a16z Founder Interview: Spending Half the Time at Lake House Manor, Helping Trump Select the Next Administration

Author: Li Xiaoyin, Wall Street Journal

On December 13 local time, billionaire Marc Andreessen, co-founder of venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz, was interviewed by Bari Weiss of the Free Press, confirming that he is collaborating with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and sharing his feelings about working with the elected President Trump.

Andreessen stated that technological innovation is the cornerstone of America's economic prosperity and national security, and maintaining technological leadership is crucial for the United States. He expressed appreciation for the technology policies of the Trump administration, criticizing the current government's (Biden administration) policies that suppress technological innovation.

During the interview, Andreessen mentioned that he is a "volunteer" for DOGE and stated that DOGE has two main goals: to cut spending and reduce regulation.

Andreessen also noted that since the election, he has "probably spent half his time" at Mar-a-Lago, participating in some interviews with cabinet officials, focusing mainly on the following areas: technology policy, business, economy, and national health. However, he also stated:

"I’m not saying I’m involved in all decision-making, but I’ve been trying to help in as many ways as I can."

When asked whether talent would hesitate to join the Trump administration due to controversies from his previous term, Andreessen said he observed the opposite trend:

"I think there is actually a stronger flow of qualified talent from outside the system now."

The core points are as follows:

• The current government (Biden administration) lacks understanding of the tech industry, is overly conservative in policy-making, and even hostile; whereas the Trump administration was supportive of technological innovation and more friendly towards the cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence sectors.
• Under the Biden administration, the U.S. is in a state of "soft authoritarianism," where the government controls society through strict scrutiny and "de-banking" (closing the bank accounts of certain individuals or businesses for political reasons). He is concerned about this state power and believes the next administration should legislate to protect citizens from such actions.
• The traditional elite class had a "compact" to pursue wealth in business and donate it to charities upon retirement to cleanse their "original sin" and gain social recognition. However, this "compact" has been broken in recent years, causing the traditional elite to lose social status and influence.
• The elite class, originally composed of business oligarchs and media, has become corrupt and is being replaced by a "new anti-elite" force, with Trump's election reflecting this trend. Andreessen himself is both a "defector" from the traditional elite and a representative of the emerging "anti-elite" force.
• There will always be "sycophants" around centers of power, which is unavoidable. However, he believes that key figures in the emerging "anti-elite" force, such as Elon Musk, can maintain independent thinking and avoid repeating past mistakes.
• Andreessen supports a comprehensive review of government spending and regulation to improve efficiency and reduce waste.
• There is political polarization in the tech industry, with founders of large companies leaning towards the left, while founders of startups tend to lean towards the right. However, leftist ideas dominate overall, especially in consumer-facing sectors.
• Government investment and support are crucial for technological development, but the government should also avoid excessive intervention and allow the market to function.
• Artificial intelligence is key to future development, but Andreessen is also concerned that AI may become a tool for government control and censorship.
• Technological progress will inevitably change social structures and power distribution, but humanity also needs to consider the ethical and social issues brought about by technological development.

Here is a summary of the interview content:

Weiss: Andreessen, welcome to the show, I’m very glad to have you. I have to say, in the past four weeks, I have never seen you look more vibrant in public than you do now, and I think it’s because Donald Trump won the election.

I think every listener wants to know, what fundamental significance does Trump's victory hold for you and for America?

The Trend Shift Behind Trump's Election Victory

Andreessen: First of all, I want to say that it is morning in America, so I am indeed very happy. First, this is not just because of Trump, but his victory is indeed part of it, and I think there are two other things.

One is the dramatic "right turn" in this election. Many areas in places like California and San Francisco (Democratic strongholds) have "turned red" this time. The second major change is the youth vote, which is changing.

I would say these changes have transcended political parties because the past decade has been a "dark emotional" period, as you have written about, where industries represented by Silicon Valley have been suppressed by soft authoritarianism, which has had a real negative impact on the tech industry in the country and the world.

So I think the change of an entire generation of young people is significant. I am in the venture capital business, so I have received all this segmented data about the changes happening from people in different industries.

Now, many small changes are bringing hope: people can now write a book they never thought could be published; comedians can start telling jokes they previously couldn’t… These small sparks are burning everywhere, and people are basically starting to peek out from the cultural frozen tundra, beginning to smile, play, and enjoy themselves. This is something to be proud of for the country.

