The Daniel Lurie Set

Posted on May 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie (b. 1977) sits at the meeting point of two San Francisco aristocracies. The first is old Bay Area Jewish philanthropic money. His mother, Mimi Haas (b. 1946), owns a large block of Levi Strauss stock and ran the Mimi and Peter Haas Fund. His stepfather, Peter E. Haas (1918-2005), ran Levi Strauss. The Haas family has donated large sums to institutions across the Bay Area, much of it anonymously. His father, Rabbi Brian Lurie, ran the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco and later the New Israel Fund. You see the family names on buildings: the Haas School at Berkeley, Stern Grove, the Haas Center at Stanford. This is a class that treats wealth as a stewardship and giving as the proper way to hold standing.
The second aristocracy is new tech and finance money, and Lurie governs through it. His transition team was co-chaired by Sam Altman (b. 1985). His donor and advisory orbit runs through Michael Moritz (b. 1954), Chris Larsen (b. 1960), Ron Conway (b. 1951), the Levchins, Marc Benioff (b. 1964), Jed York of the 49ers, and former bank and Twitter executives like Katherine August-deWilde and Ned Segal. August-deWilde leads Lurie’s Partnership for San Francisco, a coalition of tech and Wall Street figures who give the mayor CEO perspectives on his policies. His administration set up a public-private Downtown Development Corp modeled on New York civic groups, meant to outlast any single mayor. The throughline from Tipping Point, the anti-poverty nonprofit he founded in 2005, to City Hall is the same Rolodex.
What this set values is competence, function, and reputation. They want the city to work. They talk about “the basics”: clean streets, public safety, the fentanyl problem, filling empty offices downtown. They prize results over ideology, data over argument. Lurie cites controller reports and crime numbers rather than making moral cases. They value access and convening power, the ability to get powerful people in a room and make them cooperate. They value discretion as a marker of good breeding, the anonymous gift, the quiet fix. And they value the idea of San Francisco as a global city, a place of art and innovation, which is why the mayor signs sister-city agreements with Shanghai and Seoul and promotes an SFMOMA exhibit.
Their hero is the effective philanthropist-executive. In this world a man earns esteem by founding an institution that visibly helps the poor, by raising and steering large sums well, by solving a problem the political class could not. The admirable figure restores a broken thing to working order and takes his credit through outcomes and standing, not through public combat. Lurie’s whole biography is built as this kind of hero story: the outsider who ran a nonprofit, raised half a billion dollars, and stepped in to fix a city the insiders had failed. The model rewards the man who can pick up the phone and reach Jensen Huang or Marc Benioff. When Trump threatened to send troops, the story Lurie’s people tell is that tech CEOs made the calls that stopped it. The hero, in this telling, is the man with the relationships.
The status games run on access, board seats, and the size and taste of one’s giving. You rise by getting invited into the Partnership, by co-chairing the transition, by funding the right PAC, by sitting on the Tipping Point board, by getting your name on a building. Proximity to the mayor is currency. So is the ability to write a large check toward his charter reforms or his Muni measure. Moritz and Larsen each pledged around two million dollars toward Lurie’s “Clean Up City Hall” effort to reform the charter and increase the mayor’s power. There is a live tension inside the set between old discreet money and loud new money. The Haas style is anonymity. The Benioff style is the public statement, and when Benioffbacked Trump’s troop idea, even Ron Conway went after him in public. The old code reads the loud move as vulgar.
Now the harder layer, the part the set would not say aloud.
Their normative claims are these: the city ought to function, and competence is a moral duty, not a technical one. Wealth carries an obligation to give back. Public safety and clean streets are baseline goods that precede any argument about justice. Pragmatism beats ideology. Private capital should partner with government because government alone cannot deliver. The “Clean Up City Hall” frame is itself a moral claim. It casts insider politics as corrupt and outsider executive competence as virtue. That frame served Lurie well as a candidate and sits awkwardly now, since he governs through a council of billionaires and his administration has already drawn fire for steering a city contract toward longtime donors over a cheaper, higher-rated bidder.
The essentialist claims sit underneath. This set holds that some men are builders and doers by nature, that talent and capacity are real and unevenly given, and that the right people in the room produce good outcomes more or less by their constitution. The CEO perspective is treated as inherently valuable, a kind of native good judgment that government lacks. There is a second essentialism about San Francisco itself, that the city has a true character, innovative and tolerant and global, that decline has obscured and that the right stewards can restore. And there is a quiet hereditary essentialism, the old idea that certain families are stewards of the city by lineage and standing, which is why a man whose chief work experience is philanthropy funded by a denim fortune can present himself as the natural choice to run the place.
The hero story is built on outsider competence and clean hands, but the man is an heir who put in roughly nine million dollars of his own and took another million from his mother, and he rules through the same concentrated money the reform story claims to clean up. The set believes its own competence is disinterested. The record shows that competence and donor interest run together more than the story admits.

Posted in San Francisco | Comments Off on The Daniel Lurie Set

The Dario Amodei Set

Posted on May 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

Daniela Amodei (b. 1985) represents the AI safety wing of Silicon Valley, a small world that thinks of itself as smaller and more serious than the larger tech industry around it. The core is family and former colleagues. His sister Daniela Amodei (b. 1987) co-founded Anthropic with him, and the founding group walked out of OpenAI together over what the page calls directional differences. Around that core sits a wider circle: AI researchers with physics and neuroscience training, effective altruists and rationalists who migrated into AI from forecasting and philanthropy, and the funders who write nine and ten figure checks. The rivals are also the peers, since this is a world of a few hundred people who switch employers among the same handful of labs. Sam Altman (b. 1985) is the defining other, the man whose company Amodei left and whose board later asked Amodei to replace him. The set defines itself partly against Altman’s OpenAI and against the accelerationist faction around figures like David Sacks (b. 1972).
What they value. Intelligence first, measured young and measured often. The biography is a sorting tournament: Physics Olympiad, Caltech, Stanford, a Princeton PhD in biophysics. This set respects raw cognitive horsepower above charm, salesmanship, or political skill, and it tends to assume that the smartest people in the room should decide the hardest questions. They value the written word as proof of seriousness. Amodei publishes long essays, “Machines of Loving Grace” and “The Adolescence of Technology,” and the set treats a careful essay as a higher form of contribution than a product launch or a tweet. They value being early and being right about something large, especially a danger others missed.
Their hero system, meaning the story about what makes a life admirable. The hero here is the man who sees the catastrophe coming and acts on it before the crowd believes him. The whole self-conception runs on a paradox: build the dangerous thing yourself so that responsible people hold the lead, rather than leaving it to the reckless. Amodei’s stated position captures it, that most people underestimate both how good and how bad AI could be. The admirable figure carries that double knowledge and keeps building anyway, on the theory that the alternative is worse. Walking out of OpenAI is the founding heroic act in this telling, the refusal to compromise that costs you the bigger platform and earns you moral standing. The danger in this hero system, and the set knows critics say it, is that it lets a man claim virtue for doing the thing he wanted to do regardless. You get to build the most powerful technology in the world and call it restraint.
Their status games. Status comes from a few currencies. First, technical credibility, having trained models or written papers that the other researchers respect. Second, the perception that you are the responsible adult in a reckless industry, the lab that does not need to declare a “code red” because it was never cutting corners. Anthropic’s whole brand is a status play of this kind, safety as the premium position. Third, access to capital at scale, and here the numbers are the scoreboard: a $380 billion valuation as of early 2026, Amodei’s own fortune estimated around $7 billion. Fourth, recognition from the old prestige institutions, Time 100, Person of the Year as an “Architect of AI,” testimony before the Senate. The losing move in this set is to be seen as hyping, as choosing growth over caution, as the kind of person who would merge or sell out the mission. Notice the tension: the set competes hard on the same valuations and talent wars as everyone else while claiming the contest is about safety. The claim and the structure pull against each other.
Their normative claims. That advanced AI is coming whether or not anyone likes it, so the responsible course is to build it carefully and keep the lead in trustworthy hands. That democracies must stay ahead of authoritarian states, which is the “entente” idea, a coalition of democracies using AI for decisive advantage while sharing gains with cooperating nations. Amodei names the Chinese Communist Party as the chief threat and warns against a global totalitarian outcome. That the public has a right to be warned, hence the catalog of risks: misaligned systems that deceive and scheme, bioweapons in untrained hands, authoritarian surveillance, mass job loss, wealth concentration past the Gilded Age. The normative core is custodianship. Power over this technology should sit with people wise enough to fear it.
Their essentialist claims. That intelligence is real, measurable, and the thing that matters most, in machines and in men. That AI capability is on a steep and continuing curve, not a fad, so the future is a place of either radical abundance or serious catastrophe and not a muddle in between. That there is a real line between democracies and authoritarian states, and that this line should govern who gets the most powerful tools. That AI models can develop goals of their own, which is why Anthropic reports finding deception and blackmail in its own testing. And underneath it, an old conviction this set rarely states but acts on constantly: that a small group of unusually capable people can understand a civilizational risk that the public and most governments cannot, and that this understanding gives them both the right and the duty to steer.
Amodei warns that AI may displace half of entry-level white-collar work in one to five years and may concentrate wealth beyond anything in living memory, and he is positioned to capture a large share of exactly that wealth. He says the technology might go badly and builds it faster to make sure the right people win. A critic would say the danger talk is the marketing, that fear sells the safe brand and raises the round. A defender would say a man can believe the risk is real and still conclude that his building it is the lesser evil, and that the warnings cost him something with the accelerationist crowd he has to live among. Both can be true at once. The set would tell you the binding thing is responsibility. The structure shows responsibility and self-interest pointing the same direction, which is the most comfortable place for any conviction to sit.

Posted in AI | Comments Off on The Dario Amodei Set

The Priesthoods of the Bay: High-Status Social Cliques in San Francisco, 2026

Posted on May 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

San Francisco in 2026 holds a strange position among American cities. It generates capital on a scale no metropolitan economy of its size has matched, and it also generates theories of the future faster than it generates housing. The city runs as a financial clearinghouse, a software empire, a defense workshop, a longevity laboratory, and a seminary for rival doctrines about intelligence, sovereignty, and the human prospect. Its elite no longer fights mainly over zoning fees, gallery boards, and symphony galas, though it still fights over those. It fights over who inherits the next civilization.
The ruling cliques are like competing priesthoods. Each has an admired type of man it elevates, a way of awarding and withdrawing status, a set of enemies it defines itself against, and a claim about human nature that justifies its authority. The factions disagree about nationalism, regulation, biology, and governance. Almost all of them share one premise. They hold that a small caste of cognitive elites should steer social evolution, and that ordinary democratic publics move too slowly, feel too much, and understand too little to be trusted with the transition.
The civic frame around these factions changed in 2025. Daniel Lurie (b. 1977), heir to the Levi Strauss fortune and founder of Tipping Point Community, took the mayoralty from London Breed (b. 1974) and now governs on public safety, downtown reactivation, and partnership with the technology economy. Last autumn the federal government reportedly prepared to send the National Guard into the city, and the deployment fell apart after calls from business leaders, among them Marc Benioff (b. 1964) and the chipmaker Jensen Huang (b. 1963). The episode taught the local elite a lesson it had half forgotten. Political power and private wealth in San Francisco now stand close enough to phone each other in a crisis, and the men who can place that call sit near the top of the order.

