Marc Andreessen co-founded the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and currently serves as its general partner. Today, he’s perhaps the most important person at the intersection of tech and government. His impact stretches well beyond investment. Specifically, he’s been a lightning rod for calling for regulatory changes that would make the world much more hospitable to innovators, particularly in the space of artificial intelligence (AI). During an April speech, Andreessen emphasized the need to eliminate “bad regulations that weigh down our innovators,” a sentiment that resonates within a community keen on fostering technological advancements.
Andreessen’s firm has been responsible for headline-generating investments in controversial companies such as X and xAI. This strategy, in addition to what they’ve already done, deepens its leadership in the AI space. Furthermore, for two-sided market architects, Andreessen Horowitz has funded Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which still breaks ground on and develops aerospace technology. Andreessen has pretty deep ties to the current government though. These relationships give him the ability to steer billions in no-bid contracts to his company by his choice of agencies.
As much as it is about Andreessen, the ironically anti-technocratic politics here aren’t limited to him. Since Donald Trump took office, he has seen over three dozen employees, allies and investors change over to positions inside of federal agencies. Much of this shift has happened with other household names, including Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Palmer Luckey as well. This network of tech billionaires has cultivated a significant influence over the federal agencies that regulate their businesses, creating a landscape where government decisions may be swayed by corporate interests.
In fact, Andreessen’s firm has made out like gangbusters in recent years due mostly to government contracts. We hear through the grapevine that billions of dollars have been granted to companies with ties to him and his fellow tech oligarchs. Perhaps most importantly, Andreessen Horowitz and its allies won $1.2 billion worth of contracts in 2024. Companies connected to Andreessen, Thiel, Musk, and Luckey are now bidding on significant government contracts. This even includes Trump’s fanciful, widely criticized “Golden Dome” missile-defense program.
Weiner, a senior counsel with the Brennan Center’s democracy program, said this confluence of interests had dangerous consequences. He noted, “The second Trump administration is actually the first in recent years to not impose any sort of additional ethics safeguards on high-level appointees.” This lack of oversight is particularly alarming, given their opportunities to create conflicts of interest.
Weiner elaborated further on the risks involved, stating, “It certainly does potentially increase the risk that you have people working on matters that do impact, at least indirectly, their bottom lines.” He cautioned that this is not a new problem specific to one administration. Even more so, it exposes a perennial U.S. government conundrum.
“One of the defining structural challenges the government of the United States has right now is that we have a system in which the very wealthiest interests have so much power to shape our elections and then turn around and shape government policy,” Weiner remarked. This fact speaks volumes to the growing power of Silicon Valley to shape federal policy making.
The perception among many in Silicon Valley is that their successful business practices can be seamlessly applied to governmental operations. Weiner challenges this assumption: “Many people in Silicon Valley tend to think that whatever worked in Silicon Valley is going to work for administering the United States government.” He cautioned against equating entrepreneurial success with public sector governance capabilities: “The fact that you had a successful startup after five others failed doesn’t necessarily mean you know how to run the Social Security Administration.”
As Andreessen continues to shape the discourse around technology and regulation, his influence raises questions about the future of innovation in America. Advocates for regulatory change have insisted that by creating a new, more favorable environment for the tech companies, we could accomplish things never before seen. If the influence of the new tech elite goes unchallenged, critics say public policy’s lifeblood—its integrity—could be at risk.
