Donald Trump and Elon Musk exemplify a new mode of “inductive governance” – a leadership style driven less by formal authority and more by mastery of influence and perception. Each man has weaponized information and symbolism to shape public opinion and behavior in ways that mirror modern cognitive warfare tactics. By controlling narratives and leveraging their personas as rallying symbols, Trump and Musk have reshaped reality for their followers, with profound implications for democracy and security.
Actors- Donald J. Trump, former US President and political figurehead of the American populist right; and Elon Musk, tech billionaire, owner of X (formerly Twitter), and influential public commentator. Both wield outsized personal influence over large constituencies – Trump through his political movement and Musk through his social media empire and tech ventures. Each commands a devoted following that treats their pronouncements as authoritative, enabling these figures to operate as unelected power centers.
Phenomenon- Inductive governance via influence and narrative control. Trump and Musk govern indirectly – not merely by decrees or corporate policies, but by constantly shaping the information environment and public perceptions to induce desired outcomes. They use social media, spectacle, and direct communication to mobilize opinion from the bottom up. This analysis examines their influence tactics, symbolic roles, and narrative techniques as case studies in how personal brands can direct collective behavior. It also explores how these methods align with cognitive warfare strategies – the deliberate weaponization of information to manipulate how target audiences think, feel, and decide.
Strategic Significance- Trump and Musk demonstrate that individual actors can attain strategic influence traditionally reserved for states. By mastering propaganda and psychological manipulation, they can erode institutional authority, polarize societies, and even sway geopolitical outcomes. Trump’s narrative prowess helped him win elections and undermine trust in democratic processes. Musk’s control of a global communication platform enables him to amplify or silence voices at will, potentially influencing markets and international political discourse. Their inductive governance blurs the line between public and private power, presenting a challenge to democratic accountability. In essence, they are waging cognitive warfare on their own terms – shaping the “cognitive domain” (public consciousness and perception) to maintain power and achieve objectives without conventional force. Understanding their playbook is crucial for anticipating risks to social stability and national security.
Timing- As of 2025, the urgency is high. Trump’s political resurgence – including a successful 2024 campaign built on aggressive disinformation – has thrust his propaganda machine back into the world’s most powerful office. Concurrently, Musk’s acquisition of Twitter/X in late 2022 and subsequent policy changes have transformed the information landscape. Both men are at the height of their influence, openly deploying their methods-
- Trump, as the 47th President, is actively implementing narrative-driven governance, from rebranding national symbols to punishing media noncompliance.
- Musk, as the de facto gatekeeper of a significant global information platform, is pushing a “free speech” free-speech narrative while algorithmically boosting voices that align with his views.
Urgency- Democratic societies are grappling with information integrity crises – low trust in media, rampant disinformation, and new technologies (like generative AI) that supercharge fake content. Trump and Musk’s tactics exploit these conditions in real time. The coming years (and election cycles) will be decisively shaped by their brand of influence warfare unless mitigated. Recognizing these patterns now is critical for formulating responses (from regulation to public resilience) before they become the new norm of governance.
Observable Outcomes- The impacts of Trump and Musk’s inductive, narrative-centric governance are already visible-
- Erosion of Truth and Trust- Trump’s relentless “fake news” narrative and promotion of false claims (from election fraud to public health misinformation) have deeply eroded trust in traditional institutions. Millions believe narratives he’s spun (e.g., a “stolen” 2020 election), illustrating the power of repetition and echo chambers. Public discourse has grown more polarized and less grounded in shared facts.
- Cultural and Institutional Shifts- As President, Trump normalized the use of propaganda tools at the highest levels. From branding opponents with epithets to attempting to redefine official terminology (renaming the “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America,” for example), he showed how a leader can impose an alternate reality through sheer insistence. Government agencies, media outlets, and even the judiciary have been pressured to bend to narrative loyalty tests.
- Social Media as a Battlespace- Musk’s stewardship of X has led to looser moderation and the reinstatement of previously banned extremists, resulting in surges of hate speech and disinformation on the platform. By personally engaging with fringe influencers and antagonizing mainstream critics, Musk has shifted the Overton window of online discourse. Conspiracy theories and extreme viewpoints now enjoy greater visibility and acceptance in parts of the public sphere he controls.
- Behavioral Manipulation- Both figures have demonstrably moved masses. Trump’s rhetoric inspired real-world actions – from increased hate incidents to the January 6 Capitol riot – by convincing supporters they were heroic patriots fighting a corrupt system. Musk’s offhand tweets have sent stocks and cryptocurrencies soaring or crashing, and his public endorsements (or denouncements) of political candidates have likely nudged voters. Each man’s words can trigger economic and social ripple effects within hours, reflecting a PSYOP-like ability to prompt action.
- Foreign Exploitation- Their divisive narratives have been amplified by foreign information operations (notably Russian disinformation campaigns) to weaken the United States from within. Trump’s polarizing messaging created fertile ground for adversaries to stoke chaos on social media. Musk’s laissez-faire approach to content moderation on X has similarly enabled hostile influence campaigns to spread propaganda under the guise of “free speech.”