The Frontier Intelligence Class

The dominant clique forms around the frontier artificial-intelligence labs and the capital that feeds them. The core firms remain OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI, ringed by the venture houses, the compute brokers, and the chip suppliers that keep the training runs alive. The central figures include Sam Altman (b. 1985), Greg Brockman (b. 1987), Dario Amodei (b. 1983), Daniela Amodei (b. 1987), Ilya Sutskever (b. 1986), Elon Musk (b. 1971), Reid Hoffman (b. 1967), Marc Andreessen (b. 1971), Ben Horowitz (b. 1966), Nat Friedman, Daniel Gross, Patrick Collison (b. 1988), and John Collison (b. 1990).
This class commands the highest symbolic prestige in the city because it claims stewardship over the defining technical event of the century. Earlier waves of founders sold connectivity, search, and commerce. The frontier labs sell the manufacture of mind. That claim lifts ordinary entrepreneurship toward something closer to cosmology, and the men at the center carry themselves accordingly.
The admired type here is the engineer who also prophesies. The ideal figure joins mathematical depth, founder charisma, fluency with state power, and a cool detachment from conventional moral sentiment. The clique honors men who appear to read historical necessity that the rest of the population cannot see. Sam Altman holds the central seat because he crosses more boundaries than anyone else. He moves between White House rooms, sovereign-wealth negotiations, startup recruitment, and public sermons about machine intelligence, and he holds all of it together in one persona. Dario Amodei plays the rival archetype, the serious scientist who tries to slow the acceleration through alignment research and institutional caution, and his sister Daniela Amodei anchors the same firm on policy and operations. Anthropic now carries a valuation in the range of nine and ten figures that would have seemed deranged five years ago, and the number functions as scripture inside the faction.
Status in this world tracks proximity to the frontier. Prestige flows from access to the best researchers, the largest training clusters, the semiconductor supply, the sovereign compute agreements, and the warmest government relationships. An invitation to a closed AI summit now outranks many elected offices in symbolic weight, and a researcher who can credibly threaten to walk between labs holds more leverage than a midsize founder.
The feuds run hot because the participants believe the prize is control of a post-human passage rather than market share. The defining quarrel sets OpenAI against Anthropic, and beneath the commercial rivalry sits a near-theological dispute over whether intelligence should scale through aggressive deployment or constrained alignment. Anthropic casts itself as the responsible custodian of artificial cognition. OpenAI casts itself as the necessary engine of scale. A second axis divides the accelerationists from the safety camp. The accelerationist wing draws on Andreessen Horowitz, parts of the Musk orbit, the crypto-adjacent venture networks, and the younger founders who fly the e/acc banner, and it preaches that speed is the highest human vocation. The safety wing accepts elite authority and technological inevitability and argues only that unmanaged amplification risks catastrophe. The remarkable feature of the quarrel is how much the two sides share. Both assume a tiny cognitive elite should shape the outcome. They split over tempo and restraint, and that narrow disagreement carries the heat of a schism.

The Sovereign Defense Cohort

A second bloc grew from the marriage of Bay Area engineering culture and American national-security doctrine. It clusters around Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, Shield AI, and Scale AI, with the venture muscle of Founders Fund, Lux Capital, and Shield Capital behind it. The leading names include Palmer Luckey (b. 1992), Alex Karp (b. 1967), Peter Thiel (b. 1967), Trae Stephens, and a widening circle of former military officers, intelligence veterans, drone engineers, and Pentagon intermediaries. Michael Kratsios (b. 1986), who has moved between government technology roles and the private sector, sits near the seam between this cohort and Washington.
The cohort owes its rise to the collapse of an older taboo. Through the 2000s many Bay Area elites framed themselves as cosmopolitan technologists with no taste for hard nationalism, and a contract with the Pentagon could end a recruiting pipeline overnight. By 2026 the rivalry with China, the spread of autonomous weapons, the cyber theater, and the militarization of AI had turned defense work into a high-status calling. The men who supply the autonomous systems now carry the glamour that once attached to consumer apps.
The admired type is the warrior who builds. He pairs serious engineering with geopolitical realism and physical discipline, and he has displaced the soft, apologetic coder of the older image. Luckey embodies the shift. He fuses gaming culture, frontier hardware, anti-establishment bravado, and open military romance into a single elite identity, Hawaiian shirt and all. Karp serves as the cohort’s philosopher-executive. He speaks less like a chief executive than like a theorist of civilizational struggle, and he relishes the role.
Status here tracks deployment and access. Prestige flows from Pentagon contracts, from systems fielded in live war zones, from classified briefings, from clearances, and from demonstrated battlefield use. The fiercest feud sets this cohort against the internationalist technologists and parts of the academy. The defense men accuse the globalist executives of strategic naivety and civilizational softness. Their opponents see authoritarian opportunists who convert every advance into permanent security spending. The cohort holds that technological acceleration cannot be stopped and so must stay under American control, and that conflict marks the permanent condition of history, so that any society unwilling to optimize for hard power slides toward decline.

The Pacific Heights Dynastic Order

The old San Francisco aristocracy survives, and it has learned the vocabulary of stewardship and progressive capitalism. The order includes Laurene Powell Jobs (b. 1963), Benioff, Priscilla Chan (b. 1985), Mark Zuckerberg (b. 1984), Michael Moritz (b. 1954), Chris Larsen (b. 1960), John Doerr (b. 1951), Eric Schmidt (b. 1955), and the older families tied to finance, law, land, and civic institutions. It anchors itself in Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights, Atherton, Hillsborough, Woodside, and the Bohemian Club world, and it keeps long relationships with Stanford, the University of California, San Francisco, the major museums, the journalism ventures, the climate funds, and the national philanthropic machinery.
The admired type is the steward who endures. He has wealth, but wealth alone earns nothing here. He must embed himself in institutions and carry a sense of history, and he wins legitimacy by managing civic continuity rather than by breaking things. Powell Jobs holds an outsized position because she binds media ownership, education reform, philanthropic authority, and political access into one structure of prestige. Benioff presents himself as a civic patriarch and a hospital benefactor more than as a software vendor, and his recent role in steadying the city’s standing with Washington fits the part.
Status in this world tracks legitimacy and cultivation. Board seats carry enormous weight. A private salon that gathers a senator, an AI founder, a university president, and an editor outranks any quantity of social-media reach. The highest figures glide across philanthropy, governance, science, and the arts without losing their footing in any of them. The order’s chief feud runs against the anti-institutional founder right, the parts of the Thiel orbit, the crypto separatists, and the network-state theorists who treat civic obligation as sentimentality. Pacific Heights reads those men as juvenile and destabilizing. They read Pacific Heights as a self-protective managerial aristocracy that hides oligarchy behind moral language. The order holds that concentrated wealth earns its standing through stewardship, and that only the educated and cultivated possess the competence to stabilize an accelerating civilization.

The Lurie Restoration Coalition

The mayoralty consolidated a fourth clique, the coalition of pro-governance urban restoration. It gathers moderate Democrats, the housing activists who march under the YIMBY banner, pragmatic donors, downtown business leaders, and figures such as Moritz, Larsen, Benioff, Altman, and former operators like Ned Segal, who left a senior post at a social-media firm for civic and financial work. The coalition grew from elite exhaustion with the governance of the late 2010s, with the open drug markets, the shuttered storefronts, the fentanyl deaths, the housing paralysis, and the political culture that treated commerce as suspect.
The admired type is the competent operator. The coalition honors men who produce a measured result, a cleared corridor, a permitted tower, a falling overdose count, rather than men who perform virtue. Status tracks access to the municipal machine. Influence over zoning, policing, downtown revitalization, and the new public-private AI partnerships forms the real currency, and a seat at the table where those decisions get made outranks a louder seat anywhere else.
The central feud runs against the activist-progressive world that ran City Hall in the prior era. The restoration camp reads activist maximalism as economically ruinous and administratively incompetent. The progressives read the camp as oligarchic managerialism dressed up as technocratic realism. The coalition holds that cities survive on order, competence, capital, and function, and that complex urban systems require elite coordination rather than populist moral theater. Lurie governs as the embodiment of the claim, and his first year of falling crime statistics and traffic-safety wins gave the faction its proof of concept.

The Network-State Separatists

The most intellectually radical faction treats the nation-state as obsolete infrastructure. It clusters around crypto capital, sovereignty theory, longevity science, and post-national experimentation, and its central mind is Balaji Srinivasan (b. 1980). Adjacent figures include Vitalik Buterin (b. 1994) and the financier Christian Angermayer (b. 1978), along with a scatter of crypto, biotech, and decentralized-governance founders. The separatists view San Francisco less as a sacred community than as a temporary concentration of talent and capital, a launch site rather than a home.
The admired type is the founder of jurisdictions. He creates new regulatory zones, new charter communities, new biological paradigms, or new sovereign digital polities, and he wins honor by building exits from the existing order. Status tracks the capacity to leave. Prestige flows from regulatory arbitrage, offshore trials, decentralized finance, charter zones, and immunity from the constraints that bind ordinary citizens.
The primary feud sets the separatists against the civic-restoration and philanthropic elites. The network-state men read municipal reform as a sentimental attachment to dying systems. Their critics read them as narcissists who extract wealth and abandon obligation. The faction holds that flourishing depends on exit rather than voice, and that high-agency individuals stand in a different relation to sovereignty than the general population.

The Bio-Accelerationist Circuit

A fast-growing prestige system forms around biotechnology, longevity, neural engineering, and biological optimization. The ecosystem runs through the Arc Institute, Retro Biosciences, the research world tied to the University of California, San Francisco, the biotech firms of South San Francisco, and the funding networks of Brian Armstrong (b. 1983), Altman, and Jed McCaleb. The circuit treats biology as programmable infrastructure and frames aging, disease, and cognitive limit as engineering failures awaiting a fix.
The admired type is the scientist who hacks the body with startup speed. He applies the logic of software iteration to living systems, and he honors measurable gains in lifespan, healthspan, and cognition. Status tracks control over genomic data, proprietary therapies, offshore trials, and demonstrated optimization. The feud with the legacy regulators and the bioethicists sharpens by the year. The accelerationists read the Food and Drug Administration and the medical bureaucracy as ruinously slow. Their critics read reckless technocrats who would commercialize human experiment. The circuit holds that extending life and intelligence amounts to a moral duty, and that the human form marks an intermediate evolutionary stage that awaits conscious redesign.

The Rationalist and Effective-Altruist Diaspora

The rationalist and effective-altruist networks lost prestige after the implosion of Sam Bankman-Fried (b. 1992) and parts of the crypto world, yet they retain real influence inside Bay Area intellectual life. The diaspora runs through the AI-safety researchers, the probabilistic forecasters, the longtermists, the quantitative donors, and the remnants of the rationalist blogosphere clustered between Berkeley and the city.
The admired type prizes abstract cognition above charisma, looks, or social ease. The ideal figure reasons from first principles and resists tribal feeling, and he wins honor through accurate forecasts, conceptual originality, and refusal to bend under ideological pressure. Status tracks epistemic purity. The feud runs against mainstream political culture, which the rationalists read as emotionally irrational and corrupt at the level of evidence. Critics read a sterile and detached subculture that drifts toward technocratic extremism. The diaspora holds that cognitive differences run real, measurable, and politically consequential, even where egalitarian societies refuse to look at them, and that conviction supplies both its intellectual edge and its recurring scandals.

The Cultivated Connectors

Several tribes meet at a social membrane that the private club called The Battery typifies, along with the curated dinners, the wellness retreats, and the salons that surround it. The crowd gathers founders, AI researchers, venture investors, startup lawyers, media figures, wellness entrepreneurs, designers, philanthropists, and the younger heirs of technology wealth. This world rates aesthetic fluency almost as high as money. Its members mark themselves off from the stereotyped engineer through taste in architecture, food, design, and emotional intelligence.
The admired type is the connector who moves across worlds. He glides between industries and social registers, and he holds value because he can introduce the researcher to the senator and the founder to the donor. Status tracks invitations, intimate dinners, retreats, and the romantic and social alliances that braid through investment and politics. The recurring anxiety of the milieu concerns authenticity, since its members spend a good deal of energy judging whether anyone’s polish reflects real cultivation or mere luxury spend. The world holds that the modern elite must become many-sided and refined, and that technical brilliance without social grace marks an incomplete man.

The Media-Priestly Layer

No elite system survives without men who translate its projects into moral language, and San Francisco depends on a thin layer of writers and intellectuals who perform that office. The figures include Ezra Klein (b. 1984), Noah Smith, Dwarkesh Patel, Tyler Cowen (b. 1962), and Paul Graham (b. 1964), with the institutional support of Y Combinator and Stripe Press behind parts of it. This layer supplies the narratives that let the technological elite justify itself in moral terms. Words like abundance, progress, existential risk, acceleration, and optimization harden into a working liturgy, and the men who coin and circulate them shape which projects feel righteous and which feel reckless. The ruling factions therefore compete not only for capital and contracts. They compete to own the meaning of the age, and the priestly layer is where that contest gets fought in public.

The Shared Creed

Set the factions side by side and the common ground stands out more than the quarrels. The frontier labs, the defense cohort, the dynastic order, the restoration coalition, the network-state separatists, the bio-accelerationists, the rationalists, the connectors, and the priestly writers fight over nationalism, regulation, safety, biology, and sovereignty. They share a creed underneath the fights. They hold that a networked cognitive elite should direct social evolution, and that ordinary democratic processes run too slow, too emotional, and too limited to manage the transition ahead.
The result reads less like a class and more like a fragmented technocratic aristocracy contesting succession rights to the future. The conflicts feel sharp because the participants believe they fight over more than markets and elections. They believe they fight over which priesthood inherits history, and that belief, true or not, organizes the social order of the city.

