By: Ricardo Abud
American political power is a living organism that thrives on those who try to challenge it from the outside. The recent confrontation between Donald Trump and Elon Musk illustrates an unshakeable truth: no matter how much wealth and influence you possess, if you don't belong to the ruling class , the system will eventually devour you.
In the United States, real power isn't always on display, but it's never completely hidden. Beyond the elections, the speeches, the billionaires, and the digital influencers , there exists a discreet, intergenerational, and change-resistant ruling class. It operates like a political immune system: detecting internal threats, momentarily tolerating them, and then mercilessly neutralizing them.
Elon Musk, owner of a colossal fortune, controls satellites, social media, artificial intelligence, and global mobility. But money, in the United States, does not guarantee belonging to the caste of real power. Musk is useful, innovative, disruptive, yes, but he is also unpredictable, ideologically erratic, and all too visible. And that makes him a threat that must be regulated, contained, or simply marginalized. His increasing political intervention, flirting with Trumpism, confronting the liberal narrative, and trying to shape public opinion from X (formerly Twitter), has put him under a dangerous magnifying glass. Not because he represents a clear ideological force, but because he symbolizes an uncomfortable autonomy . The American ruling caste, made up of political dynasties, traditional financial elites, security and intelligence lobbies , and sectors of the media-academic establishment , tolerates the rich, but not those rich who believe they can play by the rules of power. Musk is increasingly seen as a tycoon who must be disciplined and, if he persists, devoured .
Donald Trump is a different story, but with a similar structure. Unlike Musk, Trump did enter political power, and he did so with a rallying cry against the "establishment," against "political correctness," and against the invisible pacts that sustain the American imperial order. He was, and remains, a symptom of the weariness of a part of the country that feels unrepresented by Washington or Wall Street. But Trump, despite having been president, was never part of the club . He doesn't belong to the intellectual aristocracy, he has no pedigree in the networks of bureaucratic-military power, and he lacks the codes of discretion that structural power demands. That's why he was the target of internal sabotage, endless investigations, synchronized media scandals, and institutional vetoes.
The confrontation between Trump and Musk is not ideological. It's a struggle between two figures outside of true power, vying for the same symbolic space: that of disruption . But this fight only benefits those who are watching from above, waiting for them to destroy each other to reaffirm that power, real power, is never surrendered, only inherited or seized in blood. The fight that has erupted between Trump and Musk is not simply a clash between two outsized egos. It is the manifestation of a structural tension inherent in American power. Musk, for all his fortune and ability to influence global markets, remains fundamentally an outsider . His wealth is disruptive, digital, new; it does not come from the traditional sources of established power. Trump's threat to cancel federal contracts for Musk's companies demonstrates a fundamental truth: political power always holds the trump cards. It doesn't matter that Musk is the richest man in the world; when the state apparatus decides to activate its mechanisms of control, the vulnerability is exposed. Musk fell into the classic upstart trap: believing his economic success granted him political immunity. His participation in the Trump administration, initially seen as a mutually beneficial alliance, has become a demonstration of how traditional political power absorbs, neutralizes, or expels outsiders. The tech billionaire discovered that his companies have become complex, tied to the federal government, particularly SpaceX, leaving him completely vulnerable to government retaliation. This dependence is no accident; it's the method by which the establishment maintains control over potential challengers.
Marco Rubio represents an even more illustrative case of how the system devours its own children. Unlike Musk, Rubio does belong to the traditional political establishment , but his current position as Secretary of State makes him an expendable pawn on the chessboard. Some senators are already expressing regret for having voted for his confirmation, a clear sign that establishment forces are preparing to oust him. Rubio finds himself in the most vulnerable position possible: being the face of controversial policies without having the real power to shape them. Experts are already warning that Rubio will merely be "the guarantor" who will try to offer "a veneer of rationality" to Trump's decisions, but that foreign policy is really handled from the White House. This dynamic makes him the perfect fuse , ready to be sacrificed when policies fail or become politically costly. He was, at one time, the young hopeful of the Republican Party. A tough-talking, friendly-faced Cuban-American, Rubio was the establishment's attempt to create a domesticated heir to conservatism. But Rubio has been caught between two fires: he's neither radical enough for the Trumpist base nor docile enough for the Democratic-Republican establishment that still operates in the shadows. Rubio, like other senators who tried to play both sides, is destined for political obscurity. His low profile no longer serves the system, and his ideological ambiguity has rendered him expendable. In a country where politics is no longer driven solely by ideas but by spectacle, Rubio represents the twilight of the middling politicians : too correct to be revolutionaries and too weak to be statesmen.
What we are witnessing is not a transformation of power, but its reassertion. Trump and Musk, with all their noise, money, and charisma, are slowly being digested by a system that has learned to neutralize internal threats without the need for coups. It only takes time, a sympathetic press, diligent prosecutors, and a network of "neutral" institutions that no longer hide their factionalism. The process of political defenestration follows predictable patterns. First, the target's support base is gradually eroded, usually through strategic leaks and "anonymous" criticism from government sources. Second, any error or controversy is amplified until it becomes a scandal. Third, the victim is offered as a scapegoat to wash away blame for broader systemic failures. Rubio is already showing signs of being in the first phase: he faces "tense" congressional hearings and criticism for diplomatic budget cuts. His position weakens daily as he navigates the impossible demands of implementing a radical agenda without the necessary institutional tools.
The American political establishment has perfected the art of neutralizing threats for decades. It doesn't matter whether they come from the populist right (Trump), from technological disruption (Musk), or from within the system itself (Rubio). The establishment has specific mechanisms for each type of challenge. For economic outsiders like Musk, it uses regulatory and contractual dependency. For traditional politicians like Rubio, it employs institutional insulation and selective accountability. For populists like Trump, it exploits the inherent contradictions between anti-establishment rhetoric and the need to govern through existing institutions. The Trump-Musk confrontation and Rubio's precarious situation demonstrate that the cost of challenging the establishment is never paid with money or popularity, but with real power . The system allows certain actors to accumulate wealth, media influence, and even government positions, but it jealously reserves the fundamental levers of power for its inner circle. Musk may own the world's most influential communications platform and the most innovative companies, but when the establishment decides he's become a threat, his vulnerability is instantly exposed. Rubio may have served decades in the Senate and hold one of the most important Cabinet positions, but his dependability is encoded in his very role.
American political power is not an arena of fair competition where the most capable or popular win. It's a predatory ecosystem where the establishment has developed specific antibodies against any threat to its hegemony. The cases of Musk and Rubio are not aberrations; they are perfect examples of the normal functioning of the system. The lesson is clear: you can have all the money in the world, all the media influence, or even occupy high government positions, but if you don't belong to the hard core of the establishment , you will eventually be swallowed up by the very machinery you sought to challenge. True power cannot be bought, it is not conquered from the outside, and it certainly does not forgive those who dare to question it without the proper credentials.
In this macabre dance of power, the Musks and Rubios of this world are simply appetizers before the main course: the indefinite preservation of the established order. Power, in the United States, is not shared. It is acted upon. And when an outsider tries to overshadow it, the system reacts not with fear, but with calculation.
And always wins.
0 Comentarios