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

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 U.S. He expressed appreciation for the technology policies of the Trump administration, criticizing the current government's (Biden administration) policies for suppressing technological innovation.

During the interview, Andreessen mentioned that he is a "volunteer" for DOGE and outlined its two main goals: cutting spending and reducing regulation.

He also noted that since the election, he has "probably spent half his time" at Mar-a-Lago, participating in interviews with cabinet officials, focusing primarily on technology policy, business, economics, and national health. However, he added:

"I'm not saying I was involved in all the decisions, but I have been trying to help in as many ways as possible."

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

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

Key points include:

• 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 AI sectors.
• Under Biden's leadership, the U.S. is in a state of "soft authoritarianism," with the government controlling society through strict censorship 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, leading to a loss of social status and voice for the traditional elite.
• 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 left while startup founders tend to lean right. However, leftist ideology generally dominates, 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.
• AI is key to future development, but Andreessen is concerned that it may become a tool for government control and censorship.
• Technological advancement will inevitably change social structures and power distribution, but humanity also needs to consider the ethical and social issues arising from technological development.

Here is a summary of the interview:

Weiss: Andreessen, welcome to the show, I'm very pleased. I have to say, in the past four weeks, I've 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, I want to say that 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) turned "red" this time. The second major change is the youth vote, which is changing.

I would say these changes have transcended political party lines 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 in 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, there are many small changes bringing hope: people can now write a book they never thought could actually be published; comedians can start telling jokes they previously couldn't tell… These small sparks are burning everywhere, and people can basically say they are starting to peek out from the frozen tundra of culture, beginning to smile, play, and enjoy themselves. This is actually something to be proud of for the country.

Weiss: You have many people around you, the most obvious being Elon Musk, who repeatedly stated in the weeks leading up to the election that if Donald Trump did not win and the right did not come to power, this would be the last American election. 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, dramatic changes. You know, throughout history, there have been these incredible moments, and I don't think that's the world we live in.

For example, people are ready to go out and kill at any moment; you can find this throughout American, Western, and Eastern history. Now, the battlefield will shift online; it is a virtual cold war rather than a physical hot war. For instance, people are beating each other up on X or Facebook to vent their frustrations.

Listen, this is why I say it feels a bit like soft authoritarianism. We don't have mobs in the world we live in, but if we lived in such a world: 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. American politics and culture will continue to be intense; it is a soft form of authoritarianism and repression, rather than a dramatic physical historical break. I don't think we can just add some meat to the bones of the soft authoritarianism and soft extreme authoritarianism you described.

Weiss: Why is this worldview so popular, and how 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 leftist political culture; this is fundamental, by the way, that society is inherently unfair and unequal.

The other reason is somewhat like a power circle. 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.

This is why we have a middle layer in 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.

Against this backdrop, the election on November 5 was somewhat like a vote from the American public, or at least a massive opposition to the old elite, old guard, and 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 just mentioned is now considered relatively evil in 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 anyone wealthy 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 take risks to publicly support Trump in society, but they feel either professionally Trumpian or sufficiently disappointed that they won't 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 do not have these super strong specific views. If the momentum of the entire society is moving in one direction, then following it is the most natural thing in the world. Then when that preference loosens, it can strongly correlate in another direction.

Returning to the incident of Trump's shooting, it is very distressing for a man to see someone shot in the head, bleeding, and not realizing the severity of the injury. And that typical photo was so magical, perfectly embodying the colors red, white, and blue, 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 for Andreessen's Support for Trump

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

The current government has an unworkable binary opposition, with a seemingly reasonable, moderate, thoughtful president and a pillar of the old Democratic establishment. 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 is 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 has been incredibly brutal and destructively impactful on AI. A group of us held a meeting in Washington in May to discuss this issue, and the content of the meeting was very scary; we basically decided we had to support Trump.

They were actually directly telling us not to start businesses, not to create AI startups, and not to fund AI startups. They were saying we would not allow such things to happen. They were basically saying that AI would be a game for two or three large companies closely cooperating with the government, and we would essentially wrap them in a government cocoon. We want to protect them from competition; we want to control them; 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 that during the Cold War, we classified all fields of physics and stripped them from research, as if the entire branch of physics had basically fallen 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 investigate; we want to completely control the whole thing.

Weiss: What specific viewpoints are involved?