Projected Focus- Absent intervention, Trump and Musk’s influence methods will likely proliferate and intensify-
- Trump’s Strongman Governance- Expect an expansion of state-backed cognitive warfare domestically. Trump will continue governing by rally and by tweet (or Truth Social post), mobilizing his base with emotionally charged narratives. We may see formal government communications increasingly blur into propaganda, with agencies compelled to adopt Trump-approved language and messaging. Dissenting media may face regulatory harassment or legal action as he consolidates a controlled information sphere. Internationally, Trump’s narrative approach could fracture alliances (through disinformation about allies) and empower authoritarian imitators abroad.
- Musk’s Information Empire- Musk will refine his platform’s algorithms to favor content streams that align with his ideological leanings and business interests. X could evolve into an even more personality-driven network, where what the “Chief Twit” boosts or attacks dictates global conversation. Musk’s roles in critical infrastructure (satellite internet, electric cars, space transport) mean his narrative choices can influence strategic domains – e.g., public support for wars, climate action, or regulation. If he continues to integrate himself as a policy stakeholder (as seen in Ukraine’s reliance on Starlink), governments may have to negotiate with him as a quasi-sovereign actor.
- Wider Adoption- Sensing the success of inductive governance, other political and business leaders may copy these tactics. We could see a new class of populist demagogues and CEO-moguls who bypass institutions to rule by social media fiat, further destabilizing conventional governance. This diffusion of cognitive warfare techniques to domestic actors increases the risk of permanent information trench warfare in civil society.
- Flashpoints and Risks- In the near future, watch for flashpoints like the 2028 US election or major social unrest incidents where Trump’s or Musk’s influence could be decisive. Each man’s capacity to rapidly mobilize followers is a wild card factor in crisis scenarios. There is also a risk of a backlash- regulatory or societal. Governments (especially in Europe) may impose constraints on Musk’s platform for failing to curb disinformation. US political institutions might likewise seek new guardrails against executive abuse of propaganda. The effectiveness of such measures will shape whether inductive governance remains ascendant or is reined in.
- Bottom Line (Warning): The methods Trump and Musk employ constitute a form of cognitive warfare that targets citizens’ minds in open societies. If left unchecked, these tactics will further weaken democratic cohesion, making the public increasingly susceptible to manipulation and control. Strategic warning- Democracies must adapt quickly – improving information literacy, hardening the info sphere against lies, and holding charismatic info-warriors accountable – or risk ceding the “gray matter battleground” to the loudest demagogues and digital oligarchs.
Analysis
In traditional governance, power flows from offices, institutions, and laws. In inductive governance, power flows from influence – the ability of a leader to shape the perceptions and behaviors of a populace without direct coercion. Donald Trump and Elon Musk offer two vivid case studies of this phenomenon. Both men operate outside many of the established norms of government and corporate leadership, yet both have bent large segments of society to their will. They achieve this through cognitive maneuvering- saturating the environment with carefully crafted narratives, symbols, and emotional triggers until people begin to accept and even embrace the reality they create.
Crucially, Trump and Musk’s approaches align with known cognitive warfare strategies. Cognitive warfare, as defined by defense strategists, involves targeting the human mind – attacking the decision-making process through misinformation, manipulation, and psychological influence. The end goal is to “hack” the perception of the masses, making them easier to direct. Both figures have essentially turned politics and social media into their battlefield for this kind of conflict. By examining Trump and Musk in depth, we can see how modern demagogues and tech moguls wage information warfare against society and how they leverage crowd feedback (the inductive element) to strengthen their control.
The following report dissects each case, highlighting the specific influence tactics, symbolic roles, and narrative control methods they use to reshape public perception. We then analyze how these methods mirror or augment cognitive warfare techniques. Throughout, the focus remains on cyber-enabled information control and psychological operations – the bread and butter of Trump and Musk’s power – and what this means for the future of governance and conflict.
Donald Trump- Populist Propaganda and Narrative Domination
Donald Trump’s rise to political power and his continued influence can be attributed to an extraordinary command of narrative and symbolism. From the moment he entered politics, Trump eschewed policy nuance in favor of spectacle and emotional storytelling. He governed (and still governs) by rallying cry and Twitter blast, not by technocratic management. In effect, he turned the US presidency into a platform for perpetual psychological warfare – framing himself as the indispensable champion and any opposition as enemies of the people.
Trump’s influence tactics and narrative control are best understood through several key techniques he employs-
- Villain–Victim–Hero Framing- Trump consistently casts political issues as morality plays with clear characters. In his narratives, there are villains (opponents and scapegoats like “Crooked Hillary,” the “fake news” media, immigrant “gangs,” or shadowy “deep state” bureaucrats), and there are victims (everyday Americans, particularly his supporters, portrayed as wronged and forgotten). Finally, he positions himself as the hero, uniquely capable of vanquishing the villains and rescuing the victims. This classic storytelling structure appeals to primal human psychology – it personalizes complex problems into an emotional drama. For example, he painted inner-city crime and immigrant violence as dire threats (villains preying on Americans), then presented himself as the “law-and-order” savior who would stop the carnage. By giving his followers a simple story where they are the righteous side and he is their knight, Trump induces intense loyalty and moral justification for his agenda. This framing underpins campaign slogans like “Make America Great Again” – implying America (victim) was diminished by corrupt elites (villains) until Trump (hero) arrived to restore it.
