation lens.)
- Who benefits symbolically from representation, and who benefits materially from policy? (Distinguishing symbolic from substantive power.)
The Core Analytical Unit
Throughout this framework, the analytical unit should be:
Actor → Resource → Institutional Position → Capacity → Mechanism → Interaction → Outcome
Personalities become case studies of actors occupying particular positions. This prevents the framework from making the opposite error to conspiracy theory: instead of assuming “there must be a secret group of people behind everything,” it asks exactly what a particular person or institution can actually do, through what mechanism, under what constraints, and with what evidence of causal influence.
It also accommodates all possibilities simultaneously:
- Great individuals can matter.
- Institutions can matter.
- Structures can matter.
- Identity management and co‑optation can matter.
- And sometimes the most important phenomenon is the interaction between all of these.
Why This Matters
This is not an abstract exercise. How power operates in a democracy is one of the most important questions citizens can ask.
If the system is genuinely open and responsive, citizens should engage through normal channels—voting, organising, lobbying. The challenge is overcoming apathy and building effective movements.
If the system is subtly but systematically skewed toward the already powerful, citizens need different strategies—building countervailing power, reforming institutions, changing the rules. The challenge is identifying where the skew is worst and what can be done.
If the system is secretly controlled by hidden networks, citizens face a different challenge altogether. But that claim requires the strongest evidence, and the framework provides a way to evaluate such claims without being credulous or dismissive.
If the system manages minority populations through tokenism, selective incorporation, divide‑and‑rule, surveillance, and economic co‑optation, then minority communities need strategies that resist co‑optation—building autonomous institutions, cross‑racial solidarity, and demands that cannot be absorbed by the existing framework.
The framework offers no easy answers. It does not tell you who has power, how they exercise it, or what to do about it. Instead, it provides tools for asking better questions—and for recognising when an answer is supported by evidence versus merely assumed.
Final Thought
In a world of conspiracy theories and naïve complacency—where information volume is weaponized, physical chokepoints are leveraged, crises are exploited to consolidate speed, and minority populations are managed through sophisticated co‑optation—the ability to think clearly about power is more valuable than ever.
The purpose of political analysis is not to provide certainty, but to provide clarity. Not to tell you what to think, but to help you think more clearly about what you observe.
That clarity begins with asking better questions. This framework is designed to help you ask them.