From: allin
The election of Donald Trump has initiated significant discussion regarding his potential cabinet appointments and their impact on various sectors, from the economy to government bureaucracy. Analysts suggest Trump’s approach to cabinet selection reflects an intent to create a broad coalition within the Republican Party and to fundamentally challenge existing government structures [01:08:03].
Post-Election Market Reactions
Following Trump’s election victory, several markets experienced a significant bull run:
- Bitcoin peaked at $92,000, an all-time high, attributed to Trump’s strong pro-crypto stance during his campaign [08:09:11] [08:22:24].
- Financial Technology (Fintech) and Crypto Companies like Robinhood, PayPal, and Coinbase saw double-digit to 50% gains since early August [08:29:11].
- Equities generally saw increased risk-taking and risk-seeking behavior [18:01:43].
- Tesla’s stock increased from roughly 320 a share post-election, interpreted as the “lawfare discount” being removed, reflecting reduced risk of political retaliation against Elon Musk’s companies [34:16:35] [34:24:00].
These market movements are largely driven by the expectation of Trump’s economic and tariff strategies, including lower tax rates, deregulation, and policies perceived as stimulatory, which are anticipated to drive up investment and economic growth [10:51:00] [11:04:00].
Impact on Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) and Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A)
The number of IPOs has been historically low in the past three years, comparable to the 2008-2009 Great Recession [22:02:00]. Venture Capital (VC) distributions have also been significantly down [22:22:00]. Expectations for a surge in M&A activity are fueled by the anticipated end of the “wrath of Lena Khan” (FTC Commissioner Lina Khan), companies sitting on massive cash reserves, and a general sense of optimism [23:01:00].
However, some caution against over-optimism:
- Chamath Palihapitiya believes IPOs and M&A will remain “pretty subdued” in the first half of 2025, arguing that current interest rates do not make going public compelling for many companies [24:13:00] [24:49:00]. He also suggests that if industrial logic for M&A were truly strong, deals would have happened sooner [25:14:00].
- David Friedberg notes that while deregulation could benefit various industries beyond tech (like pharma, real estate), some “big tech” companies like Google may remain hampered by regulatory scrutiny, limiting their M&A activity [32:04:00] [32:38:00].
- Jason Calacanis suggests that “capitulation” among founders and boards of long-held private companies, coupled with the successful rebounds of recent IPOs like Robinhood and Uber, could drive more companies to go public or seek acquisition [31:32:00]. He advocates for M&A among companies under a trillion-dollar valuation to foster competition beyond the “Magnificent Seven” [53:53:00].
Trump’s Cabinet Philosophy and Key Picks
Trump’s cabinet is seen as an attempt to reflect the diversity of views within the Republican Party [01:08:03], balancing various factions from the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement to neoconservatives [01:07:00].
This approach is characterized by some as an “extinction event” for government agencies, intended to disrupt the bureaucracy and foster a more resilient system [01:13:10] [01:15:01]. The goal is not necessarily to find conventionally “qualified” individuals, but rather those who will challenge the status quo and dismantle existing systems [01:15:06].
Noteworthy Potential Appointments:
-
Matt Gates (Attorney General):
- Proponents’ View: David Sacks believes Gates would be a “breath of fresh air” at the Department of Justice (DOJ), needed to “de-weaponize” it after perceived partisan actions, such as the Russia gate hoax and the alleged cover-up of the Hunter Biden hard drive [01:08:38] [01:09:47]. Sacks dismisses “unproven smears” against Gates, suggesting they are attempts by the “establishment” to stop a reformer [01:10:43].
- Controversy: Gates is considered one of the most controversial picks [01:08:21]. Chamath labels him a “highest beta pick,” indicating high potential for change but also significant risk [01:16:26].
-
Bobby Kennedy (Secretary of Health and Human Services - HHS):
- Proponents’ View: Chamath expresses fascination with Kennedy’s potential role at HHS, believing he will work to make the country healthier and address issues within the food system [01:06:38]. He is also cited as a “highest beta pick” by Chamath [01:16:23].
- Controversial Stance: Kennedy has advocated for ending pharmaceutical advertising on TV networks, arguing it biases media coverage and that consumers cannot directly purchase prescription drugs anyway [01:40:18] [01:47:27]. David Sacks supports this, citing examples of media self-censorship to protect advertisers [01:52:50].
- Counter-Argument: David Friedberg argues against government intervention in advertising, believing consumers are not “dumb” and can discern information, and that the market itself is correcting as audiences move away from traditional media [01:48:08]. He also notes that some pharmaceutical advertising helps raise awareness for beneficial new therapies [01:50:00].
-
Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence - DNI):
- Role and Impact: David Sacks views Gabbard as a “dovish voice” who is “incredibly critical” for balancing more hawkish voices within the cabinet and potentially preventing “unnecessary Forever Wars” [01:19:25]. She is also a “high beta pick” according to Chamath [01:16:35].
- Controversy: Gabbard is attacked by the Washington “war machine” establishment due to her consistent advocacy for peace [01:31:09].
-
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy (Doge/Efficiency): Both are seen as figures who would drive efficiency within government agencies, a concept broadly supported by the hosts [01:16:16].
-
Marco Rubio (Secretary of State) and Elise Stefanik (UN Ambassador): These appointments are mentioned as part of Trump’s strategy to include neoconservative voices within his cabinet [01:07:51] [01:07:54].
Political and Regulatory Environment
The incoming Trump administration is expected to end the “era of deceleration of regulatory capture and lawfare,” aiming for a more vibrant economy [01:07:59] [01:09:51].
Crypto Regulation
The prospect of clear crypto regulation under a Trump administration is high. The House Republicans’ “Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act” (FIT21), which would classify digital assets as commodities regulated by the CFTC if decentralized, is now more likely to pass given Republican control of the Senate [01:12:12] [01:15:11]. This is expected to end the “terrorizing” of crypto companies by the SEC under Gary Gensler [01:17:15] [01:18:18]. Trump has also pledged to fire SEC Chairman Gary Gensler on day one, not sell federal Bitcoin holdings, and create a Bitcoin and crypto presidential advisory council [08:44:00] [09:58:00] [10:08:00].
Media and Free Speech
Concerns about media bias and censorship have led to discussions about potential changes:
- Trump’s Lawsuit Against Broadcast Networks: Trump reportedly filed a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against broadcast networks [01:40:03], potentially related to perceived violations of their public interest requirements and fairness doctrine regarding political coverage [01:41:00].
- Decline of Legacy Media: Cable news networks like CNN and MSNBC are experiencing significant layoffs and plummeting ratings, with MSNBC’s ratings down 50% since the election [01:43:00]. This suggests a loss of credibility with their audience [01:43:38].
- Big Tech and Censorship: While some argue that Trump’s administration may continue to challenge “big tech” companies, particularly those with social media platforms (e.g., Google, Facebook/Meta) over anti-competitive practices and past censorship [01:36:02] [01:39:22]. Mark Zuckerberg has publicly expressed regret over Meta’s role in censoring stories like the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020 [01:38:38].
Conclusion: An “Extinction Event” for Bureaucracy
The collective sentiment among some analysts is that Trump’s cabinet picks are not about maintaining continuity but rather initiating a fundamental “extinction event” within the federal government [01:13:10]. The intention is to introduce “disruptive forces” to test the resilience of government agencies and processes, with the hope that what emerges will be stronger and more efficient [01:14:00]. While this approach carries risks, the argument is that the current unsustainable fiscal path and bureaucratic inefficiency necessitate such radical change [01:20:20] [01:20:57].