Dr. Shaher Zakaria
When Donald Trump took the oath of office for his second term and promised a “new golden age,” the symbolism of the moment was hard to miss. Standing with him in the Capitol Rotunda were a handful of tech billionaires whose companies account for nearly one-fifth of the U.S. stock market’s total value. Their presence underscored a central reality of Trump’s new administration: this “golden age” looks strikingly like a modern Gilded Age, with enormous wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few.
The original Gilded Age, spanning from the 1870s to the early 20th century, was defined by rapid industrial expansion, technological innovation, and unprecedented economic growth. But it also entrenched staggering inequality, political corruption, and social upheaval. Tycoons like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie wielded extraordinary influence, while working-class Americans bore the brunt of industrialization. As the gulf between rich and poor widened, public life grew increasingly turbulent and violent.
Today, the parallels are unmistakable. Instead of oil barons and steel magnates, we now see tech moguls like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg shaping the political and economic landscape. Just as wealthy industrialists in the late 19th century had outsized influence over presidents and policymakers, today’s billionaires are deeply entwined with governance. Trump’s ties to investors like Peter Thiel, energy tycoon Harold Hamm, and other ultra-rich figures echo the relationships that once defined William McKinley’s presidency and his alliance with power broker Mark Hanna.
Much like their Gilded Age predecessors, Trump and his allies champion policies that favor big business: tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of industries, and resistance to stronger labor protections. His environmental agenda—rolling back emissions standards, weakening the Environmental Protection Agency, and encouraging fossil fuel production—mirrors the laissez-faire attitude of the 19th century, when industrial pollution and unsafe working conditions were accepted as the price of progress.
Yet just as the Gilded Age gave rise to a powerful labor movement, today’s era of inequality is fueling renewed activism for workers’ rights. Strikes, union drives, and public campaigns against low wages are gaining momentum, highlighting the deep frustration of working Americans. The statistics reveal the imbalance starkly: the richest 10% of households control 62% of U.S. wealth, while the bottom half of the population holds less than 6%. The five wealthiest Americans together boast a net worth of around $840 billion.
This extraordinary concentration of wealth has led many to argue that the United States is drifting toward oligarchy. The concept, first articulated in ancient Greece, refers to rule by a wealthy few who govern for their own enrichment rather than for the common good. Aristotle himself warned of oligarchy as the corrupt twin of aristocracy—government by a supposedly virtuous elite. In practice, oligarchy and plutocracy, or rule by the rich, have become nearly indistinguishable in modern America.
The influence of money in politics makes this shift visible. Campaign spending has soared to unprecedented levels, much of it coming from billionaires. Elon Musk alone spent nearly $300 million supporting Republicans in the last election. Billionaire Timothy Mellon poured in nearly $200 million, while Miriam Adelson contributed almost $150 million. Such sums virtually guarantee influence over candidates and policies, raising the question of whether democratic choice is being drowned out by financial power.
Of course, the United States has always balanced elements of democracy with structures designed to protect elites. The Senate was originally chosen by state legislatures rather than voters. The Electoral College was established to keep a buffer between the people and the presidency. These institutions reflected the same dilemma Aristotle wrestled with: how to distribute power without letting it fall entirely into the hands of the masses—or entirely into those of the wealthy.
But public anger today suggests that the balance has tilted too far toward the latter. The fact that four billionaires—Trump, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and Howard Schultz—ran for president in 2020 only reinforces the sense that wealth is a prerequisite for political leadership. No wonder many voters believe the system is broken. They see a government that serves the wealthy while leaving ordinary citizens struggling with stagnant wages, rising costs, and declining trust in institutions.
The pressing question now is whether Americans will be given a genuine chance to change course. The Gilded Age eventually gave rise to the Progressive Era, when reforms sought to curb monopolies, regulate industries, and expand rights for workers and citizens. If history is a guide, the frustrations of today may yet spark another period of transformation. Whether that shift comes peacefully or through deeper upheaval will depend on how responsive the nation’s leaders are to the growing demand for fairness, accountability, and a more inclusive democracy.
— Dr. Shaher Zakaria is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at Lusail University – Doha, Qatar.
Dr. Shaher Zakaria is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at Lusail University – Doha, Qatar.