Weiss: You have many people around you, and I think the most obvious is Elon Musk, who repeatedly stated in the weeks before the election that if Donald Trump did not win, if the right did not come to power, it would be the last election in America. Do you agree?

Andreessen: To be honest, I don’t know. Maybe I have a bit more confidence in this system.

I don’t think we are in a world where there will be sudden changes. You know, there have always been these incredible times throughout history, and I don’t think that is the world we live in.

For example, people are ready to go out and kill at any moment, and these can be found in the history of America, the West, and the East. Now, the battlefield will shift online; this is a virtual cold war rather than a physical hot war. For example, people are beating each other on X or Facebook to vent their anger.

Listen, this is why I say it’s a bit like soft authoritarianism. We don’t have thugs in the world we live in, but if we lived in a world where: if you say the wrong thing, you will be completely erased in reputation and economically, and your friends and family will lose you too.

This is a very tense situation. Politics and culture in America will continue to be intense; it’s a soft form of authoritarianism and repression, rather than a dramatic physical historical breakpoint. I don’t think adding some meat to the bones of the soft authoritarianism you described will change anything.

Weiss: Why is this worldview so popular, and why has it been able to conquer so much territory and institutions so effectively?

Andreessen: I think there are two reasons. One is a basic impulse, which you might say is the political culture of the left, which is fundamental, by the way, that society is inherently unfair and unequal.

The other reason is a bit like a power ring. Just like if you have the ability to destroy someone, you can call them a racist, a sexist, or accuse them of many other thought crimes. We can be sure that power corrupts.

This is the worldview I have observed, and the worldview we describe operates in an authoritarian manner. I see its impact on me and the people I love. For me, I want to stay as far away from these as possible.

That’s why we have the middle layer of Congress and the Senate, because every direct democracy experiment in world history has ended in disaster, and any form of democracy will have an elite class responsible for governance.

This will be a structural reality. This ruling elite is either good, beneficial, and considers the greatest interests of the people, or they are just pretending to be randomly elected, and the idea of the people being in power is just a myth.

In any case, do we live in democracy or oligarchy in America? We always live in oligarchy. Every society in history has been some form of oligarchy.

Given this premise, the election on November 5 was somewhat like a vote from the American public, or at least a huge opposition to the old elite, the old guard, the old oligarchy, perhaps introducing a new oligarchy.

Weiss: You supported Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008, Hillary in 2016, and now you support Donald Trump in this election.

Do you represent a shift: seeing the corruption of the old elite and deciding to switch to the new anti-elite?

Andreessen: Yes. Politically, socially, and culturally, I am a child of the 1990s. For tech founders like me, being educated in American universities, benefiting from everything from federal research funding to student loan programs, and having the opportunity to start a successful tech company.

Basically, people like me can start a company, make money through extensive media coverage, and pay taxes. Then at the end of your career, you leave behind a large sum of money, and you donate it to charity. This cleanses all your sins, and you transform from a dubious business tycoon into a moral philanthropist.

Then you get invited to all the great parties, attend the World Economic Forum, and receive honorary degrees from all the universities, sitting with the editorial board of The New York Times.

Basically, everything I’m saying here has been considered relatively evil over the past decade. Some people achieve greater economic outcomes more easily than others, and that in itself is evil. Tech companies are presumed to be evil, tech workers are seen as an evil class, and any wealthy person is also considered evil.

In recent years, many people feel they cannot take risks for their companies, their economic interests, their reputational interests, or even for their children to get into the right schools. They feel they cannot risk publicly supporting Trump in society, but they feel either professionally Trumpian or disappointed enough not to vote for Kamala.

However, on July 13, the day Trump was shot, I privately learned from WhatsApp and Signal groups that they were very curious about Trump, but in public, they acted completely differently. Suddenly, we started sharing the iconic image of Trump with blood on his ears, raising his fist.

So I think even among the elite, most people don’t have these super strong specific views. If the dynamics of the entire society are moving in one direction, then following it is the most natural thing in the world. Then when this preference loosens, it can strongly correlate in another direction.

Returning to the incident of Trump being shot, it is very painful for a man to see someone shot in the head, bleeding, and unaware of the severity of the injury. And that iconic photo was so magical, perfectly embodying the red, white, and blue colors, with the American flag in the background. At that moment, we knew he would gain more support.