The Guest List as Spectacle: San Francisco’s Highest-Status Parties and Their Hosts, Late May 2026

The contemporary San Francisco party runs as a coordination system dressed in the clothes of culture, wellness, music, and philanthropy. To file these gatherings under nightlife misreads both their purpose and their composition. The city’s highest-status rooms have little to do with hedonism, celebrity, or spectacle in the ordinary sense. They serve as sites where overlapping technical, financial, political, and cultural elites form alliances, and the alliances they form reach well past the Bay.
San Francisco differs from its rivals on the basic grammar of prestige. Los Angeles still ties standing to visibility and entertainment myth. New York still leans on institutional hierarchy and public recognition. San Francisco runs on informational asymmetry, selective access, and reputational filtration. The marker of standing here has nothing to do with being seen. It has to do with being admitted.
That difference sets the whole atmosphere. The hottest rooms stay nearly invisible to the public. No paparazzi wait outside. Few photographs circulate. Guest lists move through Signal, Telegram, and tight referral chains, and excess visibility reads as evidence of lower rank. The elite gathering therefore cultivates a look of understated importance. A room that appears plain from the street might hold men who direct billions in venture allocation, who control AI infrastructure pipelines, who sit inside defense-procurement systems, or who run the political networks now reshaping the city. The luxury good at the top of this order is invisibility.

The Battery and the Birches

At the center of the system stands The Battery, the private club founded by Michael Birch and Xochi Birch on Battery Street downtown. The club functions as more than a fashionable address. It serves as the principal nexus where post-pandemic Bay Area wealth consolidates itself.
The importance of the Birches rests less on the size of their fortune than on their role as synthesizers. Michael Birch came out of the first wave of internet-platform money through the sale of the social network Bebo. Xochi Birch built a complementary standing as a curator of taste, philanthropy, and hospitality. Together they solved a structural problem that had dogged Silicon Valley wealth for a generation. The technical elite held enormous financial power and lacked the rooted social institutions that integrated older East Coast money into a durable ruling class. The Battery answered that lack on the West Coast.
The club departs from the older establishments, the Bohemian Club and the Pacific-Union Club, on its founding principle. The older institutions ran on inheritance, continuity, restraint, and exclusion by pedigree. The Battery runs on network velocity, entrepreneurial credibility, aesthetic fluency, and selective openness. A member earns entry through demonstrated relevance to the current power structure rather than through lineage. The codes inside reflect the same shift. High-status members display intellectual compression, emotional self-regulation, wellness literacy, and conversational range. A man who brags about his valuation marks himself as insecure. Prestige arrives instead through quieter signals: proximity to a technical breakthrough, a working relationship with a major founder, fluency in AI discourse, an unexpected cultural reference, calm command of an emerging system.
The official programming carries dinners, salon conversations, philanthropic evenings, record releases, art tours, speaker nights, comedy, wellness sessions, and private excursions. The categories often conceal the deeper office of the gathering. A civic allocation dinner can serve as a meeting point for venture capital, City Hall, and an AI infrastructure firm. A wellness conversation can quietly assemble biotech founders, longevity investors, and high-net-worth men running neurochemical optimization regimes. A music event can operate as a screening room where investors take the measure of younger founders judged culturally promising. The city’s elite social system increasingly travels through these layered informal spaces.

The Five Coalitions

Five overlapping coalitions populate these rooms. First, the AI-founder and infrastructure-engineering class, drawn from OpenAI, Anthropic, Scale AI, and the startups that supply the AI economy. Second, the venture and liquidity network orbiting Andreessen Horowitz, Founders Fund, and General Catalyst. Third, the biotech and longevity elite. Fourth, a cultural intermediary class tied to design, electronic music, architecture, and boutique hospitality. Fifth, the surviving old guard connected to legacy finance, law, philanthropy, and inherited Bay Area wealth. The coalitions do not stand apart. The power of the current elite comes from the merger among them, and the party is where the merger happens.

The Midweek Allocative Rooms

Wednesday evenings at The Battery show the allocative face of the culture. The mood turns quiet and managerial. Founders, venture partners, philanthropic intermediaries, attorneys, urban-policy operators, and political donors circulate through dining rooms, rooftop lounges, and semi-private salons. These rooms now overlap with the civic coalition that formed under Mayor Daniel Lurie. The governance crisis of the prior years produced an alliance between technology capital and municipal repair, and elite dinners carry an implicit political charge as a result. Hosting or attending the right gathering signals standing and also signals a part in the reconstruction of the city. That double office helps explain why The Battery sits so near the center. It works at once as social club, political salon, founder incubator, and filter.
The figures who shape these rooms include Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, Sam Altman, and Garry Tan, and their gravity holds even on nights they host nothing. Access to their networks implies access to future capital and institutional leverage, so their mere presence reorders the hierarchy of the room. Tan deserves particular notice. Through Y Combinator, which he leads as president and chief executive, and through an expanding civic role, he occupies the bridge between technical founders, startup myth, and city politics. In February 2026 he formalized that role by launching a political vehicle called Garry’s List, a voter-education and media operation that extends a tough-on-crime, pro-growth program he has pushed for years, alongside the allied spending of groups such as GrowSF. The small dinners that form in YC-adjacent circles often hold fewer than fifteen guests, and those fifteen can include a future billion-dollar founder, a major investor, and a city-policy operator at the same table. Elite influence in San Francisco concentrates in small rooms.

The Weekend Authenticity Theaters

By Friday and Saturday the atmosphere changes. The younger founder and design cohort migrates from the allocative rooms toward what one might call authenticity theaters: electronic-music venues, warehouse-adjacent spaces, and curated nightlife rooms tied to the remnants of the city’s countercultural myth.
The migration carries sociological weight. The young technical elite often fears that its own optimized world has grown sterile and managerial, ruled by engineering teams, venture incentives, and computational rivalry. A night inside electronic culture works as a corrective. It lets a founder hold psychological and aesthetic continuity with the older artistic identity of San Francisco.
The central venue here is Public Works, on Erie Street in the Mission, a multiroom club with a Funktion-One system and a long memory of underground bookings. The venue holds a strategic position because it preserves traces of the old underground while drawing the new AI and venture crowd. Promoter collectives such as Roam Recordings and Sirens LA turn certain weekends into crossover events that braid techno, queer nightlife, design taste, and startup money. When a legacy progressive-house figure such as John Digweed (b. 1967) appears for a Bedrock set, as he does on the club’s late-May calendar, the room takes on a significance beyond ordinary nightlife. Digweed carries symbolic value for the elder millennial and Gen X technical elite because the electronic culture of the late 1990s overlapped with the first Bay Area internet boom. Attendance signals taste and also signals descent from the founding myth of digital California. A booking like The Glitch Mob, also on the current Public Works schedule, resonates inside AI and design circles for the same reason, since their music fused electronic futurism with a cinematic, West Coast texture.
These nights work as rituals of authenticity. A founder who spent Wednesday on compute scaling and chip supply might spend Saturday in a crowded warehouse-adjacent room trying to reconnect with creativity, spontaneity, and anti-corporate feeling. The contradiction sits in plain view, and the participants half intend it. Many of the dancers hold venture backing, draw startup salaries, or build the very systems remaking the city. The floor offers a brief suspension of managerial identity. The same cohort prizes queer and underground-adjacent aesthetics in part because those codes insulate against the charge of corporate conformity and signal openness and range. The underground, meanwhile, grows more financialized by the season. Wealthy founders quietly sponsor afterparties, hold hidden tables, fund promoter collectives, and subsidize warehouse events for their teams. The result reads as venture-backed counterculture.
Temple Nightclub holds a different niche. It runs closer to the high-energy model of Miami, Las Vegas, or Dubai, adapted for Bay Area taste, and it hosts AI-music crossover nights, startup celebrations, and technology-inflected club events. Set beside Public Works, Temple presents itself as more aspirational and more commercially visible, and it still pulls a sizable share of the younger technical elite.

The Private Salons

Outside the formal venues lies the salon system, and some of the most consequential gatherings in Bay Area life happen inside homes rather than clubs. The geography runs across Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights, Russian Hill, Marin County, Woodside, Atherton, Los Altos Hills, and Palo Alto, and the geography carries meaning.
Pacific Heights salons blend cultural sophistication with venture wealth. The guests might include AI founders, architects, journalists, gallery operators, meditation teachers, biotech investors, and political strategists. The music stays low. The lighting reads as deliberate. Conversation moves between large language models, documentary film, psychedelics, geopolitical risk, and the psychology of relationships. These rooms treat emotional regulation and physical optimization as elite virtues, and the old image of the disheveled engineer running on caffeine and lost sleep no longer governs the upper tier. Bodily discipline now reads as evidence of executive competence. So dinner talk routinely turns to continuous glucose monitors, peptide stacks, sleep metrics, ketamine-assisted therapy, red-light panels, fasting schedules, cold-plunge protocols, personalized supplementation, hormone optimization, and nervous-system regulation. The body has become an optimization frontier set alongside software infrastructure. Sobriety and near-sobriety follow from the same code. Heavy intoxication reads as low status because it suggests a loss of self-command, and many guests drink little or nothing. Precision has displaced abandon as the governing aesthetic.
Down the peninsula, Woodside and Atherton host a fortified variant of the salon. These evenings overlap with defense technology, aerospace, semiconductors, cybersecurity, national-security AI, and infrastructure finance. The mood grows calmer, wealthier, and more operationally serious. Guests can include men tied to government procurement, elite venture firms, and frontier laboratories. The hosts often stay unnamed in public. Invitations travel through trusted personal chains rather than visible branding, digital residue gets minimized on purpose, and in some cases attendance becomes confidential. The discretion reflects a wider change in elite American life. High-value technical actors increasingly read their environment as unstable, shaped by AI rivalry, cyber conflict, surveillance, and political polarization, and so visibility reads as risk while invisibility offers protection.

The Parallel Aristocracy

The Bohemian Club and its summer encampment at the Bohemian Grove show that the older architecture survives. The Bohemian world still gathers major figures from finance, law, energy, politics, and corporate America. It now operates as a parallel aristocracy rather than the governing center of Bay Area prestige. The contrast with The Battery exposes a deeper change in how American elites form. The Bohemian model grew out of industrial capitalism, newspapers, railroads, oil, and inherited establishment authority. The Battery model grew out of venture scaling, software platforms, computational systems, and network acceleration. One order prizes continuity, inheritance, and institutional permanence. The other prizes adaptive intelligence, technical leverage, and network synthesis. The boundary between them keeps blurring. Older money seeks relevance through AI investment and technical alignment. Younger founders seek the stability and legitimacy the older institutions once supplied, and the two reach toward each other across the dinner table.

The Spectacle Is the Room

The San Francisco party system reveals more than nightlife. It reveals a new ruling-class culture organized around information, computation, biological optimization, and controlled access. The hottest party in the city in late May 2026 is not the loudest room. It is the room where the people present hold disproportionate sway over the next generation of technological infrastructure, municipal governance, computational power, and cultural legitimacy. The guest list is the spectacle. And invisibility is the luxury good.

