What was once a business culture identified mainly with innovation, disruption and hostility to regulation has produced a group of investors and entrepreneurs who now intervene directly in elections, fund political networks, shape debates over the state and occupy positions close to executive power.
Gil Durán’s The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy follows that shift through the people who drove it, the ideas that influenced them and the money that gave those ideas political weight.
The book’s story begins long before Donald Trump’s return to the White House. It runs through Peter Thiel’s early libertarian thinking, Curtis Yarvin’s rejection of democratic government, Balaji Srinivasan’s proposals for “network states,” the political mobilisation of venture capital during the Covid years, JD Vance’s rise from Thiel’s orbit to the vice presidency, and the unprecedented spending by Elon Musk and the cryptocurrency industry in the 2024 election. Durán’s language is often deliberately provocative, but the significance of the book lies in the detailed record it assembles of how technology capital moved from seeking distance from government to seeking power within it.
Published by Avid Reader Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, in August 2026, The Nerd Reich is organised into eight chapters. Durán describes the political current he investigates as “tech fascism,” a term that is open to argument and which he sometimes applies to people and companies whose politics and motives differ substantially. The stronger part of his case lies in the names, investments, campaign donations, government appointments, contracts and intellectual connections he documents over more than two decades.
Durán knows California politics and media firsthand. Born in Tulare, California, the grandson of Mexican immigrant farmworkers, he began his journalism career at the San Jose Mercury News. He later spent 15 years advising politicians including Jerry Brown, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris. In 2018, he returned to journalism as California opinion editor at The Sacramento Bee and later became editorial page editor of the San Francisco Examiner. He now works independently and publishes two newsletters, including The Nerd Reich, which focuses on the politics of the technology sector.
The central figure in the book is Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder, Palantir co-founder, early Facebook investor and one of the most politically influential venture capitalists in the United States. Durán traces part of Thiel’s worldview to The Sovereign Individual, the 1997 book by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg. The authors predicted that the internet and cryptography would weaken the power of nation-states, make taxation more difficult, undermine government control over money and allow wealthy, highly mobile individuals to choose jurisdictions more freely. They also anticipated the rise of private digital currencies.
Many of the book’s specific forecasts proved wrong. The dollar did not collapse, banks did not disappear and its predictions about China and repeated economic crises were often badly mistaken. Yet its central argument made a strong impression on Thiel: technology could reduce the ability of governments to control capital and individuals.
Thiel was already talking about private digital currencies in 1999, roughly a decade before Bitcoin appeared. In a 2009 essay, he wrote that he no longer believed “freedom and democracy are compatible.” A year later, he spoke about the limits democratic politics placed on small minorities whose ideas could not command electoral majorities and described technology as a possible alternative route to social change. Durán places particular weight on Thiel’s 2010 argument that technology could allow a small group to change the world without first winning broad electoral support.
His interest was not purely theoretical. Thiel backed the Seasteading Institute, which explored the creation of autonomous communities at sea operating under rules different from those of existing states. The project never developed into a viable political alternative, but it reflected an idea that would recur throughout the following two decades: people with enough capital and technology might build jurisdictions of their own rather than remain bound by the institutions they inherited.
The next important figure was Curtis Yarvin, a software programmer who wrote under the name Mencius Moldbug. Beginning in 2007, Yarvin published long essays on his blog Unqualified Reservations attacking representative democracy and advocating a much more centralised political system. He coined the term “the Cathedral” for what he saw as an informal network of universities, mainstream media and bureaucracy that reproduced progressive ideas throughout American public life. His alternative was a state run more like a corporation, with power concentrated in something resembling a chief executive.
For years, Yarvin remained an obscure online figure. His profile grew after prominent Silicon Valley investors began financing his technology ventures. In 2013, he co-founded Tlon to develop the Urbit computing project. Thiel’s Founders Fund and Andreessen Horowitz were key participants in a $1.1 million seed round. One of Yarvin’s co-founders had previously received a $100,000 Thiel Fellowship, a programme that pays young people to leave university and pursue entrepreneurial projects. Yarvin also developed relationships with Marc Andreessen and Balaji Srinivasan.
The ideas around Yarvin became known as neoreaction, or NRx, and were associated with the broader notion of the Dark Enlightenment, popularised by British philosopher Nick Land. In 2013, TechCrunch ran an article titled “Geeks for Monarchy,” one of the first major pieces to draw wider attention to a group that combined enthusiasm for technology and capitalism with hostility toward democratic government.
Durán also cites private correspondence showing that some of Yarvin’s associates were conscious of the reputational risks of being publicly linked to him. In 2014, Thiel reportedly asked Yarvin how dangerous it was for their connection to become known. In another exchange, Srinivasan discussed the possibility of directing the Dark Enlightenment audience against a hostile reporter if media scrutiny intensified.
Balaji Srinivasan translated some of these ideas into the more familiar language of Silicon Valley entrepreneurship. A Stanford-trained electrical engineer with bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees, he co-founded a genomics company and later joined Andreessen Horowitz. In October 2013, he delivered a talk at Y Combinator’s Startup School titled “Silicon Valley’s Ultimate Exit.”