Another important thing is that Musk stood up and said, I support him, which was a significant moment for the entire industry.

The Current Government's Suppression of the Tech Industry is the Main Reason Andreessen Supports Trump

Andreessen: The Biden administration is really bad; they disdain the American tech industry and want to do everything possible to destroy it.

The current government has an unworkable binary opposition, a seemingly reasonable, moderate, thoughtful president and a pillar of the old Democratic system. They are particularly targeting us in three areas, leading us to support Trump.

One is cryptocurrency; they have just declared war and are trying to kill the entire industry and push it overseas. The second is AI; earlier this year, I was very afraid they would treat AI the same way they treated cryptocurrency. Then the third seems to be an obscure topic, but I think it’s very important, which is the concept of unrealized capital gains tax. Taxing private companies essentially destroys the ability of small businesses to own homes and tech startups through this tax structure change known as unrealized capital gains.

We have been in a passive position for four years in the cryptocurrency war we just experienced. It is incredibly brutal and destructively artificial intelligence. A group of us held a meeting in Washington in May to discuss this issue, and the content of the meeting was very frightening; we basically decided we had to support Trump.

They were basically telling us directly not to start businesses, not to create AI startups, not to fund AI startups. We are not allowing such things to happen. They were basically saying that AI would be a game for two or three large companies working closely with the government, and we would basically wrap them in a government cocoon. We want to protect them from competition, we want to control them, and we want to dominate them.

Then I thought, I don’t understand how you can lock it down so tightly because the principles of AI are out there, everywhere. They said, during the Cold War, we classified all fields of physics, stripping them from research, so that the entire branch of physics basically fell into darkness and could not continue research. If we decide to do this, we will do the same with the mathematics underlying AI. I said, I just learned two very important things because I didn’t know the former existed, nor did I know you would do the same with the latter. So they were basically saying we want to explore, we want to have complete control over the whole thing.

Weiss: What specific viewpoints are involved?

Andreessen: This breaks down into several levels; I will do my best to "reframe" it.

First, if you compare AI and autonomous weapons as new things that determine the outcome of wars, then these things are military-related, and that is indeed the case. Then you can draw an analogy to the Cold War, where it was nuclear power, it was the atomic bomb, and the federal government did not allow startups to manufacture atomic bombs, right? According to them, their level of secrecy even reached the level of mathematics, and they strictly controlled everything. This largely determined the shape of the world.

The second part is the aspect of social control, related to judgment; we have been judging how AI has been fundamentally weaponized along with social media, and how the government has entangled itself with social media censorship, which is one of the real scandals of the past decade. These people have been using social media judgment against their political enemies. These people have been de-banking their political enemies. They basically, I think what they want to do is use AI in the same way.

The third is that I believe this generation of Democrats, under Biden's leadership in the White House, has become very anti-capitalist; they want to return to a more centralized, controlled, planned economy era. You see this in many aspects of their policies. But frankly, I think they believe that the idea of the outside system playing an important role is not on their priority list. They generally believe that companies are bad, capitalism is bad, and entrepreneurs are bad. They have said it a thousand different ways. They demonize entrepreneurs as much as possible, proposing tax policies that will only destroy the private company creation process and undermine venture capital.

I want to say that I am cautiously optimistic that smart, moderate Democrats will realize that these are unnecessary struggles. It seems there is no reason to take this approach. This has nothing to do with the historical foundation of the party, with what people think they are voting for, with the ability to care for the poor, or with the ability to implement progressive social policies. It’s like extreme anti-business, anti-tech hostility; they should let go, re-establish the historically close ties, and move forward. I hope they can draw the right conclusions.

One thing the Biden administration has done is actively crack down on Google, Amazon, and Meta with these antitrust laws. Across the political spectrum, people are increasingly dissatisfied with so-called Big Tech.

Weiss: The incoming Vice President Vance supports a massive tech antitrust crackdown. Which of his viewpoints do you agree or disagree with? In other words, where should we regulate these large tech companies and protect consumers? Where do you think it is excessive?

Andreessen: So we differentiate what we call Big Tech from what we call Small Tech. Big Tech companies have succeeded and have a certain degree of market power; at least people accuse them of being terrible monopolies, which means very large market power, and that is Big Tech. And if you are a Big Tech company, you are a household name.