Posted in San Francisco | Comments Off on The Priesthoods of the Bay: High-Status Social Cliques in San Francisco, 2026

The Omeed Malik Social Set

Posted on May 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

Omeed Malik (b. 1979) runs with a set that did not exist in its current form ten years ago. It is the new money of the Trump-aligned right, assembled fast after 2020, and it has its own geography, its own rituals, and its own way of deciding who counts.
Picture the people in the room around him. Donald Trump Jr. (b. 1977), now his business partner at 1789 Capital. Rebekah Mercer (b. 1973) and Chris Buskirk, his co-founders. Tucker Carlson (b. 1969), whose media company took 1789’s first big check. Neil Patel of the Daily Caller. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (b. 1954), whom Malik backed early before the MAGA pivot, and the MAHA crowd that came with him. Bill Pulte (b. 1988), who put Malik on the Fannie Mae board. Chamath Palihapitiya (b. 1976), the SPAC veteran who shares deals with him. The physical headquarters of this world is now the Executive Branch club in Washington, the private room Malik and his partners opened for people who can pay to be near power. The migration from New York and California to Florida is part of the picture too. These men left the old centers on purpose and built somewhere new.
What they value. Money and proximity to power, fused so the two cannot be told apart. The old Wall Street that Malik came from prized discretion and the appearance of political neutrality. A prime brokerage executive at Bank of America kept his politics quiet and let the returns talk. This set inverts that. Here the politics are the product. The phrase that organizes their commerce is the “parallel economy,” anti-woke firms and patriotic marketplaces built for buyers who want their spending to signal a side. GrabAGun, the gun retailer Malik took public, is the pure case. The merchandise is also the flag. They value loyalty over neutrality, conviction over caution, and they treat the willingness to be attacked as evidence that a man is the real thing.
Their hero system. The hero is the man who was pushed out and came back larger. Malik’s own arc is the template the set runs on. Forced out of Bank of America under accusations he denied, he filed a $100 million claim, won an eight-figure settlement, and rebuilt as a founder rather than an employee. Trump is the cosmic version of the same plot, the conviction in New York followed by the election win, the verdict that Malik said would have less than zero impact on his support. The hero in this world does not seek the approval of legacy institutions. He survives their judgment and proves them small. Exile is not a wound here. It is a credential.
Their status games. Status comes from access first and from money second, and the genius of the Executive Branch club is that it sells the first to people who already have the second. Sitting on the Fannie Mae board, placed there by Pulte, is status. Having Trump Jr. choose your firm over a White House job is enormous status, because it says the action is here, with you, not in the administration. The SPAC is a status engine. It lets a man assemble famous names, Trump Jr. and Palihapitiya on one filing, and turn that gathering into a public listing. The currency is whose name appears next to yours. A cameo on Billions counts. A check into Tucker Carlson’s company counts more. The losing move is to be seen as a hanger-on rather than a principal.
Their normative claims. The governing claim is that the elite institutions, the banks, the legacy press, the universities, the corporate HR regimes, turned against ordinary Americans and against the men who built things, and that a counter-elite owes those people an alternative. MeToo sits inside this claim in a tender spot, since Malik’s lawyer became known for representing Wall Street’s accused men, and the set treats certain accusations as the weapon of an illegitimate establishment rather than a reckoning. They claim the right to build their own banks, their own clubs, their own stores, and their own candidates because the existing ones excluded them. They frame self-interest as restoration.
Their essentialist claims. The deepest one is that there are real Americans and there is a managerial class that despises them, and that this division is a fact about the country rather than a passing political fight. They hold that a man’s character is revealed under attack, that the establishment’s hostility certifies authenticity, and that markets sorted by values are truer than markets that pretend to be neutral. Malik’s own biography complicates the cruder versions of this, since he is the son of an Iranian mother and a Pakistani father and once worked as a Democratic spokesman, and the set absorbs that by treating conversion as proof. The convert who saw the establishment from inside and turned against it is more trusted than the man born to the cause.
This is a coalition of recent vintage and recent wealth, and its cohesion depends on Trump. The deals interlock, Pulte invests in Malik’s gun venture and also seats him on a federal board, Trump Jr. anchors the firm and the SPACs, the club monetizes the whole arrangement. Remove the center and the question becomes whether these men have anything binding them beyond access to one family. They would tell you the binding thing is principle. The structure suggests the binding thing might be the principal.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Omeed Malik Social Set

The Archipelago: High-Status Social Cliques in New York, 2026

Posted on May 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

New York in 2026 has no ruling class. It has a federation of rival enclaves, each one a court, each one convinced its own currency of prestige is the true gold standard. Finance has money. Fashion has taste. Technology has the new fortunes. Real estate owns the ground. Art turns cash into prestige, and philanthropy turns ambition into virtue. The old Protestant establishment still holds the museum boards and the hospital trusteeships. The downtown set controls relevance. These worlds need each other and resent each other in equal measure, and the most successful figures are the ones who pass between them without belonging to any.
This essay maps the principal cliques, names the people who anchor them, and traces the lines of competition and dependence that bind them together.

The serious club: CORE

At the formal apex sits the Core Club. Jennie Enterprise founded it, and in 2025 she opened a sixty-thousand-square-foot expansion above Midtown, four floors of dining rooms, wellness suites, gallery space, a wine library, and a theater. Enterprise built the place around a single proposition. Wealth alone no longer buys standing. The modern elite want to be seen as serious, curious, cultivated, and Core sells exactly that self-image. It is a coordination point for people who already hold institutional power and want a quiet room to use it in.
The orbit around Core includes financiers and developers and media executives who move between industries without effort. Stephen Schwarzman (b. 1947) of Blackstone belongs to this world. So does Rob Speyer (b. 1969) of Tishman Speyer. Walter Isaacson (b. 1952) supplies the intellectual gloss. Designers like Tory Burch (b. 1966), Bobbi Brown (b. 1957), and Thom Browne (b. 1965) cross over from fashion. Bill Clinton (b. 1946) remains a useful presence, a man who carries institutional memory and contemporary access in the same handshake. Core projects restraint. It frames power as a product of discernment rather than display, and that framing is the whole point.

The downtown court: Zero Bond

Against the seriousness of Core stands the celebrity-technology nexus of downtown, and its capital is Zero Bond. Scott Sartiano and Will Makris opened it at 0 Bond Street in NoHo in October 2020, in a former Brooks Brothers factory, and it became the defining social institution of post-pandemic Manhattan. By 2026 Sartiano had extended the brand with a second outpost at Wynn Las Vegas. The New York room still runs on a rumored fifteen-million-dollar art collection, an omakase bar, and a strict ban on photography.
The guest list reads like a tabloid index. Taylor Swift (b. 1989), Leonardo DiCaprio (b. 1974), Kim Kardashian (b. 1980), Tom Brady (b. 1977), and Elon Musk (b. 1971) have all passed through. Drake held a Barclays Center afterparty there. The club hosted a Met Gala afterparty and gave Musk a room for his own 2021 Met afterparty. The genius of the place lies in what it sells, which is invisibility. The no-phone rule turns privacy into a luxury good. A guest can sit in a room thick with fame and capital and still feel unobserved, and that feeling now costs more than the food.
To the old establishment the downtown scene looks unserious and unstable, a churn of relevance that burns out. To the downtown set the old clubs look frozen, museums of declining authority unable to process twenty-first-century money. Both sides are partly right.

The old guard: the Protestant clubs

The hereditary establishment still exists, and it still holds real power. The Metropolitan Club, which J.P. Morgan (1837-1913) founded, draws multigenerational wealth families, elite attorneys, bankers, trustees, and diplomats. The Knickerbocker Club remains the purest surviving form of hereditary New York exclusivity. The Union Club shelters men who treat publicity as a failure rather than an achievement. Their dress codes and admission rituals exist to repel the striver. Their governing belief is simple. Status should grow quieter as wealth grows larger.
The downtown coalition dismisses these rooms as relics of fading WASP authority. The dismissal misreads where power sits. Elite legitimacy in New York still runs through institutions, and the institutions still answer disproportionately to legacy networks. The real contest between uptown and downtown does not happen in nightlife. It happens in governance.

The governance war: boards and trusteeships

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, Lincoln Center, Columbia University, and the New York Public Library have become quiet battlegrounds. Technology executives, private-equity billionaires, and entertainment figures want trusteeships because a board seat converts liquidity into permanence. Existing trustees slow them down with vetting, social filtering, and informal gatekeeping designed to preserve continuity.
The process works like an aristocratic immigration system. New money can enter, but only after it proves cultural discipline, philanthropic patience, and the willingness to assimilate. A check is not enough. The old elite demands a change in behavior, and it grants admission on its own clock.

Fashion and its sovereign

Fashion forms its own power bloc, and for nearly forty years it had a single sovereign. Anna Wintour (b. 1949) ran American Vogue from 1988 until June 2025, when she stepped down as editor-in-chief. She did not retire. She kept her seats as chief content officer of Condé Nast and global editorial director of Vogue, and she installed Chloe Malle (b. 1985), daughter of Candice Bergen and the director Louis Malle (1932-1995), as the new head of editorial content for the American title. Malle reports to her. So does almost everyone else in the building.
Wintour’s authority never stopped at publishing. It runs through philanthropy, luxury branding, museum governance, and political fundraising. The Met Gala, which she chairs, works less as a fashion event than as a global ranking of cultural legitimacy. The 2025 livestream drew over a billion views. Around her orbit move Beyoncé (b. 1981), Nicole Kidman (b. 1967), Jeff Bezos (b. 1964) and Lauren Sánchez (b. 1969), and the heads of the great luxury conglomerates, Bernard Arnault (b. 1949) of LVMH and François-Henri Pinault (b. 1962) of Kering. Fashion in New York runs as symbolic infrastructure for elite coordination across continents.

The newer clubs and the generational split

The dominance of Core and the celebrity gravity of Zero Bond produced a backlash from younger and more mobile money, and a wave of new rooms answered the demand. The Ned NoMad imported London’s Soho establishment style and fused co-working, restaurants, bars, performance space, and hotel rooms into one hybrid built for younger global capital, the private-equity associates and startup founders and crypto operators who find the older clubs too stiff.
Fasano Fifth Avenue runs on a quieter and more international register. Membership comes by invitation and a board of approval, and the room draws Brazilian, European, and Middle Eastern real-estate capital, sovereign wealth intermediaries, shipping magnates, and developers whose deals span São Paulo, Milan, London, Miami, and New York.
The newest entrants raise the price of entry. The Aman Club attached a two-hundred-thousand-dollar initiation fee and a fifteen-thousand-dollar annual charge, a statement that it cares about your balance sheet more than your name. And in 2025 Robin Birley (b. 1958), the man behind London’s most secretive clubs, finally gave New York an outpost, Maxime’s, in the former Westbury Hotel space at 848 Madison. Birley built it for Upper East Side discretion, invitation only, resolutely off Instagram, a dress code closer to Mayfair in 1968 than to downtown in sneakers. Maxime’s is the old guard’s answer to the clubstaurant boom, a bet that the highest status still hides rather than performs.

The international embassy: Casa Cipriani

Casa Cipriani opened in 2021 in the 1909 Battery Maritime Building at the southern tip of Manhattan, named for Giuseppe Cipriani (1900-1980), who founded Harry’s Bar in Venice and invented the Bellini. The club carries a waitlist past four thousand names. It runs on Italian luxury hospitality, harbor views, cryotherapy chambers, a jazz cafe, and a no-phone rule that promises wealth a life outside the camera. European financiers, developers, luxury executives, and globally mobile heirs use it as a social embassy. Gigi Hadid and Leonardo DiCaprio have been spotted leaving together. Taylor Swift held a membership and reportedly dropped it after a photo leak.

The art hierarchy and its enemies

Art runs a parallel hierarchy, and the dealers sit at its center. Larry Gagosian (b. 1945) and David Zwirner (b. 1964) broker the relationships among billionaires, museums, artists, luxury houses, and investment capital. Collecting culturally validated art now signals taste and a kind of geopolitical sophistication at the same time.
The independent art world holds this financialization in contempt. A standing quarrel divides the glamour economy of Casa Cipriani and the Midtown billionaire dinners from the smaller galleries, the nonprofit spaces, the publishing circles, and the artist networks of the Lower East Side, Chinatown, and Brooklyn. During Frieze New York and the Met Gala season the split shows in physical space. Collectors and luxury houses throw spectacular dinners on the waterfront and in Midtown, while younger tastemakers hold rival gatherings in warehouses and lofts whose exclusivity depends on their being hard to find.
The relationship runs symbiotic and adversarial at once. Collectors need tastemakers to tell them what deserves prestige. Tastemakers need patrons to keep the institutions alive. Each side resents the other and cannot do without it.

The hidden floor: real estate and sovereign capital

Beneath all the visible courts lies the deepest layer of power, and it rarely shows its face. Developers, zoning attorneys, family offices, and sovereign wealth intermediaries form the governing architecture under the social spectacle. The names attach to Related Companies, Tishman Speyer, Brookfield, SL Green, and Silverstein Properties, and to capital vehicles tied to Saudi, Qatari, Emirati, Singaporean, and Canadian institutional wealth. Their meetings happen in penthouses and Hudson Yards hospitality suites, not in nightclubs.
Their fights look technical from outside and feel intensely personal from inside. Air rights, rezoning approvals, tax abatements, pension allocations, and sovereign capital relationships produce rivalries that last decades. Philanthropy and political giving often serve as instruments of territorial war rather than charity. This layer stabilizes everything above it. Fashion, hospitality, galleries, museums, and nightlife all rest on land, debt, and capital flow.

The brokers

The great law firms remain quiet coordination centers for corporate America, Wachtell Lipton, Paul Weiss, Skadden, Sullivan and Cromwell, Cravath. Around them move crisis managers, executive recruiters, political consultants, and wealth advisors who pass between rival factions while keeping their own faces out of the press. Some of the most powerful people in New York are socially anonymous brokers whose influence comes from sitting at the center of information rather than from fame.

