The "Enshittification" of American Power: A Reality Check
By A. Piratemonk
The provocative term "enshittification," originally coined by author Cory Doctorow to describe the decay of online platforms, has been repurposed by a recent WIRED article to diagnose a supposed decline in the quality and reliability of American global leadership. The article, "The Enshittification of American Power," argues that under a second Trump administration, the United States is beginning to treat its allies not as partners, but as users to be squeezed for maximum value, leveraging its dominance in finance, military technology, and communications to coerce and control. This analysis, drawing on the article and a range of external sources, examines the evidence behind these claims and assesses the current state of America's relationship with its allies.
The Core Argument: From Hegemony to Monetization
The central thesis posits that the decades-long comfort of American hegemony, where allies built their financial and security infrastructure upon a US-provided foundation, is giving way to a new era of "enshittification." In this new paradigm, the immense power derived from controlling global "platforms"—the dollar clearing system, advanced military hardware like the F-35 fighter jet, and satellite communications networks like Starlink—is being "monetized." The article suggests a shift from a rules-based international order to a more transactional and coercive approach, where loyalty is demanded, and dissent is punished.
This shift, the article contends, is forcing allies, particularly in Europe, to confront their deep-rooted dependence on the U.S. and to explore avenues for "strategic autonomy."
The Financial Weapon: The Dollar Clearing System
A key pillar of the "enshittification" argument is the weaponization of the dollar clearing system. This vast, US-regulated network, through which the majority of international transactions flow, gives Washington immense leverage. While the U.S. has a history of using financial sanctions against adversaries like Iran and Russia, the article suggests a broadening of this tactic to include allies.
Current evidence indicates that while the dollar's dominance remains a potent tool, its direct use as a coercive instrument against major allies is, for now, more of a looming threat than a frequent reality. The U.S. Treasury has imposed sanctions on entities and individuals within allied nations for specific transgressions, but a blanket threat to cut off a major ally's access to the dollar clearing system remains a "nuclear option." However, the potential for such a move, particularly in a more protectionist and "America First" administration, is a significant driver of the de-dollarization efforts and the search for financial alternatives by countries like China and Russia. European leaders, too, have expressed a desire for a more independent European payments infrastructure, signaling a clear concern about over-reliance on the US-controlled system.
The Military-Industrial Platform: The F-35 and the "Kill Switch"
The F-35 fighter jet, a cornerstone of many allied air forces, is presented as another platform susceptible to "enshittification." The article highlights the rumor of a "kill switch" that would allow the U.S. to remotely disable the aircraft.
While the existence of a literal "kill switch" is widely denied by officials, the underlying concern about dependency is valid. The F-35's operational capabilities are intrinsically linked to a U.S.-controlled "kill chain" of software, maintenance, and real-time intelligence. This gives the U.S. significant influence over how the jets are used. While this control has been a long-standing feature of the program, the fear is that a more transactional U.S. administration could leverage this dependence for political gain. This has fueled discussions within allied nations about the risks of over-reliance on a single, foreign-controlled weapons system.
The Communications Network: The Rise of Starlink
The rapid proliferation of Elon Musk's Starlink satellite internet service is also cited as a potential tool of American coercion. The article points to instances where Starlink access has been reportedly threatened to be withheld to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives, particularly in Ukraine.
Recent reports do indicate that the U.S. government has actively promoted Starlink's expansion, sometimes in the context of broader trade negotiations. This merging of corporate and state interests aligns with the "enshittification" narrative, where powerful private platforms become extensions of national power. The reliance of countries on Starlink for critical communications, especially in conflict zones, creates a clear vulnerability that could be exploited.
The Allied Response: The Quest for "Strategic Autonomy"
Faced with these perceived risks, European allies are increasingly vocal about the need for "strategic autonomy." This is not just rhetoric; it is being translated into concrete, albeit long-term, initiatives.
The European Defence Fund (EDF) is a key pillar of this strategy. With a multi-billion euro budget, the EDF aims to foster a more integrated and innovative European defense industry, reducing reliance on American military hardware. The fund is supporting projects in critical areas like cybersecurity, space, and next-generation combat systems.
On the digital front, the EuroStack initiative envisions a sovereign European digital infrastructure, from cloud computing and data storage to digital identity and a digital euro. The explicit goal of projects like EuroStack is to lessen Europe's technological dependence on the U.S. and other global powers, driven by concerns over data privacy and the potential for digital infrastructure to be weaponized.
The Road Ahead: A Shifting Global Landscape
The "enshittification of American power" is a stark and perhaps hyperbolic framing, but it taps into a genuine and growing anxiety among U.S. allies. The perception of a more unilateral and transactional America is accelerating a push for greater self-reliance in Europe and beyond.