Then we define what we call Small Tech and startup small tech, right? Therefore, new companies aspire to become big companies. It has an interesting lifecycle; all small companies want to become big companies, right? What is the goal of small tech? It will become a large tech company, right?

So there is this cycle, and that is how the tech industry has performed for 80 years. You have existing bank tech companies, and then you have these small tech startups. Most people fail, but when they succeed, they become large tech companies. Basically, the cycle repeats. The role of venture capital firms is to fund every new generation of small tech companies, right? So ultimately, what we end up doing, like most of our daily work, is funding those companies trying to grow to replace the existing large tech companies.

What I want to say is that over the past decade, both sides of the political spectrum have really decided they hate Big Tech companies, but I would say, in many ways, for completely opposite reasons. So the left hates Big Tech companies for several reasons. First, they just hate capitalism, hate companies, and hate external economic success. Then to some extent, they blame tech for the election of Trump; they blame tech for fueling the rise of populist right-wing politics.

This has appeared in many ways over the past decade. But if we didn’t have these Big Tech companies, these large social networks, we wouldn’t have Trump. And you know, therefore, these are considered evil.

Frankly, I think this is related to electoral politics, meaning that union voting has really started to shift. So I think some on the right believe that if they work harder in big companies, they will be able to gain more union votes, by the way, this may be true. It’s like a new tone.

But I think most of it is anger towards Big Tech companies and anger towards censorship and de-banking.

Weiss: Let me ask you one more question about the relationship between government and technology. The government invested in the early internet, which made your career possible. They funded GPS, they provided loans to Tesla to keep it running, and they funded the California public university system, which essentially provided you with employees and founders to invest in. They are somewhat like building or at least cultivating the soil, creating a very rich environment for all these companies to grow. And now many people turn around and say: the government should get out.

How do you respond to this criticism?

Andreessen: In this view, the government created the seedbed for those companies and overall success for American experiments; the entire government and private action complex made America successful.

However, when these companies become too large and out of control, there will be problems regardless. But overall, the success of American industry, American business, and American technology is seen as beneficial to America by both sides. This is a very sharp new phenomenon of anti-capitalism.

Regarding what the new government will do. There is a controversy online; many people from the first Trump administration told me they experienced this themselves, so after the first Trump administration, they couldn’t get various insurances, home loans, or other things, and then this happened to many of their friends and allies over the past decade. I would say, first, discovering what actually happened, what happened in the shadows of Washington is never easy to see from the outside, but they can now go discover. Then second, if they think there are cases, they certainly have the ability to sue.

Andreessen's Role as a "Volunteer" in the New Government

Weiss: Speaking of the next government and the government, some reports say you are considering running for office.

Andreessen: I am a volunteer, an unpaid intern for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Weiss: What do you think it will do?

Andreessen: Basically, there are two important parts. One is that they will conduct a comprehensive review of government spending and cut costs as much as possible. They have a complete theory and strategy for this. Then related to this, they will do the same with regulations. So they will basically conduct a top-down review of regulation, what we call the regulatory state and the connective tissue they don’t talk about in public, which I think is actually very important.

According to the law, the president must spend every dollar allocated by Congress, regardless of whether he thinks it’s a good idea. But the Constitution doesn’t actually say that; it states that the president needs to obtain funding from Congress; it doesn’t say he must spend money. So this is a constitutional issue. It’s like we have been living under a regime where many things taken for granted may not comply with the Constitution. So this is one of the things I am sure will be focused on.

Weiss: Just because you excel in one area doesn’t mean you excel in another. You know, like me, I think of certain people who are obviously very good in technology and entrepreneurship, but their ideas on foreign policy are the dumbest I’ve ever heard in my life. What makes you believe this is the right role for these two men and their various unpaid interns?

Andreessen: Of course. I think the first question is how good do you think experts are?

Weiss: Very bad.

Andreessen: Yes. So I think the American people would agree with that. Yes, absolutely right. So if you can’t rely on the expert class to do good things, have good judgment, or run these things, I think it’s now clear you can’t like.

Weiss: You can agree that experts are bad, but believe you still need experts. In other words, I think the current elite is bad, but I would still be skeptical of the anti-elite. Don’t you agree?

Andreessen: Obviously, the overall view is correct. Obviously, this will always be a matter of concern. You could even say this is unrelated to different types of experts. It’s just that these are complex systems that have a huge impact on decision-making.

That’s the construction of the government we have today. Our government today was built in the 1930s, and Roosevelt fundamentally changed the government. It’s like a small part of the 1920s. What it has become is a small part of what it has become. That’s a discontinuous step function. If you remember what Roosevelt did, it was widely praised and felt at the time; he called on all the smart young people in the country to raise their hands to volunteer.

But I think there is an argument to be made that just as you want Elon Musk to use chopsticks to pick up rockets, you want him to make electric cars. So he concludes he must do this. What I want to say is that Elon was already involved in these things long before he formally engaged in any political affairs; Elon has been an important part of the national defense system and our allies' defense system.

Weiss: I want to briefly revisit what you mentioned about having dinner with Trump a few days before he was shot, and before you supported him, you said it was a wonderful dinner. Tell us what you heard there that comforted you, even excited and inspired you, and also, have you been to Mar-a-Lago since the election?

Andreessen: I have spent almost half my time there since the election. I declare the following: I am not at the center of all decision-making, but I provide help in as many ways as possible. So I want to say, as we discussed, Trump evokes a lot of emotions in many people; they have very strong views. I am not Mr. Foreign Policy, Mr. Abortion Policy, or Mr. Gun Policy; my views revolve around technology policy, business economy, national health, and national success.

He (Trump) is an incredible host; no matter what people think, he is an incredible master; you know, he runs his private world. We had a great time. He enjoys being surrounded by his friends, family, grandchildren, and members of various clubs, which is also a very interesting way to observe how he works; he treats everyone equally and talks to everyone. I think one of his truly undervalued virtues, which people have not realized for a long time, is that he happily engages with visitors, like asking who the vice president should be, and then he asks questions as if he really often talks to ordinary people. He has many stories from the campaign trail, like spending a lot of time with police officers and everywhere he goes, etc.

His view of us is basically: I don’t know much about technology, but I don’t need to know because you know a lot. You should go build tech companies. You should be the winning American tech companies. American tech companies should be winners. We should beat China. We should export. We should make the products the world wants.

Weiss: You’ve spent half your time at Mar-a-Lago or its vicinity; what types of meetings have you participated in, attended, or assisted?

Andreessen: I have participated in some interviews with officials, and the quality of many people I met is very high. In the past two weeks, many job positions have declined; you know, the next level of employees, I think are all very impressive people. The flow of talent seems to be very strong.

Weiss: There is a general concern that qualified people are cautious about working for Trump?

Andreessen: I think the opposite is happening; I think the flow of qualified talent from outside the system is actually much stronger now. All of this is preparing for the actual inauguration on January 20. So we have a long way to go, but they will certainly act quickly on inauguration day.

AI May Become a "Regulatory Machine" Running Through All Systems

Weiss: One thing I’ve always wanted to ask you is about this war over AI regulation.

Andreessen: I think what is happening is that social media has been evolving along the arc I described from 2013 to today, becoming a censorship machine. AI has entered that arc in a super-accelerated version. It basically happens upfront. Social media took time to become a censorship machine. It has been happening from the start with AI. They will happen from the start with AI because AI companies learned from the experiences of social media companies, and they just said, well, if we are going to build a censorship machine in ten years, we might as well do it early.

My concern is that the censorship and political control of AI can be a thousand times more dangerous than the censorship and political control of social media. Social media censorship and political control are very dangerous. But at least it only happens when people are talking and communicating with each other. The problem with AI is that I believe AI will become the control layer for everything in the future, so I believe AI will become the control layer for how the healthcare system operates. I believe it will become the control layer for how the education system operates, the control layer for how the government operates, so in the future, when you deal with the healthcare system, the education system, or the government, you will be dealing with an AI.

This directly relates to Elan’s argument, which is the core of this argument; all you have to do is train the AI. Just like if you want to create an ultimate dystopian world, you would have a world controlled by an AI programmed to lie about everything.

To put it bluntly, technology can change society, which can be traced back to the invention of fire and everything that followed. There is a long history of this, and many great books have written about it. Technology simultaneously rearranges power and status in society; it changes how society operates. It has always been this way, changing the way things are handled, changing society.