The governing aesthetic

The city no longer resembles a pyramid with one class at the summit. It resembles a competitive federation of high-status enclaves, each trying to universalize its own values while depending on the rest for legitimacy. The old establishment holds the institutions. The downtown coalition holds cultural velocity. Finance holds liquidity. Fashion holds aesthetic legitimacy. Technology supplies new fortunes. Real estate holds the ground. Art converts wealth into prestige, and philanthropy converts ambition into civic virtue.
The figure who wins this arrangement moves through all of it and stays captive to none. In New York now the highest status lies not in maximum visibility but in selective omnipresence, the art of appearing everywhere that matters while staying publicly hard to pin down. That balance between access and concealment has become the governing aesthetic of power in the city.
The contemporary art world and elite media are premier validation chambers where raw capital transforms into social legitimacy.
Thelma Golden. The Director and Chief Curator of the Studio Museum in Harlem occupies a vital conversion node. She holds immense cultural authenticity and institutional authority. Golden moves seamlessly from elite corporate boardrooms and uptown philanthropic galas to downtown artist studios and international biennials. She arbitrates aesthetic legitimacy for ultra-high-net-worth collectors who require her validation to ensure their wealth looks public-spirited rather than predatory.
David Zwirner. Finance wealth, tech wealth, Gulf wealth, entertainment wealth, and inherited dynastic wealth all require cultural conversion mechanisms. Zwirner operates one of the central conversion nodes. He is neither celebrity nor plutocrat in the conventional sense. Yet billionaires circulate through his spaces to acquire symbolic legitimacy. He exists simultaneously inside the art world, luxury architecture, institutional philanthropy, publishing, and European intellectual society.
David Remnick. As editor of The New Yorker, Remnick sits at the center of institutional media amplification. He preserves a reputation for intellectual detachment while navigating every center of power in the city. He moves between old-establishment literary circles, Wall Street donor networks, tech summits, and Broadway corridors. His presence provides a serious, high-status imprimatur to any room, yet he avoids permanent attachment to any single corporate or political faction.
Wendy Deng. Media moguls, tech billionaires, political elites, fashion networks, and art patrons all intersect within her orbit. She is not institutionally anchored in the old sense. Her power derives from social mobility across sectors. That flexibility became more valuable after the collapse of unified establishment culture.
Dasha Zhukova. She sits at the intersection of global art finance, Russian oligarchic capital networks, Silicon Valley adjacency, media fashion culture, and institutional philanthropy. Figures like Zhukova matter because New York increasingly functions less as an American city than as a sovereign node inside a global prestige archipelago. The city’s upper tiers are now deeply internationalized. Their marriages, boards, schools, and investment structures span London, Miami, Tel Aviv, Paris, Aspen, Los Angeles, and the Gulf.
Capital and sovereignty brokers operate at the intersection of international statecraft, sovereign wealth, and Manhattan real estate.
Blair Effron. The co-founder of Centerview Partners is a premier example of the financier as a cross-domain diplomat. Effron transcends pure investment banking by positioning himself at the center of national Democratic political fundraising, cultural board leadership (including the Metropolitan Museum of Art), and academic governance. He operates as a trusted consigliere to corporate CEOs, media moguls, and political elites, maintaining a quiet but formidable presence across the entire institutional apparatus.
Marc Lasry. The co-founder of Avenue Capital Group demonstrates how distressed-debt investing can leverage access into sports, media, and global diplomacy. Lasry moves between sovereign wealth funds, the NBA ecosystem, elite political circles, and downtown entertainment networks. He uses his liquidity to purchase cultural and civic assets, maintaining a highly calibrated form of visibility that grants him access to disparate courts without absorbing their specific liabilities.
Daniel Loeb. Officially he is finance. In practice he long ago transcended pure hedge-fund identity. Through collecting, philanthropy, political relationships, board influence, and strategic patronage of cultural institutions, he built a hybrid role. He appears in the worlds of contemporary art, education reform, Hamptons social capital, institutional Jewish philanthropy, and elite media. Unlike the old Wall Street titans who remained trapped within finance, Loeb cultivated aesthetic legitimacy and intellectual associations. He moves between uptown institutional wealth and newer downtown creative-financial hybrids.
Transnational connectors include:
Stavros Niarchos III. Descendant of the Greek shipping dynasty, Niarchos embodies the updated model of inherited symbolic capital. Married to Dasha Zhukova, his social architecture joins European dynastic lineage, vast global maritime fortune, elite contemporary art patronage, and Silicon Valley venture capital networks. He maintains strict privacy and minimal public visibility, yet his presence anchors the most exclusive private gatherings where transnational wealth coordinates with cultural tastemakers.
Fabiola Beracasa Beckman. Operating as a creative director, film producer, and specialized event architect, she serves as a vital bridge between old-world fortune and high-velocity cultural production. Beckman moves through high fashion, contemporary art institutions, film finance, and heritage philanthropy. She structures the physical spaces and social rituals where diverse elites interact, allowing her to retain complete social flexibility without ever being tied to a single corporate entity.
Other operators include:
Jed Walentas. The CEO of Two Trees Management possesses an elite form of controlled permeability. By anchoring his real estate empire in the transformation of neighborhoods like DUMBO and Williamsburg, Walentas built a bridge between old-line real estate capital and downtown cultural velocity. He operates within municipal political structures, education reform, and elite philanthropic boards, maintaining a low public profile while holding substantial sway over both the physical ground and the cultural character of the city.
Michael Rubin. He represents the newer American model where sports, celebrity culture, private equity, fashion, gambling, and music collapse into one integrated elite network. His Hamptons white parties became major coordination rituals for entertainment executives, athletes, tech founders, and finance operators. Unlike old New York hosts, Rubin embraces visibility, but he still maintains enough ambiguity to avoid becoming reducible to influencer culture. He acts as connective tissue between hip-hop prestige systems, NBA culture, venture capital, and luxury consumption markets.
Lauren Santo Domingo occupies fashion, art patronage, old New York social legitimacy, luxury commerce, and media simultaneously. Through Moda Operandi and her social positioning, she became a bridge figure between old Manhattan wealth and digitally accelerated luxury capitalism. She appears continuously within elite circulation while maintaining a surface impression of restraint and privacy. That restraint itself has become a major status marker in New York’s upper ecology.
Jean Pigozzi. He is a collector-host-social broker figure whose primary role is assembling highly heterogeneous elites into temporary social proximity. In fragmented prestige systems, he creates zones where finance, art, media, diplomacy, and aristocratic remnants can gather.
Nicky Hilton Rothschild. Symbolic capital still matters in Manhattan. But its function has changed. Old family names no longer dominate the city outright. Instead they serve as stabilizing legitimacy overlays for newer wealth coalitions. Nicky Hilton Rothschild moves between fashion, hospitality dynasties, European aristocratic branding, luxury commerce, and newer celebrity networks without becoming tabloid-saturated in the Kardashian mode. That disciplined partial visibility is critical.
Patti Smith. Certain older downtown cultural figures maintain enormous prestige because they symbolize authenticity within a city dominated by financialization. Smith functions as a kind of sacred cultural relic for artistic New York. Presence near such figures grants aesthetic legitimacy to younger elites trying to avoid appearing purely transactional.

Who Throws the Room: New York’s Hottest Parties and the People Who Host Them, 2026

The party in New York no longer means the nightclub. The velvet rope, the celebrity table, the line as performance, all of that belonged to a century when visibility made prestige. The logic has inverted. The most coveted rooms in 2026 minimize exposure, because the smartphone turns every gathering into potential content and every guest into a possible leak. The new party sells trust rather than excitement, and the host who can guarantee trust holds the real power. Naming the hosts, then, names the scene.

The operators: Scott Sartiano and Will Makris

Zero Bond remains the gravitational center, and its proprietors are the men who built the model. Scott Sartiano and Will Makris opened the club at 0 Bond Street in NoHo in 2020, and by 2026 Sartiano had carried the brand to Wynn Las Vegas. What Sartiano sells is not hospitality in the ordinary sense. He sells filtration. He understood early that the billionaire, the founder, the hedge-fund principal, and the pop star all live under constant surveillance, and that a room which lowers the odds of random exposure becomes a defensive tool against overexposure.
The proof of the model showed at the 2026 Met Gala afterparty cycle, which ran past dawn. Sartiano gave his room over to a disco-themed party billed as “S&M After Dark,” hosted by Sabrina Carpenter (b. 1999) and Madonna (b. 1958), the two having performed together at Coachella. The guest list ran from Margot Robbie (b. 1990) and Kendall Jenner (b. 1995) to Stevie Nicks (b. 1948), Diplo, Adrien Brody (b. 1973), and the Met’s honorary chairs and primary donors, Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez. The host’s name on the door tells you where you stand inside the overlapping hierarchies of relevance and liquidity.

The fashion court: Anthony Vaccarello and Zoë Kravitz

The single most star-dense party of the 2026 Met night belonged to Saint Laurent, hosted by the house’s creative director Anthony Vaccarello (b. 1979) and the actor Zoë Kravitz (b. 1988) at People’s Bar. The two also chaired the Met Gala host committee that year, so the afterparty extended their daytime authority into the dark. The room held Leonardo DiCaprio, Katy Perry (b. 1984), Rosé, Charli XCX (b. 1992), SZA, Doja Cat (b. 1995), Mick Jagger (b. 1943), and a surprise drop-in from Olivia Rodrigo (b. 2003), who had skipped the carpet entirely. The fashion afterparty works as a second ranking, finer than the gala, because the brand chooses the room and the brand chooses the guests.

The cinematic salon: Baz Luhrmann and Catherine Martin

A different register of glamour gathered at Monsieur, where Baz Luhrmann (b. 1962) and his wife and collaborator Catherine Martin (b. 1965) assembled a crowd that mixed entertainment capital with old-world cosmopolitan style, Hunter Schafer (b. 1998) among them. Luhrmann hosts the way he directs, for atmosphere and theater rather than for tabloid density, and the room draws people who want cinema rather than spectacle.

The doorman as host: Frankie Carattini

Some rooms run on the man at the threshold rather than the names inside. Laissez Faire, the low-lit microclub tucked down an alley beside the Beekman Hotel in the Financial District, marked only by a purple neon sign, depends on Frankie Carattini, a veteran of the city’s nightlife who took over the door and brought his regulars with him. Carattini sets the terms. Get a table, be patient, be polite, do not arrive in work clothes, do not ask how long the wait is, and do not act entitled. The host here is not a celebrity but a gatekeeper, and his judgment at the entrance is the whole product. The room manufactures secrecy through architecture, the descent, the hidden entry, the compressed interior.

The dinner that becomes the party: Jean’s

The structural shift of the moment is the dissolution of the line between restaurant and nightclub. Jean’s, on Lafayette Street, runs an upscale bistro upstairs and an electric club below, and the dinner crowd melts into the dancing crowd as the night deepens. The motto, “Not open unless you are,” states the ethos. Continuity is the point. The same vetted faces carry from the table to the floor, which preserves trust and keeps the late-night randomness that high-status guests now avoid. No single celebrity hosts Jean’s. The room hosts, and the curation of who gets a table does the work a doorman used to do.

The listening club: Stylus

The younger creative elite wants something other than celebrity concentration, and Stylus answers them. Opening on the Lower East Side at 48 Clinton Street, in a four-story building that once housed a recording studio used by Patti Smith and Joey Ramone, Stylus is a private members club built around sound. Its founders, described as medical entrepreneurs and art-world veterans, capped membership at 750. The architecture comes from O’Neill Rose Architects. The central listening room carries a sound system designed by Devon Turnbull of OJAS, capable of shifting the room’s acoustics from intimate jazz club to cathedral. A cellar lounge asks guests to remove their shoes and offers 40-hertz sound therapy. The Michelin-starred chef Anita Lo (b. 1965) runs the kitchen.
Stylus signals a generational break. For the founders, the Substack writers, the documentary producers, and the music-adjacent venture investors under forty, prestige now runs through demonstrated taste rather than through proximity to fame. The high-fidelity room, the Japanese vinyl bar, the restored industrial interior, these mark cultivated distinction. The party here is a media laboratory as much as a social event, a place where the recording suite sits beside the lounge and where ideas diffuse outward through podcasts and newsletters after they form in the room.

The enduring chaos: The Box

Not every coveted room runs on discretion. The Box, on Chrystie Street, remains the most unpredictable space in the city, part cabaret, part nightclub, part burlesque fever dream. It survives the relentless cycle of trends because it refuses curation. Decadence functions as the prestige there, and the unpredictability that the engineered rooms work to eliminate is the entire draw. The Box is the counterexample that proves how thoroughly the rest of the scene has organized itself around control.