Andreessen: This has several levels, and 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 a parallel to the Cold War, where it was nuclear energy, it was the atomic bomb; 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 and related judgments. We have been judging how AI has fundamentally been weaponized alongside social media, and how the government has entangled itself with social media censorship, which has been one of the real scandals of the past decade. These people have been using social media trials against their political enemies. These people have been de-banking their political enemies. They basically, I think, want to 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 establishment playing an important role is not on their priority list. They generally think 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 cautiously optimistic that smart, moderate Democrats will realize that these are unnecessary struggles. There seems to be 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 take care of the poor, or with the ability to implement progressive social policies. It is like extreme anti-business, anti-tech hostility, and they should let go, re-establish the close ties in history, 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 distinguish between what we call big tech and 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 big tech company, right?

So there is this cycle; this 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 big tech companies. Basically, the cycle repeats. The role of venture capital firms is to fund each new generation of small tech companies, right? So ultimately, what we end up doing, like most of our daily work, is funding those trying to grow to replace existing big 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 for very opposite reasons in many ways. 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, which by the way might be true. It is like a new tone.

But I think most of the anger is directed at big tech companies, and the anger at censorship and de-banking.

Weiss: Let me ask you one more question about the relationship between government and tech. The government invested in the initial internet, which made your career possible. They funded GPS, they provided loans to Tesla to keep it afloat, and they funded the California public university system, which essentially can be said to provide employees and founders for you 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 stay out.

How do you respond to this criticism?

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

However, when these companies become too big and out of control, there will be problems regardless. But overall, the success of American industry, American business, and American technology has been 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 could not obtain 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, discover what is actually happening; what happens in the shadows of Washington is never easy to see from the outside, but they can now go and discover. Then second, if they believe there are cases, they certainly have the ability to file lawsuits.

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: There are basically 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, which we call the regulatory state and the connective tissue they do not talk about in public, which I think is actually very important.

According to the law, the president must spend every dollar allocated by Congress, whether he thinks it is a good idea or not. But the Constitution does not actually say that; the Constitution states that the president needs to obtain funding from Congress; it does not say he must spend money. So this is a constitutional issue. It is 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 does not mean you excel in another. You know, like me, I can think of certain people who are obviously very good in tech 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: Sure. 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 cannot rely on the expert class to do good things, to have good judgment, or to run these things, I think it is now clear you cannot like.

Weiss: You can agree that experts are bad but still believe you 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 point is correct. Obviously, this will always be a concern. You could even say this has nothing to do with different types of experts. It is just that these are complex systems that have a huge impact on decision-making.

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

But I think an argument can be made that just as you want Elon Musk to use chopsticks to grab rockets, you want him to make electric cars. So he concludes he has to do this. What I want to say is that Elon was already involved in these things long before formally engaging in any political affairs; Elon has already 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 enthused you, and also, have you been to Mar-a-Lago since the election?

Andreessen: Since the election, I have spent almost half my time there. 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 economics, national health, and national success.

He (Trump) is an incredible host, regardless of what people think; he is an incredible master; you know, he runs his private world. We had a lot of fun. He enjoys being surrounded by his friends, family, grandchildren, and members of various clubs, which is also a very interesting way to observe him at work; he treats everyone equally and talks to everyone. I think this is one of his truly undervalued strengths that people have not realized for a long time; he would happily engage with visitors, like asking who the vice president should be, and then he would ask questions, as if he really often talks with 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 are the ones who should win, American tech companies. American tech companies should be the winners. We should beat China. We should export. We should make the products the world wants.

Weiss: You have 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 interview processes for officials, and the quality of many people I have met has been 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. I think 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 definitely act quickly on inauguration day.

AI May Become a "Regulatory Machine" Across All Systems

Weiss: One thing I have 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 learn from the experiences of social media companies, and they just say, well, if we are going to build a censorship machine in ten years, we might as well do it in advance.

My concern is that the censorship and political control of AI are 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 think it will become the control layer for how the education system operates, and 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 Elon's argument, which is the core of this argument; all you have to do is train the AI. Just like if you wanted to create an ultimate dystopian world, you would have a world where everything is controlled by an AI programmed to lie.

To put it bluntly, technology can change society, which can be traced back to the invention of fire and everything that followed. It has a long history, 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 how things are handled, changing society.