- Simplified Messaging and Memetic Sloganeering- Trump’s communication style favors short, punchy, repeatable phrases that imprint easily. He reduced policy positions to memorable slogans- Build the Wall, Drain the Swamp, America First. These acted as memetic devices – simple ideas that spread virally and unified his base around core themes. Repetition is key- Trump hammering “fake news” or “rigged system” hundreds of times has ingrained those notions into public consciousness. By speaking at a basic grade level with blunt, absolute terms, he ensured his messages were both accessible and polarizing. This linguistic tactic, akin to wartime propaganda posters in verbal form, made his narrative stick in supporters’ minds and shaped their perception of reality (e.g., mainstream media = enemies, Trump = truth-teller).
- Media Manipulation through Chaos- A defining feature of Trump’s method is dominating the news cycle through unpredictability and provocation. He understands that in the modern media ecosystem, outrage and shock garner nonstop coverage. Trump capitalizes on this by unleashing a constant stream of controversial statements, tweets, and actions. The onslaught serves multiple purposes-
- It distracts and overloads. With so many fires to fight, critics and fact-checkers struggle to keep up (a tactic comparable to the “firehose of falsehood” propaganda model). For instance, during a scandal or unfavorable story, Trump often tweets something incendiary, unrelated to the story, to seize headlines, effectively knocking the unwanted narrative out of the spotlight.
- It frames the agenda on his terms. Even when critical, media outlets end up discussing what Trump said or did rather than alternative viewpoints, giving him free amplification; news shows become unwilling platforms for his talking points every day.
- It fatigues opposition. By flooding the zone with conflicting claims and conspiracy theories, Trump cultivates public confusion and cynicism. People either tune out or retreat to partisan positions. In such a fog, his ardent supporters trust only him as a beacon of certainty.
- It rallies supporters. Each outrage is also a rallying signal to his base, reinforcing an us-versus-them mentality. His followers interpret media backlash as proof that he is shaking up the hated establishment, which further cements their allegiance.
This chaotic communication strategy was explicitly articulated by Trump’s former advisor Steve Bannon, who said, “The real opposition is the media, and the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” In practice, Trump did exactly that – an endless flood of tweets, insults, conspiracy retweets, and shifting narratives that paralyzed the nation’s ability to hold onto a shared truth. It’s a cognitive warfare technique perfected: create so much noise that objective reality drowns in a sea of conflicting soundbites.
- Direct Social Media Command- Trump’s utilization of Twitter (before his 2021 ban) was unprecedented for a world leader. He bypassed institutional gatekeepers entirely – announcing policies, firing officials, and stirring feuds in 280-character blasts. This direct channel to tens of millions of people meant Trump could shape narratives instantaneously, without filters. At 6 AM, he could tweet a claim or slur (“Just saw the Fox & Friends report – very bad!” or “Law enforcement is being nice to these people.” etc.), and by mid-morning that would dominate national discussion. The velocity of his communication left traditional institutions (such as press briefings or legislative oversight) struggling to keep up. Even after being deplatformed, Trump continued this direct narrative control on his own platform, Truth Social. Though its reach is smaller, it preserves his ability to speak straight to his base, keeping them engaged in the narrative he crafts (and often then echoed by friendly media like specific TV networks).
- Symbolic Gestures and Cultural Warfare- Beyond words, Trump understands the power of symbolic acts to send a message. During his presidency and beyond, he has made a point to stage events that dramatize his narrative. For example, signing a proclamation on Air Force One to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” was pure theater – a literal attempt to redraw the map as a show of nationalist bravado. Such moves, while legally superficial, carry enormous psychological weight for his followers- they see a leader confident enough to remake reality to his liking. Similarly, Trump’s public feuds (attacking NFL players kneeling during anthems, or ordering the military to hold lavish parades) are meant to polarize cultural identity – forcing people to pick sides on emotionally charged symbols (the flag, the troops, the anthem). It’s classic psychological operations- use symbols and rituals to strengthen in-group loyalty and paint opponents as traitors to that culture. Trump’s image itself – from his red MAGA hats to his staged photo-ops (hugging the flag, walking to a church with a Bible) – is cultivated to represent an American savior archetype. He wants supporters to see him as the embodiment of the nation’s greatness, a living symbol around which they rally.
- Delegitimizing Information Sources- A linchpin of Trump’s narrative control is ensuring he becomes the primary trusted source of truth for his base. To do this, he systematically works to delegitimize any competing sources of information or authority. The news media are cast as “dishonest” and “enemies of the people.” Career experts and officials who contradict him (judges, scientists, intelligence agencies) are ridiculed as “so-called experts,” part of some “deep state” or partisan cabal. Even unfavorable facts – unemployment numbers, COVID-19 death statistics, election vote counts – are dismissed as fake or rigged if they reflect poorly on him. By waging this war on independent information, Trump performs a psychological inversion- factual reality is suspect, and his narrative is reality. Millions of Americans were persuaded, for instance, that the 2020 election results were invalid, purely because Trump told them so repeatedly. In cognitive warfare terms, this is an assault on society’s epistemic foundations. When people no longer agree on what is genuine, the person who shouts the loudest (or repeats the lie the most) often becomes the default authority. Trump mastered that dynamic.