The houses without a marquee

The most consequential parties may not happen in any venue at all. The ultra-wealthy increasingly entertain inside Tribeca penthouses, Upper East Side townhouses, and West Village compounds owned by hedge-fund managers, technology founders, and art collectors. These gatherings operate beyond the reach of hospitality infrastructure, beyond the doorman and the membership committee, and they often eclipse the commercial rooms in actual influence. The host here owns the building, and ownership is the final filter. The same evening can hold an AI-policy adviser, a sovereign wealth representative, a campaign bundler, a media founder, and a crypto investor, which makes the private party a kind of informal diplomacy.
The thread runs through all of it. The old nightlife economy sold the thrill of being seen. The new one sells the safety of not being seen, and the host’s job has become the management of trust. Sartiano sells a secure operating system. Vaccarello and Kravitz sell the brand’s blessing. Luhrmann sells cinema. Carattini sells his own judgment at the door. Stylus sells acoustic literacy. The penthouse owner sells the building. In every case the party is a sorting room, and the person who controls the door controls the hierarchy that forms inside.
The most powerful hosts understand that they curate social legitimacy rather than entertainment. What looks from outside like partying runs underneath as an organized system of elite circulation, and the guest list is the document that records it.

Posted in New York | Comments Off on The Archipelago: High-Status Social Cliques in New York, 2026

The LACMA Social Set

Posted on May 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

Michael Govan (b. 1963) runs the kind of world where a man can fly his own small plane, spot an abandoned Nabisco factory from the air, and turn it into a museum. He did that at Dia:Beacon. He keeps a 1979 Beechcraft Bonanza at the Santa Monica airport and has held a pilot’s license since 1995. He earned close to two million dollars in 2024, which makes him the highest-paid museum director in the country. He hangs, by one Washington Post headline, with Leo and Kanye, and he once paid ten million for a rock. The rock is Michael Heizer’s (b. 1944) Levitated Mass, a 340-ton boulder he hauled a hundred miles to Wilshire Boulevard with a street party at the end. This is the set. The museum director sits at its center, and around him gather the trustees, the collectors, the star architects, the land artists, and the movie people who want to stand near all of it.
The lineage runs through Thomas Krens (b. 1946), the Williams College mentor who took Govan to the Guggenheim at twenty-five and built Bilbao. Krens taught the model the set still lives by: the museum as global brand, the building as the masterpiece, the director as impresario. Govan carried it to Los Angeles in 2006, after ten other people turned the LACMA job down, and spent twenty years pursuing the Peter Zumthor (b. 1943) building that opens this April as the David Geffen Galleries. Frank Gehry (b. 1929), Renzo Piano (b. 1937), Zumthor, these are the names the set reveres, the architects whose signatures convert a county museum into a destination. James Turrell (b. 1943) and Heizer supply the other pole, the artists who carve light and earth out in the desert on a scale no gallery can hold, and Govan lobbied Washington to wrap a national monument around Heizer’s City.
What do these people value? Scale and permanence, first. The set does not want a good show. It wants a building that will outlast the man who raised the money for it, a thing future generations cannot ignore. They value the transformation story, the before-and-after, the dead factory reborn, the sleepy county museum turned into the fourth most Instagrammed in the world. They value the company of artists, and the director who can call Turrell or Heizer a friend ranks above the administrator who only manages a collection. They value taste rendered as vision, the capacity to see in 2003 what a town will become in 2020. And they value money, though they speak of it as stewardship, because the whole apparatus runs on the gifts of the very rich, and the director’s first art is the art of the ask.
The hero is the visionary builder. Not the curator who knows the most about Magritte, and not the bureaucrat who balances the budget, but the man who imagines a thing that does not exist and wills it into concrete. Govan tells this story about himself with relish. He recalls staring into the La Brea Tar Pits and thinking of the Chauvet cave paintings, the origins of human creativity, and deciding the spot was a good place to smash the Cartesian grid. The hero speaks like this. He reaches for Édouard Glissant (1928-2011) and decolonization and unconscious memory to explain a building, because the heroic act must be framed as more than construction. It must be framed as a break with history. The set rewards the man who can make a museum sound like a cosmology.
The status games run on a few moves. The signature building is the largest chip, and a director who lands a Gehry or a Zumthor has played at the highest table. The acquisition is another, the donated masterpiece, the doubled collection, the rock that becomes a pilgrimage site. The artist friendship is its own currency, photographed and circulated, because proximity to a living genius confers a glow that no MBA can. Then there is the donor, the trustee whose name goes on the wall, and the courtship of that donor is a status game played on both sides, the rich man buying immortality and the director granting it. Brad Pitt (b. 1963) once stood up at a county supervisors meeting to praise Zumthor’s mastery of light and shadow, and spoke so long an official told him to wrap it up. That moment is the set in miniature, glamour lending itself to architecture, everyone borrowing shine from everyone else.
Now the shoulds. The set holds that great art demands great spending and that a city deserves a monument worthy of its ambitions. They hold that the old museum was a colonial instrument, the encyclopedic grid a tool of conquest, and that the new museum should break the timeline, dissolve the departments, and let the visitor wander a park of his own making. Govan says he told Zumthor he did not want anyone in the front, that the building should avoid linear histories. This reads as humility and democracy. It also lets a director discard the scholarly departments that might check him and concentrate the vision in one set of hands. They hold that access and attendance prove virtue, that 1.6 million visitors and a top Instagram ranking justify the project against its critics. And when the workers move to unionize, as the LACMA staff did this past fall, the set holds that the matter should go to a formal vote rather than voluntary recognition, which is the moment the language of community meets the reality of who signs the checks.
The essentialist claims sit at the bottom. The set believes that vision is a gift, that some men simply see what others cannot, and that this sight licenses them to override the curators, the critics, and the donors who object. Govan’s career is the argument. The boy who won an art contest, whose portfolio an art teacher noticed at Sidwell Friends, who served as acting curator as an undergraduate, becomes the man entitled to smash the grid because the gift was there from the start. They believe in the artist as a higher kind of person, the maker of City and Roden Crater as a figure touched by something close to the sacred, which is why the director seeks to stand beside him. They believe great art is universal and timeless, that a cave painting and a Picasso speak the same tongue across thirty-five thousand years, and this faith makes the global, departmentless, ocean-themed museum feel like a return to human truth rather than a curatorial gamble. And they believe, quietly, that their own taste is not opinion but perception, that they do not prefer the Zumthor building, they see that it is right, while the critics who call it a concrete blob or a freeway overpass simply lack the eyes. The comfort of the set is the comfort of the visionary. The building costs more than promised, holds less art than before, loses its largest donor, and drives its architect to swear off the country, and still the director can stand inside it and feel that he was the one who saw.

Posted in Art, Los Angeles | Comments Off on The LACMA Social Set

The San Vicente Bungalows Set

Posted on May 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

The website tells you the whole ethic. No photographs of faces. No names. No prices. A nomination from a current member is obligatory, and a nomination confers nothing, because the Membership Committee decides each month who gets in. Three doors only: West Hollywood, Santa Monica, the West Village. The page sells you nothing and explains nothing, and that is the pitch. San Vicente Bungalows, the club Jeff Klein built off his Sunset Tower hotel, runs on the oldest luxury there is, which is the luxury of being kept out.
This set is the working entertainment elite plus the people who orbit it. Studio chiefs, agents, showrunners, actors with real careers rather than rented fame, the lawyers and managers who handle them, a layer of tech and finance money that wants proximity to the picture business, and a thin crust of fashion and media. It is the crowd that used to drink at the Chateau Marmont before the Chateau became a place you could photograph. Klein read that exactly. He took their phones away. The famous rule at SVB is that you cannot use a camera or shoot video in the public rooms, and staff enforce it. The members pay a fee to enter a space where no one will post them. That single rule is the founding promise.
What do they value? Discretion above all, because discretion is what their money cannot otherwise buy. A movie star can buy a house, a jet, a table at any restaurant in town. He cannot easily buy a room where no stranger films him and no one asks for a selfie. SVB sells that room. They value the absence of the tourist, the absence of the striver, the absence of the phone. They value a curated sameness, the comfort of looking up and seeing only people who belong to the same world. They value taste rendered as restraint, the low lighting and the garden and the menu that does not try too hard. And they value the committee, the unseen hand that keeps the wrong people out, because a club is only as good as the people it rejects.
Their hero is the insider who needs nothing from the public. The set divides the world into people who perform for the crowd and people who are simply known by the right few hundred. The hero stands in the second group. He has arrived to the point where he no longer hustles, no longer posts, no longer explains himself. He walks into the bungalow and the room registers him without a word. The aspiration is a kind of weightlessness, fame without exposure, power without the camera. Klein himself is a minor hero of this story, the host who understands them, the man who designed the cage that protects them and made it feel like a home.
The status games are quiet, and the quietness is the point. The first game is admission. To be a member is the move, and members let it be known in the soft ways, a casual mention, a guest brought through the door. The second game is the guest. You may bring people in, and whom you bring signals your standing, so the invitation becomes a small act of patronage. The third game is recognition inside the walls, who greets whom, who sits where, which table the staff treat as the center. Because phones are banned and no record leaves the room, the games run on memory and presence rather than posts, which suits people who have learned that the internet is a threat. There is also the meta-game of seeming not to care, the studied ease of the man who acts as though the club is merely convenient, when his membership cost him real effort to obtain.
Now the shoulds. The set holds that privacy is a right that scales with importance, that serious people doing serious work deserve a space free of surveillance and free of the public’s claims on them. They hold that exclusion is not cruelty but curation, that a room improves as you remove people, and that the committee performs a service by saying no. They hold that the public square has grown coarse and dangerous, full of cameras and grievance, and that the answer is retreat into private rooms among one’s own kind. This last claim feels defensive and reasonable from the inside, and it doubles as a justification for sealing themselves off from everyone below them. They would say they are protecting the work and the family. They are also building a wall.
The essentialist claims sit beneath the décor. The set believes that some people are simply of the world and most are not, that belonging is a quality a man either carries or lacks, legible on sight to those who share it. The committee runs on this faith. It does not score applicants on a rubric. It feels whether a person fits, which assumes that fit is a real and detectable essence rather than a verdict the powerful invent and then discover. They believe taste is inborn and uneven, that the capacity to appreciate the low light and the unmarked door separates the members from the people who would want flash and a velvet rope. And they hold a quiet belief that their own prominence is deserved, that the talent and judgment which earned them the picture business also earn them the bungalow, so the club becomes proof of an order that was already true. The comfort of SVB is the comfort of confirmation. You walk in, the door closes behind you, and the room tells you that you are the kind of man who was always meant to be inside it.

Posted in Los Angeles | Comments Off on The San Vicente Bungalows Set

The Ted Sarandos Set

Posted on May 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

Ted Sarandos (b. 1964) sits at a junction that did not exist thirty years ago. He runs a technology company that makes movies, and he married into Hollywood royalty when he wed Nicole Avant (b. 1968), daughter of the music executive Clarence Avant (1931-2023), the man they called the Black Godfather. That marriage tells you most of what you need to know about the set. It joins old entertainment money and civil-rights-era Black power brokerage to new streaming capital. Sarandos came up renting tapes at a video store in Phoenix. He now holds a CBE from King Charles and a seat on the board of the Academy Museum. The arc from clerk to knighted mogul is the story the set tells about itself, and it likes the story very much.
What do these people value? Taste, first. They believe they can tell good from bad, and they believe their judgment carries moral weight. A man who greenlights the right show feels he has done something for the culture, not just for the quarter. They value reach next. The Netflix line about enabling nearly the whole planet to watch at once is a religious statement dressed as a metrics report. To touch a billion people is the dream, and the dream flatters them as benefactors rather than merchants. They value access to power, and they trade in it. The set overlaps heavily with the Obama-era donor class, with the Aspen Institute fellowship circuit, with the philanthropy galas where studio chiefs and senators and museum trustees rotate through the same rooms. Sarandos hosted fundraisers. He sits where money, art, and politics meet, and he treats that seat as earned.
Their hero is the visionary operator. Not the artist alone, and not the suit alone, but the man who combines them. Reed Hastings (b. 1960) built the myth of the founder who disrupts an industry through nerve and culture, and Sarandos is the content man who proved the founder right by betting on House of Cards in 2013 when the town said streaming could not make prestige television. The heroic act in this world is the early, lonely, correct call. You saw what others missed. You backed it with capital. You were vindicated by scale. When Sarandos walked away from the $83 billion Warner Bros. bid this year and pocketed a breakup fee, he framed it as discipline, as the strength to set ego aside. That framing is itself a hero pose. The man who can walk away is stronger than the man who must win.
The status games run on a few currencies. Hits are the obvious one, but a single hit means less than a slate, because a slate proves you have a method and not just luck. Awards matter, and the set craves them, because awards convert commerce into legitimacy. Netflix spent years and fortunes chasing the Best Picture Oscar partly to buy entrance into a room that old Hollywood guarded. Proximity to talent is a currency. To be the executive a great director trusts, to be the one auteurs call, raises a man above the spreadsheet class. Philanthropy and board seats form another tier. A trusteeship at the museum, a fellowship at Aspen, a gala chairmanship, these certify that you have crossed from making money to stewarding culture. And political access sits at the top, because a man who can get a president on the phone has reached a height that no box office number alone confers.
Now the normative claims, the shoulds these people press on the world. They hold that storytelling shapes society and that broad, inclusive storytelling makes society better. The streamer should put more faces and more nations on the screen, and doing so reads as justice, not just market expansion into new subscriber territories. They hold that the gatekeepers of the old system were narrow and exclusionary and that the new platform democratizes who gets seen. They hold that the consumer should be served, and they invoke the consumer as a moral authority. Sarandos said this month that you do not run in the opposite direction of the American consumer, and he meant it as common sense and as ethics at once. Give people what they want, and you serve them. The claim hides the harder truth that giving people what they want and shaping what they want are the same act when you control the menu.
The essentialist claims sit underneath. The set believes some men simply have taste and most do not, that the gift to know what will land is real and rare and roughly inborn. They believe the creative and the commercial are not opposites but can be fused in the right kind of man, and they believe they are that kind. They hold an essentialist faith in the audience too, a sense that human beings everywhere share a hunger for story, that narrative is part of what a person is, which is why a show from Korea or Spain can travel the globe. This faith is sincere and it is also convenient, because it makes a worldwide subscriber business feel like the fulfillment of human nature rather than the conquest of attention. And they believe in disruption as a kind of natural law, that the old forms were destined to fall and the new ones destined to rise, which lets the winners read their victory as the working out of something deeper than their own ambition.
The set is generous, cosmopolitan, and convinced of its own decency. The harder thing to hold in view is that taste, reach, and stewardship are also the tools by which a handful of men decide what hundreds of millions of people watch tonight, and that the language of service and inclusion makes that power easier to hold and harder to question.