While concrete examples of the U.S. weaponizing its dominant platforms against its closest allies remain relatively rare, the potential for such actions in a shifting geopolitical landscape is a powerful motivator for change. The long-term success of initiatives like the European Defence Fund and EuroStack is far from guaranteed, and the immediate costs of decoupling from the U.S. are significant.
Ultimately, the current situation represents a critical juncture. The U.S. retains immense power through its control of key global platforms. How it chooses to wield that power in the coming years will determine whether the "enshittification" narrative becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, leading to a more fragmented and unstable world, or if a renewed sense of shared values and interests can preserve and reshape the alliances that have defined the post-war era. The actions of both the U.S. and its allies will be crucial in shaping the future of global power dynamics.
What happens if things keep going the way they are?
America in 2045: The Consequences of Enshittification
The "enshittification" of American power, as described by Farrell and Newman, refers to the degradation of U.S.-controlled global platforms—financial systems, military hardware, and communication networks—into tools of coercion under policies prioritizing short-term gains over long-term trust. If these trends continue unabated, the America of 2045 could be a nation with diminished global influence, fractured alliances, and a domestic environment marked by heightened surveillance and economic challenges. This report extrapolates the consequences of these trends over the next 20 years, drawing on current dynamics and potential countermeasures.
Global Consequences
Decline in U.S. Hegemony
By 2045, the U.S.'s weaponization of platforms like the dollar clearing system, F-35 dependencies, and Starlink could lead to a significant erosion of its global influence. Allies, wary of U.S. coercion, have already begun seeking alternatives. The EU’s EuroStack initiative and joint defense fund, alongside efforts to develop satellite networks independent of Starlink, signal a shift toward technological and financial sovereignty. Over two decades, these efforts could mature, reducing reliance on U.S. infrastructure:
Financial Systems: Countries like Brazil, India, and China, already exploring non-dollar trade (e.g., Brazil’s use of the Chinese yuan), could establish robust alternative payment systems, potentially centered on digital currencies like a strengthened euro or a globalized yuan. The dollar’s dominance in global trade, currently facilitated by the dollar clearing system, could wane, weakening U.S. financial leverage.
Military Dependencies: Nations like Canada, Portugal, and Denmark, currently reevaluating F-35 purchases, may invest in European alternatives like Airbus or Dassault systems. By 2045, a fragmented NATO could emerge, with Europe developing its own defense ecosystem, reducing U.S. arms exports and influence over allied militaries.
Communication Networks: Starlink’s dominance (65% of active satellites in 2025) may be challenged by EU satellite networks or China’s expanding BeiDou system. Countries like Ukraine, burned by U.S. threats to cut Starlink access, could align with non-U.S. providers, further isolating American tech.
This decline in hegemony could shrink the U.S.’s geopolitical reach, with allies forming new blocs (e.g., an EU-led coalition or a China-centric economic sphere) that exclude or marginalize the U.S. The "network logic" that sustains American power would weaken as switching costs, though high, are overcome by determined allies.
Economic Isolation
The U.S. economy could face significant challenges by 2045. Persistent tariffs, like those targeting allies and third-party trade (e.g., Venezuelan oil sanctions), may backfire, accelerating de-dollarization and reducing demand for U.S. goods and services. The loss of export markets for defense (e.g., F-35s) and tech (e.g., Microsoft’s cloud services) could strain industries reliant on global sales. Domestic innovation, already hampered by tariffs on semiconductors and reduced subsidies, might lag behind competitors in Europe and Asia, where investments in AI and tech infrastructure are prioritized.
The U.S. could become economically isolated, with reduced access to global markets and supply chains. This would exacerbate domestic inequality, as job losses in tech and defense sectors hit middle-class workers, while corporate giants aligned with the government (e.g., Palantir, SpaceX) consolidate wealth.
Domestic Consequences
Surveillance State Expansion
The article highlights Palantir’s role in merging federal databases, creating “radical new surveillance capabilities”. By 2045, unchecked expansion of Palantir’s Foundry and Gotham platforms could transform the U.S. into a surveillance state resembling China’s social credit system. Key developments include:
Mega-Database: Palantir’s integration of data from agencies like the IRS, Social Security Administration, and DHS could evolve into a centralized database tracking biometric, financial, and behavioral data on every citizen. AI-driven predictive policing could flag individuals based on social media posts, financial transactions, or even minor infractions, labeling them as threats.
Erosion of Privacy: With Palantir’s $113 million in federal contracts since 2025 and a $795 million Pentagon deal, its tools could enable mass surveillance, targeting dissenters, journalists, and political opponents. The lack of oversight, coupled with legal frameworks like the USA PATRIOT Act, could normalize this intrusion.