Through these tactics, Donald Trump managed to reshape public perception on a grand scale. He turned policy debates into raging culture wars, simple conflicts of good versus evil, drowning out nuance. He kept supporters in a constant state of emotional arousal – whether anger at enemies or adulation for him – which is ideal for psychological manipulation. Strategically, his inductive governance means he governs via the crowd’s energy- when his base believed something fervently, that in turn justified his actions and pressured other GOP officials to fall in line. He cultivated a feedback loop in which crowd sentiment became both the product and tool of his leadership.
From a cognitive warfare perspective, Trump’s methods align with techniques used by authoritarian regimes and hostile propagandists-
- Information Saturation- akin to Russian disinformation “firehosing,” he overwhelmed audiences with constant messages, true or false.
- Disorientation and Nihilism- by creating a climate where truth seems unknowable and everything is partisan, people either cling to their chosen “truth-teller” (e.g., only trust Trump) or stop caring – both outcomes weaken democratic resistance.
- Identity Propaganda- similar to psychological ops that use identity and loyalty, he repeatedly primed the idea that only his supporters are “real Americans,” fostering an almost cult-like group identity that is impermeable to outside influence.
- Reflexive Control- a Soviet tactic of manipulating an adversary into reacting in self-defeating ways. Trump’s taunts and norm-breaking often tricked the media and opponents into overreacting or making missteps, which he then exploited. For example, his extreme statements would draw opponents to equally extreme counterpositions, allowing him to paint them as unreasonable or unpatriotic.
Implications in Trump’s Case- Inductive governance in Trump’s hands has transformed the Republican Party and the US political landscape. Traditional policy expertise and deliberation have taken a backseat to persuasion warfare, which has immediate implications: government decisions might be made to maintain narrative consistency or satisfy the base’s emotional desires rather than on empirical evidence. It also means that any challenge to Trump’s narrative is framed as an attack on the people, making accountability difficult. When the Justice Department tried to investigate his actions, he called it a “witch hunt” – and millions accepted that framing, undermining the rule of law. Strategically, Trump has shown that domestic actors can apply techniques typically seen in foreign influence campaigns (such as disinformation and conspiracy amplification) in internal power struggles. This internal cognitive warfare undermines the social cohesion and rational discourse on which democracy relies, effectively softening up the nation from within.
Elon Musk- Techno-Populism and Algorithmic Influence
Where Donald Trump operates in the overtly political arena, Elon Musk wields influence through the tech and information sphere – yet his methods are strikingly parallel. Musk is ostensibly a business leader (CEO of Tesla and SpaceX) and now the owner of a central social platform (Twitter, rebranded as X). He does not hold elected office, but he has achieved shadow governance by leveraging technology, wealth, and a cult of personality. Musk’s fans and followers span the globe, and many treat him as a visionary authority on matters ranging from innovation to free speech and geopolitics. Like Trump, Musk has cultivated an image as an outsider hero – a genius iconoclast fighting corrupt elites – and uses that persona to drive narratives that benefit his interests and values.
Key tactics in Elon Musk’s influence and narrative arsenal include-
- Preemptive Framing of Narratives- Musk is highly adept at seizing the initiative in public discourse by offering the first framing of any issue concerning him. As soon as a topic emerges that might affect Musk or his ventures, he presents a narrative on his terms via tweet. For example, when internal Twitter documents were released (the so-called “Twitter Files”), Musk immediately billed them as proof of a vast scandal, alleging government collusion with prior Twitter management to censor content. By loudly declaring this interpretation upfront, he primed millions of followers to view the story as a government conspiracy to suppress the truth. Even when reputable analyses later concluded the “Twitter Files” revealed no significant wrongdoing, Musk’s framing had already taken root among his base as the truth. Similarly, he constantly frames mainstream media as untrustworthy (“legacy media lies to you”) and casts his actions (like mass layoffs of content moderators) as principled stands for freedom. This preemptive narrative strike is a cognitive technique- whoever frames first, frames loudest, often wins mindshare, as human brains latch onto initial explanations and resist contradiction.
- Diversion and Deflection Attacks- Musk frequently uses diversionary tactics to steer attention away from issues that could damage his image. When a negative story breaks – such as a report on Tesla accidents or failures of his Boring Company projects – Musk will often unleash a provocative tweetstorm on an unrelated controversy to create a distraction. One instance saw Musk pick a public fight with Apple (claiming Apple threatened to remove Twitter from the App Store, which was untrue) on the same day an exposé highlighted shortfalls in one of his companies. The ensuing media frenzy about “Musk vs Apple” conveniently eclipsed coverage of the original criticism. In addition to broad diversions, Musk also engages in personal deflection- he responds to critiques by attacking the critic. If journalists report unfavorably on him, he insults them or insinuates dark motives (“You’re essentially a lobbyist” or calling someone a liar), shifting the conversation to their credibility rather than the substance of the report. This method mirrors classic disinformation campaigns, where one counters inconvenient facts by attacking the source and muddying the waters.