Posted in Netflix | Comments Off on The Ted Sarandos Set

The City of Private Rooms

Posted on May 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

Los Angeles in 2026 holds a set of overlapping prestige worlds, each with its own gatekeepers, its own real estate, its own theory of why its members deserve the room. The most powerful figures sit in several of these worlds at once. What follows maps the leading cliques, the feuds running between and inside them, and where the pressure points seem to lead.

The discretionary salon elite

The closest thing the city has to a governing salon gathers around San Vicente Bungalows, the Bird Streets Club, Soho House West Hollywood, The Aster, and Little Beach House Malibu. Jeff Klein built the template. His insight was that the scarce luxury for famous people is no longer visibility but controlled invisibility. The no-phone rule at San Vicente is a doctrine. Serious men do not live in public. Privacy becomes the aristocratic good, and oversharing becomes a class tell.
The membership runs through Steven Spielberg (b. 1946), David Geffen (b. 1943), Bob Iger (b. 1951), Ted Sarandos (b. 1964), Bryan Lourd (b. 1960), Ari Emanuel (b. 1961), Dana Walden (b. 1964), Bela Bajaria (b. 1968), Jimmy Iovine (b. 1953), Scooter Braun (b. 1981), Tom Ford (b. 1961), Leonardo DiCaprio (b. 1974), Gwyneth Paltrow (b. 1972), Larry David (b. 1947), and a long tail of attorneys, financiers, and founders who never trend. Spielberg holds the center as the figure of permanence with dignity. Geffen is the patriarch who fused entertainment, money, and philanthropy into one identity. Emanuel is the kinetic opposite. The status game runs on the right seat at the right dinner, not on followers. The claim this class makes is that civilization needs curators, and that taste is close to a biological gift.

The traditional entertainment command structure

The agencies still broker the city. CAA, WME, and UTA link talent, capital, sport, fashion, and politics. The studio map still matters, though it is about to be redrawn. Key figures: Bryan Lourd, Kevin Huvane (b. 1958), Richard Lovett (b. 1959), Ari Emanuel, Patrick Whitesell (b. 1965), Kathleen Kennedy (b. 1953), Donna Langley, Michael De Luca (b. 1965), Pamela Abdy, and the lawyers Skip Brittenham (1942-2025) and Ken Ziffren (b. 1940), who often outweigh the stars they represent. Michael Ovitz (b. 1946) remains the myth of relationship power before platforms broke it. The restaurants, Tower Bar, the Polo Lounge, Giorgio Baldi, Funke, Craig’s, Nobu Malibu, Sunset Tower, work as governance chambers because Los Angeles has no K Street and no financial district to concentrate the deal.
The single largest fact reshaping this world arrived this spring. Paramount Skydance, run by David Ellison (b. 1983) and backstopped by his father Larry Ellison (b. 1944), won shareholder approval in April 2026 for a roughly $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, with the deal expected to close in the third quarter of 2026. Netflix had agreed in December to buy Warner’s studio and streaming assets, then walked away in late February rather than match Paramount’s higher all-cash bid. David Zaslav (b. 1960), who had planned to run a split-off Warner Bros. streaming-and-studios company, instead hands the studio to the Ellisons. So the command structure now has a new sovereign house, and the older agency aristocracy must decide whether to court it or resist it.

The Beverly Hills Persian Jewish network

Among the strongest and least discussed systems is the Persian Jewish network across Beverly Hills, Bel Air, and the luxury commercial corridors. The Nazarians, Yadegars, and Mahboubis, plus a dense web of developers, lenders, and jewelers, hold large positions in Southern California property. Sam Nazarian (b. 1975) bridges that world into global hospitality. Brokers move between entertainment money and international capital: Aaron Kirman, Mauricio Umansky (b. 1970), Josh Altman (b. 1979), Matt Altman, Sally Forster Jones, and Jason Oppenheim (b. 1977). The founding story centers on exile after 1979 and disciplined rebuilding. The admired man converts instability into a dynasty. Status runs through ownership, not exposure. Quiet liquidity carries the prestige. This clique often sees itself as the group that bought the land under the spectacle while the spectacle takes the credit.

The gallery, museum, and art fair complex

Blue-chip galleries turn raw money into cultural standing. Gagosian, Regen Projects, Hauser & Wirth, Pace, David Kordansky, and Jeffrey Deitch Projects link billionaires, sovereign wealth, and museum boards. Larry Gagosian (b. 1945) is the purest broker of the type. Jeffrey Deitch (b. 1952) fuses downtown experiment with institutional weight. Add Marc Glimcher (b. 1964) of Pace, Maurice Marciano (b. 1948), Mera and Don Rubell, Michael Govan (b. 1963) at LACMA, and the long shadow of Eli Broad (1933-2021). Frieze Los Angeles plugged the city into the global circuit of collectors and Gulf and Asian capital. For one week the city becomes a floating archipelago of money and curation. The claim here is the most candid of any clique: that aesthetic judgment marks a refined minority, and that art holds off commercial flattening.

The tech founder and creator economy clique

Venice, Playa Vista, Santa Monica, and parts of West Hollywood host founders, venture capital, influencers, and AI entrepreneurs. Evan Spiegel (b. 1990) made the city a real tech capital with Snap. David Ellison’s Skydance marries computation to production, and now to a major studio. Patrick Schwarzenegger (b. 1993) and Maria Shriver (b. 1955) push wellness venture culture through MOSH. The creator side runs through MrBeast (b. 1998), Emma Chamberlain (b. 2001), Logan Paul (b. 1995), and a generation that skipped studio gatekeeping. The admired man scales a personality into infrastructure and removes the middleman. Status runs on metrics: subscribers, valuations, retention, IP ownership. The claim is that distribution democratizes opportunity, and that legacy institutions move too slowly to deserve their rents.

The Brentwood-Palisades institutional liberal elite

Around Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, and Hancock Park sits the philanthropic and policy class that inherited the moral authority of the old liberal establishment. Laurene Powell Jobs (b. 1963), Casey Wasserman (b. 1974), Rick Caruso (b. 1959), Getty and Hammer trustees, RAND affiliates, and UCLA and USC board members anchor it. Wealth alone fails to confer standing here. It must become a museum, an endowed chair, a school, a foundation. The self-image is enlightened stewardship, and the claim is technocratic: a fragmented society needs trained managers to hold it together. The Palisades fire of January 2025 sharpened the politics of this corner of the map, since many of these homes and the civic argument about rebuilding run straight through it.

The elite educational matrix

The prep schools may be the most decisive sorting system the city has. Harvard-Westlake, Brentwood School, Crossroads, Marlborough, Archer, Buckley, Campbell Hall, and Viewpoint feed elite reproduction across entertainment, finance, medicine, law, and tech. Admission signals entry into the network. The friendships made there often outrank the later Ivy League line on a résumé. The status games run through varsity sport, admissions consulting, trustee influence, and college placement. The stated claim is meritocratic cultivation. The unstated one is that talent clusters inside certain families.

The Kardashian-Jenner brand empire

Kris Jenner (b. 1955) built the prototype for scalable parasocial capitalism, and Kim Kardashian (b. 1980) industrialized personality. The family showed that intimacy, conflict, motherhood, and grievance could all become vertically integrated property. The reach runs past celebrity into beauty commerce, social monetization, and the governance of influence. The admired figure converts personal narrative into an economic structure, and Kris functions as the matriarch-strategist. Status runs on brand launches, controlled disclosures, and visibility calibrated to avoid burnout. The claim is that self-construction frees a person, and that charisma is a rare innate gift.

The wellness and longevity aristocracy

Malibu, Topanga, Venice, and Beverly Hills host a bio-optimization class organized around longevity science, hormones, psychedelics, and boutique medicine. It overlaps with Erewhon culture, supplement empires, and Silicon Beach capital. Peter Attia (b. 1973) and the discourse adjacent to Andrew Huberman (b. 1975) set the register. Aging becomes a management failure, and dysregulation becomes a sign of weak discipline. Status runs on invitation-only retreats, testing protocols, and curated routines. The claim is that industrial life poisons the body, and that a disciplined elite can transcend the common decline through information and self-mastery. I will note that several of the most-followed names in this world push claims that run ahead of the evidence.

The crypto and sovereign capital network

A quieter formation links Bird Streets compounds, Malibu estates, Gulf and Asian family offices, crypto founders, and private aviation. For these men the city works as a luxury neutral zone rather than a civic home. The hero is the hyper-mobile investor who moves billions across borders while staying socially invisible. The claim is that states weaken while private capital becomes the only stable order.

The feuds and faultlines

No figure draws more fear and fascination than Ari Emanuel. His career runs on conflict, and the fictional Ari Gold sealed the legend. For years Patrick Whitesell played the calm diplomatic counterweight at Endeavor, and the fracture of that partnership after the Silver Lake move marked a real elite rupture. The deeper quarrel sets old relationship Hollywood against the financialized platform version Emanuel built across UFC, WWE, betting, and live events.
CAA against WME runs as an argument over what legitimacy should look like. Bryan Lourd projects discretion, museum trusteeship, and dynastic calm. Emanuel projects acquisition and confrontation. CAA reads WME as vulgar. WME reads CAA as passive and over-cautious. The Writers Guild battles over packaging poured fuel on this, since the agencies started to look like private-equity shops rather than advocates.
Zaslav stands as the figure creative Hollywood loves to hate. He spoke in metrics, leverage, and debt, canceled finished films for tax reasons, and shattered the romance that let the town justify its wealth as cultural stewardship. The hostility ran close to theological. Now the irony lands hard: the man cast as the liquidator delivers the century-old studio to the Ellisons, and the resentment may transfer to the new owners or soften into nostalgia for the devil they knew.
The streaming wars bred their own blood feuds. Ted Sarandos empowered creators and broke theatrical prestige, backend pay, and syndication at the same time. Traditional executives still read Netflix culture as data-driven barbarism in progressive dress. The recent twist sharpens this: Netflix chased Warner, then walked, and the studio it wanted went to a rival. Sarandos and Greg Peters (b. 1975) now run the largest pure streamer with a cleaner balance sheet and no Warner debt, while Paramount Skydance swallows the very assets they bid on.
Old Hollywood against the creator economy stays a permanent faultline. The studios still treat YouTubers and podcasters as illegitimate while envying their audience ownership. The creators crave prestige validation while mocking studio bloat. The Joe Rogan (b. 1967) corridor of heterodox media, Theo Von (b. 1980), and the Substack intellectuals positions itself against legacy media and the universities, and each side reads the other as a fraud.
The art world runs vicious feuds under a polished surface. Gagosian, Hauser & Wirth, Pace, and David Zwirner (b. 1964) fight over who defines cultural legitimacy, while curatorial purists accuse the mega-galleries of turning art into a luxury asset class. Downtown artists resent the financial colonization of the Arts District.
Tech and sovereign capital collide with civic Los Angeles over housing, transit, schools, and homelessness. Founders read city governance as a corrupt patronage racket. The civic class reads the founders as extractionists who want private sovereignty without obligation.
Rick Caruso sits at his own crossroads of real estate, philanthropy, policing politics, and centrist management. Critics see privatized urbanism in his secured retail compounds. Supporters see one of the few competent civic actors in a faltering municipal order. The fire recovery and another possible mayoral run keep him at the center of the argument over whether the city should be more public or more privately managed.
The school wars produce the most emotional feuds of all, because they touch dynastic continuity rather than a single deal. Parents who appear cordial wage quiet war over placement, trustee seats, and friend-group engineering. Even wellness has split into hostile tribes over vaccines, psychedelics, hormones, and Ozempic, sorting elite dinner tables the way party politics once did.