He compared the United States to an outdated Microsoft product and borrowed economist Albert Hirschman’s distinction between “voice” and “exit”: one can try to reform an institution from within, or leave it and build an alternative. Srinivasan suggested that the same logic could apply to countries. If an old company cannot be fixed, entrepreneurs create a competitor. Why should political jurisdictions be treated differently?
He developed that argument in his 2022 book The Network State: How to Start a New Country. The 474-page work defined a network state as an online community able to raise money, acquire territory in different locations, establish physical settlements and eventually seek diplomatic recognition. It combined cryptocurrency, digital identity, private governance and real estate in a single political model.
The idea began attracting substantial capital. Praxis, one of the best-known projects in this field, announced $525 million in financing commitments in 2024 for a proposed city built around technology, cryptocurrency and special regulatory arrangements. Investors linked to the project included Andreessen, Sam Altman, Joe Lonsdale, the Winklevoss twins and Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam. Its organisers sought roughly 10,000 acres and wanted a host government to establish what they called an “acceleration zone” with wide regulatory discretion in artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, energy and biotechnology.
Another project, California Forever, spent about $900 million acquiring land in Solano County, California, with the aim of building a new city. These ventures differ greatly in seriousness and have not become sovereign alternatives to existing states. Their importance lies in the amount of money committed to ideas that had previously existed mostly in blogs, conferences and libertarian thought experiments.
The Covid-19 pandemic accelerated the political transformation of these networks. Srinivasan was among the technology figures who warned early about the virus in January 2020. Elon Musk took a very different position, describing the coronavirus panic as “dumb” in March and later condemning lockdown measures as “fascist.” Marc Andreessen published his influential essay “It’s Time to Build” in April 2020, arguing that the United States had failed to build sufficient housing, hospitals and infrastructure.
Private WhatsApp and Signal groups also brought together Silicon Valley executives, investors and political activists. Former Twitter executive Sriram Krishnan created a group called “Build,” followed by dozens of similar chats. Participants discussed Covid policy, corporate responses to Black Lives Matter, progressive politics in San Francisco and the performance of local officials. Krishnan later became a senior White House adviser on artificial-intelligence policy after Trump returned to office.
San Francisco became an early testing ground for the political strength of the technology elite. Groups including GrowSF, NeighborsSF and TogetherSF received around $20 million, according to investigations cited by Durán, from wealthy donors and venture capitalists seeking to reshape local politics. In February 2022, voters recalled three members of the city’s school board. In June, they removed progressive district attorney Chesa Boudin.
The money was not the only reason for those results. Public anger over schools, crime and city government was substantial. The campaigns did, however, show that technology investors were no longer limiting themselves to private discussions and conventional lobbying. They were organising political groups, financing campaigns and intervening directly in elections.
The most important bridge between Silicon Valley and national power was JD Vance. Thiel met Vance while he was a student at Yale Law School and later helped bring him into the venture-capital world in San Francisco. Vance eventually founded Narya Capital and attracted millions of dollars from investors including Andreessen. His record as a venture capitalist was modest, but his political career advanced quickly.
With Thiel’s backing, Vance returned to Ohio, ran for the US Senate and won. Thiel had previously financed politicians including Ron Paul, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and Trump, but Vance became his most consequential political investment. Thiel, David Sacks and other venture capitalists later lobbied Trump to choose Vance as his 2024 running mate. A figure who had passed through Thiel’s investment network was now vice president of the United States.
The Thiel-Trump relationship was never straightforward. Thiel backed Trump in 2016 but declined to support his 2020 campaign. In 2023, he described his original support as a “not very articulate scream for help” and said the experience had been “crazier” and “more dangerous” than he expected. He rejected another request for financial support. David Sacks initially backed Ron DeSantis in the 2024 Republican primaries. Once Trump defeated his rivals, however, much of the Silicon Valley right regrouped behind him.
The scale of technology money in the 2024 election marked another change. Elon Musk spent more than $291 million supporting Trump and Republican candidates, according to figures cited by Durán, making him by far the largest individual donor. The cryptocurrency industry raised more than $175 million through super PACs and related organisations led by Fairshake and heavily supported by Coinbase, Ripple and Andreessen Horowitz.
The industry did not simply support Republicans. Fairshake spent $20 million backing Democratic Senate candidates Ruben Gallego in Arizona and Elissa Slotkin in Michigan because both were regarded as strongly pro-crypto. The industry said that 53 members of Congress elected in 2024 had received its support and claimed an 85 percent win rate for its preferred congressional candidates. Its strategy was directed primarily at regulation rather than party loyalty.
The relationship between cryptocurrency and political power deepened after Trump returned to office. Trump had launched Truth Social in 2022 and then moved aggressively into cryptocurrency despite having previously called crypto a scam. Durán cites estimates that the Trump family’s net worth rose by around $5 billion in the first months of the new administration because of World Liberty Financial and its $WLFI token. Shortly before the inauguration, crypto assets associated with the family, including $Trump and $Melania, were valued on paper at more than $10 billion at their peak.