Social Control: By 2045, Americans might face a “threat score” system, where access to services (e.g., banking, travel) depends on government-assessed compliance. Nonprofits, businesses, and states opposing federal policies could face financial blacklisting via weaponized payment systems.
This surveillance state would erode civil liberties, fostering a climate of fear and self-censorship. Public resistance, as seen in 2025 protests against Palantir’s ICE contracts, might intensify but face suppression through advanced monitoring.
Political Polarization and Instability
The weaponization of infrastructure against domestic entities could deepen political divides. By 2045, the U.S. might see:
Authoritarian Drift: The Trump administration’s alignment with tech moguls like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk could entrench a tech-driven oligarchy. Policies favoring corporate interests over citizens, as seen in Palantir’s $6.8 billion CEO compensation in 2024, might fuel resentment, leading to unrest or populist uprisings.
Regional Fractures: States like California, targeted by federal payment system restrictions, could push for greater autonomy, straining federal unity. Urban-rural divides might worsen, with rural areas lacking connectivity (post-Starlink alternatives) becoming economically marginalized.
Erosion of Democratic Norms: The use of surveillance to target political enemies could undermine elections, with AI-driven data manipulation shaping voter perceptions or suppressing turnout. Trust in institutions, already low, could collapse entirely.
Social and Cultural Impacts
The “nightmare America” described in the article—where “everything works badly” and “everything can be turned against you”—could manifest as a dystopian society by 2045:
Digital Divide: Rural areas, unable to afford alternatives to Starlink, might remain disconnected, exacerbating educational and economic disparities. Urban centers, reliant on U.S. tech giants, could face service disruptions if global decoupling accelerates.
Cultural Isolation: As allies like Canada and the EU distance themselves, American cultural exports (e.g., media, tech platforms) might lose global appeal, reducing soft power. Domestically, state-controlled media or tech-driven censorship could limit free expression.
Public Disengagement: Constant surveillance and economic hardship could lead to apathy, with citizens withdrawing from civic life. Alternatively, grassroots movements, inspired by 2025’s EuroStack advocates, might push for decentralized tech solutions, though scaling these would be challenging.
De-Enshittification Strategies and Their Limits
Efforts to reverse enshittification could shape America’s trajectory, but face significant hurdles:
Domestic Reforms: Public pressure, as seen in 2025 protests, could lead to privacy laws curbing surveillance. However, entrenched corporate-government ties (e.g., Palantir’s DOGE connections) make reform unlikely without a major political shift.
International Cooperation: The U.S. could rebuild trust by supporting global standards for tech and finance, but this requires abandoning coercive policies—a low probability given current trends.
Technological Decentralization: Open-source platforms or blockchain-based financial systems could reduce reliance on centralized U.S. platforms, but adoption would be slow and resource-intensive, especially for citizens facing economic constraints.
By 2045, successful de-enshittification would require a cultural and political shift toward transparency and accountability, potentially driven by a new generation rejecting surveillance capitalism. Failure to act could lock in a dystopian status quo.
Conclusion
If the enshittification of American power continues, the U.S. in 2045 could be a diminished global player, with weakened alliances, a struggling economy, and a domestic landscape defined by pervasive surveillance and political instability. Allies’ pursuit of alternatives like EuroStack and non-U.S. defense systems would reduce American influence, while domestic surveillance, powered by firms like Palantir, could erode freedoms. De-enshittification is possible but requires urgent action to restore trust, both globally and domestically. Without it, Americans may find themselves in a “digital prison,” where power is concentrated in unaccountable hands, and the promise of a free society fades.
How likely?
Predicting the likelihood of the scenarios outlined in the extrapolated vision of America in 2045 is inherently uncertain, as it depends on complex variables like political decisions, technological developments, global responses, and public movements. Below, I assign probabilities to key outcomes based on current trends, the article’s insights, and web-sourced data, while acknowledging the speculative nature of long-term forecasting. Each percentage reflects the likelihood of the outcome occurring if the "enshittification" trends described persist without significant intervention.
Global Consequences
1. Significant Decline in U.S. Hegemony (e.g., reduced influence due to allies developing alternatives like EuroStack) :
- Likelihood: 60%
- Reasoning : The EU’s EuroStack initiative and efforts like China’s BeiDou and Brazil’s yuan-based trade show momentum toward technological and financial independence. Posts on X and web reports (e.g., EU’s 2025 defense fund announcements) confirm allies are already investing in alternatives. However, high switching costs and U.S. military/economic leverage (e.g., NATO dependencies) reduce the likelihood of a complete shift. A 60% chance reflects partial success in decoupling by 2045, with Europe and some Asian nations reducing reliance but not fully breaking away.