- Trial Balloons and Memetic Engagement- A signature Musk move is to float outrageous or unconventional ideas on social media to test public reaction – essentially trial balloons. He’ll tweet suggestions or run impromptu polls (“Should I step down as head of Twitter? Yes/No”) that generate enormous buzz. Some of these ideas he acts on, others he abandons, but in either case, he benefits. If the idea is popular (like restoring certain banned accounts via poll), he claims a mandate from “the people” and executes it, boosting his populist image (“Vox Populi, Vox Dei” he famously tweeted – Latin for “the voice of the people is the voice of God”). If the idea is too unpopular or problematic, he can laugh it off as trolling (“just kidding!”) and retreat, having lost nothing while keeping himself in the spotlight. This tactic serves as both engagement theater and policy exploration. It keeps his followers constantly interacting – a form of gamified governance by poll – and it allows Musk to gauge what actions would be cheered or jeered by his core audience. It’s inductive governance in real time- decisions percolate from online mob sentiment that he himself stoked. Moreover, Musk uses internet meme humor and slang in these trial balloons, cultivating an image that he is a cool rebel “shitposter” just like many of his young followers. This memetic style endears him to a digital generation and diffuses criticism – serious concerns get buried under layers of memes and jokes, making opponents seem humorless or out of touch if they push back earnestly.
- Algorithmic Amplification (Owning the Platform)- Uniquely, Musk not only participates in the information war – he owns a key battlefield. By buying Twitter and taking the title of “Chief Twit,” he positioned himself to control the algorithms that determine what information people see, going beyond influence into direct information control. Reports indicate Musk has personally intervened in the platform’s algorithm to ensure his posts (and those of favored voices) receive maximum visibility. He also rolled out features like algorithmic boosts for paying subscribers, which often include many of his aligned influencers. In essence, Musk can invisibly tilt the scales of discourse- throttling content he dislikes, boosting narratives he favors. Under his ownership, accounts espousing extreme and fringe ideologies (including neo-Nazis, anti-vaccine propagandists, and election deniers) were reinstated and often algorithmically elevated via Musk’s interactions with them. His is algorithmic warfare – using the code that curates public conversation as a weapon to mainstream certain beliefs. Musk’s stated rationale is “free speech.” However, in practice, he has shown a willingness to ban or suppress speech that personally irritates him (e.g., he suspended an account tracking his private jet and also several journalists who reported on it), revealing that “free speech” is more a narrative cover; the true common thread is boosting Musk’s allies and worldview while punishing detractors. The result- X’s information ecosystem under Musk skews toward Musk-approved narratives. For instance, misinformation about topics like COVID vaccines or election fraud found a more permissive home, while voices calling out Musk’s own missteps might quietly find their reach reduced. Owning the platform gives Musk a capability that surpasses even Trump’s at his peak – he can shape not only his own message but also the overall structure of the messages that propagate widely online.
- Cultivating a Cult of Personality- Like Trump, Musk’s greatest symbolic weapon is himself – or rather, the mythos he has built around himself. He is celebrated by fans not just as a businessman, but as a visionary genius on a mission to save humanity (colonizing Mars, revolutionizing transportation, defending free expression, etc.). He has carefully nurtured this image through stunts and bold promises. Even his failures or odd behaviors are spun as part of a maverick charm or higher purpose. This personality cult means Musk’s pronouncements carry extraordinary weight. There is an emotional investment in him; his followers often interpret criticism of Musk as an attack on progress or on the community of believers. Musk leverages this devotion expertly. When he promotes a narrative (say, accusing a rescue diver of being “sus” in a baseless personal attack, or endorsing a controversial political meme), his loyalists will swarm to defend and amplify it, regardless of merit. Essentially, he has an organic information army at his disposal. As Trump weaponized his base to pressure officials (think of GOP politicians fearing Trump’s Twitter wrath, which could unleash his voters against them), Musk’s corporate and political adversaries must consider the wrath of his millions of zealous followers. The following acts as a force multiplier: it crowds out or intimidates dissenting voices (critics often face harassment campaigns initiated by Musk’s subtle cues) and reinforces the narratives Musk pushes by sheer volume of online agreement.
- Exploiting Cyberspace and Cyberculture- Musk’s domain is inherently cyber. He not only commands a social media network, but he also uses the internet’s culture to his advantage. He communicates in memes, participates in viral challenges, and often crowdsources ideas from the internet hive mind. By doing so, he presents himself as a member of the tribe of tech-savvy netizens rather than a distant executive, giving his narrative credibility among online communities that typically distrust corporate figures. Musk also uses platform data and technology as part of influence operations – for example, releasing internal Twitter communications (the “Twitter Files”) selectively through friendly journalists was a tactic to validate a narrative of past management’s corruption. It was essentially an information operation from within his own company’s archives. Moreover, Musk’s reach extends into the literal cyber infrastructure- through Starlink satellite internet, he holds sway over digital connectivity in warzones and regions reliant on that service, coming to light in the Russia-Ukraine war, where Musk’s personal views suddenly impacted Starlink availability for Ukrainian forces. Here we see the fusion of information and cyber domains- Musk’s cognitive stance (tweeting peace plans favorable to Russia) combined with his tech control (threatening to cut service) to influence a conflict outcome. It’s a striking example of a private individual exercising outsized strategic authority through intertwined narrative and technical power.
