Silicon Valley’s political divisions are now public — and petty

While Silicon Valley, nestled in the deep-blue Bay Area, has long been considered a liberal bastion, Andreessen and Horowitz are part of a rightward shift among some of the biggest names in tech. They’re joined by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, venture capitalist David Sacks and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, among others.

“I think the divide is new, but the principles on which it is based are not,” said Fred Turner, a professor of communications at Stanford University and recent co-author of the book “Seeing Silicon Valley: Life Inside a Fraying America.”

Turner said that many successful technology companies are based on a technocratic ideology in which one expert plays almost the sole dominant role: “The deeper story, I think, is the way that success in technocratic enterprises can be seen by people on the outside as models for political life.”

As disagreements over regulation, AI safety, and crypto crackdowns intensify, Silicon Valley’s darlings are increasingly invested in—and vocal about—politics in general. Musk exemplifies this transformation. He said in 2015 that he tried to stay out of Washington, but now supports Trump’s campaign with his words and his wallet.

This shift has led to public unrest that is visible to all.

Debates that used to be held in private are now public

In the past, Silicon Valley preferred to air its dirty laundry in private, if at all, rather than in long discussions on X.

“I think in circles that normally have private conversations, there are public conversations happening, but I’m not part of that,” Leslie Feinzaig, a venture capitalist who founded the group VCsForKamala, told Business Insider. She founded the organization in part in response to her industry’s rightward shift and the resulting fallout.

Many in Silicon Valley, such as LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and Box CEO Aaron Levie, have turned against Trump. Some have even joined VCsForKamala, but not all share Feinzaig’s commitment to staying out of public brawls.

Hoffman and Sacks, both members of the so-called PayPal mafia who once worked closely together, now openly spar with each other about politics.

Sacks shared a 23-paragraph post about X on June 6, endorsing Trump and announcing a fundraising event for the former president. Hoffman wasted no time with a lengthy social media post of his own, saying that Sacks was “wrong on almost every point.”

Hoffman attacked Sacks’ argument and didn’t beat around the bush: “In technology, we call this ‘being wrong.'”

That was just the beginning.

A new tone in Silicon Valley’s political discourse

Public debate flared after Andreessen and Horowitz released their podcast episode on July 16.

The disagreements spilled over to X again when venture capitalist Roger McNamee shared an article titled, “The Moral Bankruptcy of Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz.”

“Really Roger? We’ve known each other for 25 years, you’re an investor in my company, you have my cell phone number and your very first thought when we disagree is to attack me in a tweet? Good to know I guess,” Horowitz responded.

A day later, the insults became more personal.

Paul Graham, a computer scientist and founder of venture capital firm Y Combinator, wondered in a now-deleted post whether Sacks is “the most evil person in Silicon Valley.”

Sacks didn’t give up. In an X-post of his own, he called Graham “a bully and maybe something much worse.”

Other tech figures, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, began to take sides, backing either Graham or Sacks, further drawing public attention to the battle.

Then, on July 31, former PayPal president David Marcus decided it was his turn to post a detailed open letter about X. He explained why he supports Trump, saying he had “broken free” of old mental boxes and undergone “a gradual political 180.”

Levie, the Box CEO, responded: “A lot of honest feedback here, I hope Democrats listen to it.” Earlier in the day, Levie had posted separately on X that he saw a legitimate shift in Silicon Valley toward Harris, who had just become the presumptive nominee after President Joe Biden withdrew from the race. Leaders saw her, he said, as “a more stable, pro-tech, pro-business president” compared to Trump.

Despite Levie’s clear interest in listening and speaking across party lines, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale responded by calling the argument “nonsense” and calling Harris anti-business.

“VCs went from very little pro-Trump to about half!” Lonsdale said. Levie responded, and other tech leaders joined in the long-winded discussion.

While some of the back-and-forth takes place in more organized forums and with more careful language (Hoffman, for example, published an op-ed in The Economist), most of it takes place in the messy, typo-filled, impulsive world of social media.

“I felt like there was just mudslinging going on in our industry, and I don’t want to be a part of that at all,” Feinzaig, who organized VCsForKamala, said of the recent trend.

According to Feinzaig, there is no evidence of conservative behavior in Silicon Valley, but she does think that people have more nuanced views and that conservative voices have recently become more willing to speak out.

Money lurks beneath the partisan divide

According to Turner, the Stanford professor, part of the shift is due to purely financial incentives.

“These leaders want to make money,” he said. “If the political winds in Washington shift to the right, it could benefit tech leaders to shift to the right as well.”

The relationship, he said, is not just one-way, as politicians are well aware of the enormous wealth present in Northern California.

“Money, money, money makes the world go round!” he said, referring to the musical “Cabaret.” “That’s just the way it is. Politicians need money in amounts that, for some of the leaders of Silicon Valley like Elon Musk, are actually trivial. I think that’s something that’s really important to remember.”

That money is already talking. Andreessen and Horowitz announced they are giving millions to Trump. Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings donated $7 million to a PAC tied to Harris.