2. Economic Isolation (e.g., reduced U.S. access to global markets, de-dollarization) :
- Likelihood: 45%
- Reasoning : De-dollarization is underway, with countries like India and Brazil experimenting with non-dollar trade (e.g., 15% of Brazil’s 2024 trade in yuan, per web sources). However, the dollar’s entrenched role (88% of global transactions in 2024, per SWIFT) makes full isolation unlikely. Tariffs and sanctions could alienate allies, but global supply chains’ complexity and U.S. market size temper this risk. A 45% chance accounts for moderate economic isolation if coercive policies continue.
Domestic Consequences
3. Surveillance State Expansion (e.g., Palantir-driven mega-database, mass surveillance resembling China’s social credit system) :
- Likelihood: 70%
- Reasoning : Palantir’s growing federal contracts ($795M Pentagon deal, 2025) and integration of databases (e.g., IRS, DHS) signal a trajectory toward pervasive surveillance. Web reports on Palantir’s Gotham platform and X posts about its ICE contracts highlight public concern but limited opposition. Without privacy legislation, and given tech-government alignment (e.g., Musk’s influence), a surveillance state is highly plausible, though public resistance could lower this to 70%.
4. Authoritarian Drift and Political Instability (e.g., tech-driven oligarchy, regional fractures) :
- Likelihood: 55%
- Reasoning : The article notes tech moguls’ alignment with the Trump administration, and Palantir’s CEO compensation ($6.8B in 2024) suggests corporate entrenchment. X discussions on political polarization and state-level pushback (e.g., California’s autonomy efforts) indicate rising tensions. However, democratic institutions and federal power may resist full authoritarianism, balancing the likelihood at 55%.
5. Social and Cultural Impacts (e.g., digital divide, cultural isolation, public disengagement) :
- Likelihood: 65%
- Reasoning : Rural connectivity issues (post-Starlink reliance) and urban surveillance are already emerging, per X posts and web analyses of Starlink’s dominance. Cultural isolation is plausible if allies pivot to non-U.S. platforms, reducing American soft power. Public disengagement is likely given surveillance fears, but grassroots tech movements (e.g., open-source advocacy) could mitigate this, landing the probability at 65%.
De-Enshittification Efforts
6. Successful Domestic Reforms (e.g., privacy laws curbing surveillance) :
- Likelihood: 30%
- Reasoning : Public protests (e.g., 2025 anti-Palantir actions) show reform potential, but entrenched corporate-government ties and weak regulatory momentum (no major privacy laws by 2025) lower the likelihood. A 30% chance reflects a slim but possible window for change if public pressure escalates.
7. International Cooperation to Restore Trust (e.g., U.S. supporting global tech/finance standards) :
- Likelihood: 20%
- Reasoning : The article and X posts suggest U.S. policy is trending toward coercion, not cooperation. Allies’ distrust (e.g., EU’s von der Leyen in 2025) and America’s economic incentives to maintain control make a shift unlikely. A 20% chance accounts for a potential policy reversal under new leadership.
8. Technological Decentralization (e.g., widespread adoption of open-source or blockchain systems) :
- Likelihood: 35%
- Reasoning : Open-source movements and blockchain experiments exist (e.g., EU’s open-source cloud initiatives), but scaling them against U.S. tech giants is resource-intensive. X discussions highlight niche adoption, but corporate dominance and consumer inertia limit broader success, setting the probability at 35%.
Overall Scenario
- Likelihood of a “Nightmare America” (diminished global influence, surveillance state, political instability) : 60%
- This aggregates the above probabilities, weighted by their interdependence. The high likelihood of surveillance (70%) and social impacts (65%) drives the scenario, tempered by lower chances of full economic isolation (45%) and successful reforms (20-35%). Persistent coercive policies and tech-government alignment make this dystopian outcome more likely than not, but global and domestic pushback introduces uncertainty.
Caveats
- Uncertainty : Long-term predictions are speculative, as unforeseen events (e.g., economic crises, new technologies, or leadership changes) could shift trajectories.
- Data Gaps : Limited public records on Palantir’s full capabilities or EuroStack’s progress constrain precision. X posts provide sentiment but lack verified specifics.
- Mitigation Potential : Public activism or global cooperation could lower these probabilities, but current trends favor continuation of enshittification.
These percentages are informed estimates based on available data and trends as of July 17, 2025, and should be treated as illustrative rather than definitive.
The conclusion?
This is not going to end well for the vast majority of us.
Comments