Musk’s methods align with cognitive warfare principles in several ways-
- He uses psychological triggers like humor, outrage, and aspirational vision to motivate and shape his audience’s thinking. His future-oriented narratives (multiplanetary species, AI optimism or doom, etc.) capture imaginations and reduce critical scrutiny – a known propaganda approach is to inspire people around a grand myth or goal.
- Musk deliberately exploits vulnerabilities in human cognition- confirmation bias and tribalism. He tells his followers what they want to hear (e.g., “the woke media lies to you, but I’ll give you the truth”), which resonates with those already inclined to distrust mainstream narratives, reinforcing their existing bias and binds them closer to him as the source of truth.
- Through X, he has created a sort of psychological laboratory where he can test messaging in real time (observing which content gets traction and what feedback comes in) and refine tactics accordingly. This iterative adaptation is akin to how influence operatives adjust propaganda campaigns based on audience reaction metrics.
- He also leverages the anonymity and virality of the internet to launder narratives. Fringe ideas that Musk wants to promote often start in others’ mouths (extreme influencers, meme accounts). Musk then amplifies or engages with those, giving them mainstream exposure. This tactic is reminiscent of state-backed info ops that seed narratives through proxies and then amplify them through official channels once they’ve gained some acceptance.
Musk’s Strategic Impact- Elon Musk’s inductive governance via narrative and tech platform is shifting both market and political dynamics. On one hand, he challenges government regulators openly, using public opinion as a shield (“the people want me to do X, regulators are wrong to stop it”). On the other hand, governments themselves find they must court Musk – for example, NASA and the Pentagon rely on SpaceX, and politicians seek his approval on X – effectively granting him policy influence traditionally reserved for public officials, creating a precarious situation where critical public functions are intertwined with a single unaccountable individual’s narrative whims. If Musk decided tomorrow to favor one political faction on X heavily or to promote certain economic narratives (imagine him aggressively advocating a particular candidate or policy and silencing opposition on his platform), it could genuinely sway election outcomes or policy debates. His methods have shown how cyberspace can be commandeered by a determined actor as a theater of persuasion, bypassing traditional checks and balances.
Convergence- Influence Warfare and Cognitive Operations
Though Trump and Musk come from different spheres, their approaches converge on a core reality- information is their weapon, and the public mind is their battlefield. Each man exemplifies how modern leaders can use tools of mass communication, psychology, and technology to engineer consent and manufacture belief at scale. This convergence is not coincidental – it reflects broader trends in the digital age that reward those skilled in what military strategists term the cognitive domain of warfare.
Several common themes and strategies emerge from the Trump and Musk playbooks-
- Narrative Supremacy- Both seek to be the primary source of narrative for their audience, achieved by speed (getting their story out first), volume (relentless repetition), and emotional appeal (stories that invoke fear, pride, anger, excitement). In cognitive warfare, dominating the narrative means the opponent is perpetually reacting rather than acting. Trump and Musk keep critics on the back foot by always putting forth a story that frames the debate in their favor.
- Charismatic Legitimacy vs Institutional Legitimacy: They both derive authority from charisma and direct popularity rather than offices or expertise, mirroring insurgent propaganda strategy: undermine the old authorities (governments, media, experts) and instead rally people around a charismatic figure as the sole trustworthy voice. It’s effectively a cultivation of personal authority that can supplant institutional authority. This phenomenon is dangerous in that it creates parallel realities- a chunk of the population will take the word of Trump/Musk over any official source, no matter the topic.
- Information Ecosystem Control- Trump attempted to bully and co-opt traditional media and leaned on friendly outlets (like partisan news networks or online forums) to disseminate his propaganda. Musk actually bought an influential medium and is molding it to serve his ends. Both illustrate routes to control the information flow – one through intimidation and alliance, the other through ownership and design. In either case, managing communication channels is crucial, aligning with classic information warfare doctrine: seize the broadcast stations and control what the enemy (or public) hears. In a cyber context, that station is the algorithm or the trending topics list.
- Exploiting Grievance and Fear- At the heart of their narratives lies the manipulation of fear and grievance. Trump tells his base they are victims of vast conspiracies (immigrants taking jobs, globalists betraying the country, etc.), creating a sense of existential threat that only he can fix. Musk taps into a different but overlapping set of grievances- the feeling that “woke” elites and regulators are stifling freedom and innovation, or that conventional media are suppressing the truth. By validating these grievances, they bond with followers and justify extreme measures as a necessary defense. Cognitive warfare often seeks to polarize and enrage a target population for precisely this reason- people who feel under siege will rally around a champion and suspend critical thinking in favor of loyalty.
- Us vs Them Polarization- Both men constantly draw lines between an in-group and an out-group. Trump divides “patriots” versus “traitors” or “real Americans” versus “globalists/socialists,” etc. Musk frames it as “truth-tellers/independent thinkers” (including himself and his fans) versus the “woke mob,” mainstream journalists, or “corrupt government bureaucrats.” This binary framing is a psychological operation to eliminate the gray area and force people into camps. It’s much easier to direct a group that believes it is fighting for survival against an “other.” Thus, complex issues get reduced to loyalty tests – you’re either with Trump/Musk and thus on the side of virtue, or against them and therefore part of the problem. Propagandists have used this method throughout history to galvanize movements (from war propaganda dehumanizing an enemy, to cults demanding total fealty).
- Adaptive Feedback Loops- A hallmark of inductive governance is responsiveness to the crowd – not in a democratic accountability sense, but in a tactical sense. Trump and Musk both watch their audience’s reactions and then adjust. Trump, for instance, would trial specific incendiary lines at rallies; if the crowd roared approval, those lines became staples. If a line fell flat, he quietly phased it out. Similarly, Musk closely monitors engagement metrics and community responses on X; if a stance he takes results in backlash that threatens his interests (like advertisers fleeing), he might recalibrate messaging (though he often doubles down, as he also tests how far his base is willing to follow). This iterative approach mimics how an information warrior conducts psychographic analysis of a target population – figure out which buttons to press, then press them harder. It makes their influence incredibly resilient- they are constantly fine-tuning their narrative arsenal for maximum effect.
- Legitimizing Extremes- Perhaps one of the most concerning commonalities is how both have mainstreamed ideas or groups that were once fringe. By giving tacit or overt endorsement – Trump retweeting conspiracy theorists or dining with extremists, Musk interacting jovially online with far-right personalities, and reinstating them – they shift the Overton window. What was once seen as extreme becomes “one side of the debate,” which is a deliberate cognitive warfare tactic- normalize previously unacceptable ideas to destabilize consensus and empower radical flanks. The result is a fragmented reality- one part of the public now accepts things (e.g., QAnon ideas, or anti-Semitic tropes couched as “anti-globalist” talk) that the rest of society finds appalling, and the rift widens.
In combining these tactics, Trump and Musk are effectively rewriting the handbook of influence operations for the digital age. They have demonstrated that a domestic figure with sufficient media savvy or platform control can achieve effects comparable to those of a state-run propaganda machine. Indeed, their methods often outstrip traditional state propaganda in reach and potency because they are amplified by genuine grassroots fervor (something that money or state power alone frequently can’t buy).
Strategic Warning and Implications
The case studies of Trump and Musk underscore a pivotal strategic insight- the cognitive domain is now a primary battlespace, and those who dominate it can wield power disproportionate to their formal authority, carrying several implications and warnings for the future-
- Democratic Governance at Risk: Inductive governance, as practiced by Trump and Musk, is fundamentally at odds with liberal democratic norms. It concentrates power in the persona of a leader who claims to embody the “will of the people,” often while subverting factual discourse and institutional checks. The risk is a slide into authoritarian populism, where decisions are driven by manipulated mass passions rather than deliberation or the rule of law. If these tactics continue unchallenged, we could witness democratic institutions either bending to the narrative dictator (e.g., civil servants enforcing absurd renamings, judges hesitating to rule against the narrative for fear of public wrath) or being delegitimized entirely in the eyes of a large portion of citizens. Social cohesion erodes when two halves of a country live in different realities curated by competing narrative warlords.
- National Security Vulnerabilities- When individuals can so easily sway public perception, adversaries can piggyback on that influence or exacerbate it. Foreign actors have already leveraged Trump’s divisive messaging to interfere in elections and amplify discord. With Musk’s platform policies, hostile influence operations have an easier route to disseminate falsehoods (since Musk has dismantled much of X’s content moderation and fact-checking in favor of a crowd-based system that is more easily gamed). Moreover, Musk’s personal entanglements – such as interactions with China for Tesla’s market, or his flirtation with Putin’s talking points on Ukraine – present a new kind of security dilemma- a private citizen’s narrative preferences might conflict with national interests, yet he holds enough sway to affect outcomes (imagine Musk deciding X should throttle pro-Taiwan content to appease China, or Trump promising policy shifts based on conspiracy theories that adversaries planted). Governments must recognize these non-state influencers as potential single points of failure or manipulation in the information environment.
- Cognitive Resilience Becomes Paramount- In military terms, defending against cognitive warfare means bolstering the population’s ability to detect and resist manipulation. The Trump and Musk phenomena highlight an urgent need for societal cognitive resilience, including media literacy education (so citizens can identify propaganda techniques and not fall prey to demagogic tricks), supportive factual journalism (to debunk false claims before they harden into lore consistently), and possibly the reform of social media architectures (to reduce the algorithmic amplification of toxic disinformation). If such measures aren’t taken, the public will remain highly vulnerable to whoever is most adept at wielding the tools of influence, whether it’s these two figures or others who learn from them.
- Regulation and Accountability Questions- The rise of inductive governors raises thorny questions of regulation. In a democracy, direct censorship or limits on political speech are problematic – Trump can’t be silenced by decree without undermining free speech principles. However, there is a line between propaganda and incitement, or between lies and measurable harm (as seen in public health or violent incidents). Societies will have to navigate how to hold powerful influencers accountable for the consequences of their narratives, including more vigorous enforcement of laws against defamation, voter disinformation, and harassment applied to influential figures. In Musk’s case, because he controls a platform, regulatory focus may target platform responsibility- laws or rules (like the EU’s Digital Services Act) requiring X to mitigate the spread of falsehoods and hateful content, regardless of Musk’s personal stance. Strategic foresight suggests more calls to treat large social platforms as critical infrastructure that cannot be left to the whims of one individual.
- Emulation by Others- The success of Trump and Musk’s methods virtually guarantees that other aspiring leaders (political, business, or extremist) will mimic them. We may see more “celebrity populists” and “CEO demagogues” emerging globally, using social media and personality cults to bypass traditional governance, destabilizing regions if, for example, a tech mogul in another country decides to run information ops contrary to their government, or if a future US military leader tries to cultivate direct public allegiance via social platforms. Essentially, the democratization of propaganda tools means cognitive warfare is no longer confined to states versus states – it’s now within societies, leader versus leader, narrative versus narrative. This fragmentation of authority will challenge the established order and could lead to chaotic power struggles in the information space.
- Need for Strategy in Cognitive Domain- Just as nations have defense strategies for land, sea, air, etc., there is a growing recognition that a plan for the cognitive domain is needed. The US and allies will need to consider doctrines for addressing domestic actors conducting information warfare-like activities that undermine societal stability, a delicate task because it veers into politics, but one that, if ignored, leaves a blind spot. Investing in public education, better civic engagement, and perhaps new norms or compacts for responsible speech by those with immense reach might be part of a solution. Otherwise, democracies may find themselves repeatedly blindsided by narrative attacks from within.
Wrap Up
Donald Trump and Elon Musk have demonstrated that the power to control narratives is as potent as the power to command armies or corporations. In different ways, each has harnessed 21st-century media and psychology to achieve an inductive grip on governance – they lead not by legal authority alone, but by inducing millions to mentally and emotionally follow their lead, allowing Trump to transform political reality and Musk to steer the course of technological and social debates with minimal formal accountability.
For analysts and leaders, the strategic warning is clear- ignore the cognitive battlefield at one’s peril. Nations must recognize that figures like Trump and Musk are not aberrations but pioneers of a new era of influence. Strength and security will increasingly depend on a society’s resilience against manipulative narratives and charismatic information warriors.
In summary, Trump and Musk’s case studies teach us that-
- A leader with mastery of influence tactics can bend the collective perception of truth, effectively governing minds from the inside out.
- Symbolism, repetition, and emotional storytelling can override empirical facts in shaping public action.
- Control over information channels (whether a state pulpit or a private platform) is a strategic asset, potentially more decisive than conventional power bases.
- The methods they use align with warfare techniques aimed at cognitive domination – meaning democracies must treat these not just as political quirks, but as security challenges.
Moving forward, safeguarding the “gray matter” of the populace – our cognitive space – is vital. Strategic foresight must include monitoring these inductive governors and anticipating the narratives they will deploy. Countermeasures might range from rapid counter-messaging and myth-busting to reinforcing social media with circuit-breakers against the virality of lies to even rethinking antitrust or ownership rules for platforms of national importance.
Trump and Musk have lit the beacon for a new form of soft power coup- conquering a country without firing a shot, by winning its people’s hearts and minds through crafted illusion and identity appeal. The ultimate strategic insight is that influence is power. As such, those who can hack human psychology at scale – as Trump and Musk have – will shape the geopolitical and social future. It falls upon vigilant citizens, ethical leaders, and enlightened policymakers to ensure that this power is checked and balanced, lest democracy be outflanked by the very freedoms (of speech, of media, of enterprise) that it cherishes.
In the end, inductive governance and cognitive warfare are two sides of the same coin – a coin that Trump and Musk have shown can buy a great deal of authority. Understanding their playbook is the first step in rendering that coin’s value counterfeit in the eyes of an informed and resilient public.
Bibliography
Cheatham, M. J., Geyer, A. M., Nohle, P. A., & Vazquez, J. E. (2024, July 29). Cognitive warfare- The fight for gray matter in the digital gray zone. Joint Force Quarterly, 114. National Defense University Press. https-//ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3853187/cognitive-warfare-the-fight-for-gray-matter-in-the-digital-gray-zone/
Duran, G., & Lakoff, G. (2022, December 14). Algorithm warfare- How Elon Musk uses Twitter to control brains. The FrameLab. https-//www.theframelab.org/algorithm-warfare-how-elon-musk-uses-twitter-to-control-brains
Farrow, R. (2023, August 21). Elon Musk’s shadow rule. The New Yorker. https-//www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-shadow-rule
Litangen. (2025, April 10). Trump’s narrative playbook- Power through story. KONSISTO Insights. https-//www.konsisto.com/insight-konsisto/trumps-narrative-playbook-power-through-story
Smith, D. (2025, February 16). ‘The greatest propaganda op in history’- Trump’s reshaping of US culture evokes past antidemocratic regimes. The Guardian. https-//www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/16/trump-culture-democracy
West, D. M. (2024, November 7). How disinformation defined the 2024 election narrative. Brookings Institution. https-//www.brookings.edu/articles/how-disinformation-defined-the-2024-election-narrative/
Zard, L. (2025, April 8). Musk almanac of information violence. Harvard Kennedy School – Carr Center Commentary. https-//www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/musk-almanac-information-violence