Donald Trump Jr. joined 1789 Capital, a venture-capital firm promoting what it calls “patriotic capitalism,” while Eric Trump became chief strategy officer of American Bitcoin in March 2025. These ventures gave the cryptocurrency sector a direct financial relationship with the president’s family at the same time that the administration was reshaping federal crypto policy.
Large technology companies also adopted a much more accommodating approach to Trump. Amazon, Apple, Meta, Google and Microsoft each contributed $1 million to his inaugural fund, as did OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman. Mark Zuckerberg, who had banned Trump from Facebook and Instagram after 6 January 2021, restored his accounts in 2023, met him after the 2024 election and announced major changes to Meta’s fact-checking system in January 2025. Jeff Bezos blocked a planned Washington Post editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris before the election.
These decisions do not show that the companies embraced Yarvin’s political theories or Thiel’s worldview. They do show that the relationship between Silicon Valley and Trump changed sharply between his first and second terms.
Thiel himself remained outside government, but his network was well represented inside it. Bloomberg reported in March 2025 that at least 16 people connected to Thiel or his companies held positions in the Trump administration. David Sacks became White House AI and crypto czar. Michael Kratsios took a senior science and technology position. Jim O’Neill became deputy secretary of Health and Human Services. Vance was vice president.
The clearest example of the growing integration between Silicon Valley and the state is Palantir. The company received a $30 million contract to develop ImmigrationOS for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The US Army later moved to consolidate 75 technology contracts into a single Palantir agreement worth up to $10 billion. Palantir had already received about $2.5 billion in government contracts since 2009, including $531 million in 2024 under the Biden administration. In February 2026, the Department of Homeland Security signed a purchasing agreement with the company worth up to $1 billion.
Those figures are important because they show that Palantir’s relationship with the federal government predates Trump and crosses party lines. What changed was the scale of its role and the growing importance of data, surveillance and artificial intelligence to government operations.
AI companies followed a similar path. During his first week back in office, Trump announced Stargate, a partnership involving OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank with planned investment of up to $500 billion in AI infrastructure. In June 2025, OpenAI received a $200 million Pentagon contract. Anthropic, Google and xAI later received contracts worth up to $200 million each.
The Army also created Detachment 201, bringing four senior executives from Meta, OpenAI and Palantir into the Army Reserve as lieutenant colonels to advise on military technology. The relationship soon moved into campaign politics. Andreessen, Joe Lonsdale and OpenAI president Greg Brockman helped create Leading the Future, an AI-focused super PAC with a $125 million war chest to support candidates favourable to the industry.
Durán devotes a later chapter to Thiel’s religious and apocalyptic thinking. In September and October 2025, Thiel delivered four lectures on the Antichrist, discussing nuclear war, artificial intelligence, surveillance, world government and the possibility that societies might surrender political freedom to a central authority in exchange for protection from catastrophe. Durán connects these lectures with Thiel’s earlier interest in political theorist Carl Schmitt and questions of sovereignty and emergency power.
The lectures are revealing about Thiel, but this is one of the sections where the book’s argument becomes less secure. A billionaire’s religious ideas cannot by themselves explain the behaviour of a large political and economic network. Durán is on firmer ground when he follows money, appointments, contracts and corporate relationships.
The same caution applies to the term “tech fascism.” The people grouped together in the book are not politically identical. Yarvin openly rejects democracy. Srinivasan promotes forms of political exit and network sovereignty. Thiel has repeatedly questioned democratic politics. Musk combines ideological activism with major commercial interests. Andreessen combines venture capital with an increasingly explicit political agenda. Corporations such as Apple, Microsoft and Google appear largely as institutions adjusting to a new administration and protecting their business interests.
The book does not establish the existence of a single organisation or a central command structure linking all these actors. It does establish a dense network of investment, friendship, political finance, intellectual influence and government service.
The figures are substantial: $1.1 million in early financing for Yarvin’s project; around $20 million directed into San Francisco political groups; $525 million in financing commitments for Praxis; roughly $900 million spent acquiring land for a planned new city in California; more than $291 million in Musk’s 2024 political spending; more than $175 million raised by the crypto industry for political influence; 53 members of Congress elected with crypto backing; at least 16 Thiel-linked figures in the Trump administration; a $125 million AI super PAC; planned Stargate investment of up to $500 billion; several AI defence contracts worth up to $200 million each; and a Palantir Army contract worth as much as $10 billion.
The most consequential change documented by The Nerd Reich is not simply the rightward movement of Silicon Valley. It is the change in the sector’s relationship with the state. The early libertarian imagination centred on escape: private currencies, offshore jurisdictions, seasteads, network states and special economic zones. Two decades later, a different strategy proved more effective. Technology investors financed elections, promoted candidates, entered government, influenced regulation and secured major defence, security and artificial-intelligence contracts.
Durán does not prove that Silicon Valley has become a unified fascist movement. He does show that a politically ambitious section of the technology elite now possesses resources and access that were difficult to imagine when Yarvin was writing under a pseudonym or when Srinivasan told a room of start-up founders in 2013 to consider building new countries. A current that began by asking how technology could reduce its dependence on government has ended up discovering how much power can be gained by working inside government and helping to shape it.
Short link: