The term “AI coup” refers to a political transformation where artificial intelligence is used to systematically replace bureaucratic and democratic processes, concentrating power in the hands of a few technological elites. Unlike traditional coups, which involve military force or violent uprisings, an AI coup is a subtler, bureaucratic takeover that occurs cubicle by cubicle within government agencies. This process is currently being observed in the U.S., where AI is being framed as a tool to eliminate government inefficiency, but in reality, it is eroding democratic governance.
The Players Behind the Coup
The AI coup is not the work of a single individual but a coalition of tech elites, politicians, and ideologues who share a common vision of technocratic governance. Key players include:
- Elon Musk: As a “special government employee” leading DOGE, Musk champions the use of generative AI to replace human decision-making. His vision is one of efficiency, but it comes at the cost of transparency and democratic accountability.
- Donald Trump: The 47th U.S. President, Trump frames AI as a solution to government inefficiency while undermining the civil service and independent research institutions.
- Silicon Valley Engineers: Young, ambitious tech workers are deployed to federal agencies to take control of computer systems, often without clear oversight or accountability.
- Venture Capitalists and Technocrats: Figures like David Sacks and Michael Kratsios push for an “AI-first” government, prioritizing private sector innovation over public accountability.
The Plan: Automating Democracy
The AI coup unfolds in stages:
- Hollowing Out Institutions: Civil servants are replaced by AI systems, eroding the institutional knowledge and values that underpin democratic governance.
- Centralizing Power: A “centralized data repository” is created, giving tech elites control over government operations and decision-making.
- Generating Crises: The inevitable failures of AI systems create national emergencies, which are then used to justify further investment in private-sector solutions.
- Weakening Opposition: Independent research institutions and universities are defunded, silencing critics and consolidating power in the hands of tech companies.
The Risks: Technofascism and Democratic Erosion
The AI coup is not just about replacing humans with machines; it’s about reshaping the very foundations of democracy. By automating decision-making, the coup shifts power from elected officials to unelected technocrats. It replaces debate, deliberation, and consensus with algorithmic outputs that are opaque and unaccountable.
Worse, the coup creates a feedback loop of dependency. Once AI systems are embedded in government infrastructure, reversing course becomes nearly impossible. Failures are met with calls for more investment in AI, further entrenching the power of tech elites. This is the essence of “technofascism”: a system where technology is used to concentrate power and suppress dissent.
How to Resist the AI Coup
- Demand Transparency
Congress and watchdog organizations must demand full transparency in AI implementation within government agencies. AI should not be a black box that shields decision-making from public scrutiny. - Protect Civil Service Jobs
The public sector should resist the replacement of human decision-makers with AI. Government employees provide critical oversight and expertise that cannot be replicated by algorithms. - Strengthen Independent Research
Universities and independent think tanks should push back against funding restrictions on AI ethics research and algorithmic bias. - Public Awareness Campaigns
Citizens must be educated on the risks of AI-driven governance and mobilized to demand accountability from elected officials.
An AI coup is not a far-fetched conspiracy but an ongoing reality. The current push to replace bureaucratic decision-making with AI-driven automation threatens democratic governance, public accountability, and national security. The public must remain vigilant and actively resist the erosion of democratic processes in the name of efficiency. The debate should not be about whether AI can govern but about whether democracy should be sacrificed at the altar of technological expediency.
Reference: TechPolicy