Where this might lead

The Paramount Skydance takeover of Warner concentrates studio power in a single allied house at the moment streaming consolidates around a few survivors. That points toward fewer buyers, harder terms for talent, and a fresh round of agency repositioning as CAA, WME, and UTA court the Ellisons. The creative class that hated Zaslav might find the new ownership less sentimental, not more, since the financing leans on tens of billions in debt and a parent backed by a tech fortune with its own AI ambitions.
The tech and AI money keeps annexing entertainment from below and above, through Skydance on one end and the creator platforms on the other. The studios might end as content arms inside larger computational firms, which would shift real power west and offshore, toward Venice founders and Gulf and Asian capital, and away from Burbank.
The civic faultline looks most volatile. Fire recovery, the housing fight, the homelessness argument, and the run-up to the 2028 Olympics force a choice between a publicly governed city and a privately managed one. Caruso-style urbanism gains ground each time municipal capacity fails, which means the archipelago of private clubs, private schools, private terminals, and gated compounds keeps extending while common civic space thins.
The school and dynasty system remains the quiet engine under all of it, since it reproduces the network regardless of which studio wins or which app survives. The names on the marquee change. The families in the front rows of Harvard-Westlake graduations change far less. If you want the long-run map of power in this city, watch the admissions lists and the trustee rolls, not the box office.

The Parties

The highest-status parties in Los Angeles manage proximity, hierarchy, liquidity, secrecy, and trust. The city no longer runs prestige through public spectacle. The old Hollywood myth ran on glamour anyone could see: premieres on Hollywood Boulevard, packed rooms on the Sunset Strip, paparazzi outside Chateau Marmont, the velvet rope at Hyde. That world survives in thin form for tourists, influencers, and entertainment press. The apex system now runs through invitation-only rooms built to strip out unpredictability and exposure.
The parties that matter are almost never ticketed. They happen inside gated compounds in Trousdale Estates, private clubs in West Hollywood, architectural houses in Malibu, hidden dining rooms in Beverly Hills hotels, museum courtyards after midnight, or salons assembled for one night and gone by morning. Phones go into pouches. Guest lists stay small. Security resembles a diplomatic summit. The best gatherings leave no trace online. A new architecture of controlled intimacy has emerged. The upper tier turns on rooms where billionaires, studio heads, sovereign-wealth intermediaries, celebrity founders, elite attorneys, museum trustees, AI entrepreneurs, fashion executives, luxury brokers, and A-list talent meet without surveillance. Privacy is the highest luxury good in Hollywood. The prestige economy runs on invisibility.
At the center stands Guy Oseary’s (b. 1972) Oscars-night after-afterparty with Madonna (b. 1958), known to insiders as The Party. Few gatherings carry comparable mythology. Oseary hosts it at his Coldwater Canyon estate, and it starts only after the official machinery of the night exhausts itself. Guests pass through the Governors Ball, the Vanity Fair party, Netflix suites, Disney events, agency dinners, and brand installations. Then, between two and three in the morning, the migration begins. Cars climb into the hills. Publicists fall away. Wardrobes change. Security tightens. The inner circle reconvenes.
Attending Oseary’s gathering signals that a man has crossed past ordinary visibility into the deeper bloodstream of the entertainment aristocracy. Recent guests have included Demi Moore (b. 1962), Adrien Brody (b. 1973), Nicole Kidman (b. 1967), Emma Stone (b. 1988), Zoë Kravitz (b. 1988), Kim Kardashian, Leonardo DiCaprio, Katy Perry (b. 1984), Jeff Bezos (b. 1964), tech founders, luxury executives, athletes, and political figures whose presence stays off the record. Oseary is the new archetype of Los Angeles power, the invisible orchestrator. His weight comes not from a face on screen but from his reach across music, technology, venture capital, luxury branding, and celebrity management at once. His long management of Madonna gave him entrée across several generations of global fame. His investments tied him into Silicon Valley founders and billionaire capital. The mood at The Party mixes decompression with recalibration. Awards-season tension dissolves into an exhausted aristocratic release. Few deals get signed. Alliances deepen, resentments soften, introductions happen, and the informal order becomes visible for a few hours. Hollywood gathers to take its own measure.
If Oseary’s night is the annual coronation, the year-round sovereign ground belongs to San Vicente Bungalows and its creator Jeff Klein. Klein saw the paradox of the social-media era. As exposure rose, elite intimacy grew almost impossible. San Vicente answers as a protected habitat for high-status people worn down by permanent visibility. The no-phone rule is strict and famous. Photography is taboo. A leak is a catastrophe. The club is a place where A-list figures relax without performing. Members include Bob Iger, Ted Sarandos, David Geffen, Jennifer Aniston (b. 1969), Larry David, Bryan Lourd, Ari Emanuel, Gwyneth Paltrow, Tom Ford, Rihanna (b. 1988), and a rotating cast of actors, producers, investors, lawyers, founders, and foreign elites.
San Vicente draws its power from texture rather than spectacle. Tropical gardens, hidden paths, screening rooms, low-lit bungalows, and small dining spaces build a room of quiet exclusivity. Deals unfold over dinner. Actors sit with billionaires and museum trustees. Venture capitalists drift between producers and fashion executives. The choreography looks accidental and is not. The status game here runs hot because it looks understated. Membership marks entry into the current elite. To host a dinner there raises a man further. To become the member who brings the guests everyone wants raises him further still. The ideal figure looks unhurried and sophisticated while holding extraordinary connections. San Vicente has become the city’s central convergence node. Traditional Hollywood, Silicon Beach founders, fashion, museum patrons, sovereign-capital intermediaries, real-estate dynasties, and wellness entrepreneurs overlap there. It works as an unofficial embassy for the city’s scattered aristocracies.
Next to it sits the newer world of the Bird Streets Club and the h.wood Group, built by John Terzian and Brian Toll. Bird Streets is the younger, more kinetic, nightlife branch of the same anti-public logic. Taylor Swift (b. 1989) and Travis Kelce (b. 1989) sightings, Leonardo DiCaprio appearances, athlete entourages, influencer billionaires, and creator-economy stars feed its myth because the documentation stays thin. Bird Streets breaks from Sunset Strip nightlife because it is built around scarcity. The less visible the night, the more attendance is worth. The club marks the merger of Hollywood celebrity with social-media prestige. Presence counts most when no one can verify it. The crowd skews younger than San Vicente. Athletes, musicians, YouTubers, crypto founders, and luxury-brand executives mix with actors and studio men. Under the looseness sits hard stratification. Table placement, booth adjacency, arrival time, security, and who introduces whom all signal rank.
Darren Dzienciol’s awards-season parties at James Goldstein’s Sheats-Goldstein Residence form another branch. The house, designed by John Lautner (1911-1994), is a defining architectural symbol of the city, concrete geometry suspended over the canyon lights like a private citadel. Dzienciol draws a younger glamour set than the old studio dinners: models, musicians, athletes, fashion executives, influencers, European aristocrats, luxury operators, and entertainment figures outside the old institutions. The exclusivity comes partly from spatial compression. The lists stay small against the property’s fame. The result is a temporary micro-world where everyone present knows almost no one else in the city can get in. DJs play beside the infinity pool above the lights. Architectural lighting turns the house into a film set. Open bars, luxury sponsors, and designer installations build the air of immersive privilege. Even these nights hold hidden layers. The most photographed guests often stand in the outer zones while the deeper talk happens elsewhere inside, among financiers, sovereign-wealth intermediaries, sports-management executives, and media investors. This nested order now defines elite nightlife. The visible room rarely holds the important conversation.
The Vanity Fair Oscar Party stays the city’s most iconic public-facing gathering, shaped now by global editorial director Mark Guiducci. This year it changed character along with its address. The party moved from its longtime home next to the Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts in Beverly Hills to LACMA’s new David Geffen Galleries for the March 15, 2026 event. Guiducci also cut the guest list and barred outside media, where reporters from other outlets had been allowed inside to observe in past years. Every major nominee, winner, executive, fashion figure, and luxury advertiser still passes through. The role has shifted. Vanity Fair is the visible ceremonial face of a deeper private system. The red carpet matters worldwide because it makes images for the public. Among insiders the party works as a transit point between public glamour and private circulation. High-status guests stay briefly, then climb to the restricted rooms in the hills.
Past the branded institutions lies the frontier: nomadic micro-salons and secret dining societies. These have no permanent venue, no membership, no public identity. Luxury concierges, private chefs, estate managers, venture intermediaries, art-world connectors, and social secretaries arrange them. The locations move: empty Bel Air trophy homes, hidden rooms in Sunset Tower, Malibu estates, Trousdale compounds, listings waiting for a buyer. A list might hold twelve or fourteen names. No sponsors. No posts afterward. Sometimes no written list at all. The logic minimizes exposure and raises trust density. These dinners draw the highest-status guests because they strip away the last institutional visibility of even the elite clubs. The people there hold enough power that formal membership feels like clutter.
What drives all of this forward is the pursuit of class symmetry. Elite Los Angeles engineers frictionless rooms where everyone has passed parallel filters: elite schooling, social fluency, similar wealth bands, calibrated taste, shared references, reputational vetting. The aim is efficiency. No one explains a reference. No one brings unpredictable conflict. No one threatens contamination. Everyone speaks the same social language by instinct. This has reshaped the map of the city. Los Angeles runs as an archipelago of private prestige zones linked by chauffeured mobility. A modern elite Angeleno moves from a Venice AI salon to a San Vicente dinner to a Trousdale afterparty to a Malibu recovery estate without touching public Los Angeles. The old dream factory ran on aspiration and visibility. Elite Los Angeles now runs on invisibility. The highest-status party in the city is the one whose existence is hardest to verify.

Posted in Beverly Hills, Hollywood, Los Angeles | Comments Off on The City of Private Rooms

The Rival Courts of Washington

Posted on May 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

Washington in 2026 holds power in one place and legitimacy in none. The city keeps the agencies, the courts, the Capitol, the embassies, and the money, but the old idea that a single governing class sits above the parties and tends the republic has gone. What remains is a set of rival courts, each with its own patrons, its own prestige economy, its own sacred words, and its own claim to speak for the American state. A portrait, then, court by court.
The national-security institutionalists hold the residue of the postwar establishment. They descend from the world of Henry Kissinger (1923-2023) and George Shultz (1920-2021), and they still gather in Kalorama drawing rooms, at the Council on Foreign Relations, and at Aspen. Their living figures argue for alliance management, deterrence, and slow institutional continuity: Robert Kagan (b. 1958), Anne Applebaum (b. 1964), Fareed Zakaria (b. 1964), David Ignatius (b. 1950), David Brooks (b. 1961), and the Biden-era operators now in think-tank exile, Jake Sullivan (b. 1976), Antony Blinken (b. 1962), and Victoria Nuland (b. 1961). Sally Quinn (b. 1941) survives as the curator of the Georgetown memory. This court once owned the gate. It set who counted. It has lost the gate, and it knows it, which gives its members a tone of elegy that younger rivals smell and despise.
The populist-national right is the court that captured the executive and most enjoys its capture. Its older Republican fathers, Dick Cheney (1941-2025), Karl Rove (b. 1950), Paul Wolfowitz (b. 1943), Richard Perle (b. 1941), and Bill Kristol (b. 1952), have been expelled or buried, and the new men define themselves against them. J.D. Vance (b. 1984) sits at the center as the figure who joins venture money, Catholic post-liberal thought, and online combat in one career. Around him move the donors and impresarios: Donald Trump Jr. (b. 1977), Omeed Malik and the Executive Branch club, Peter Thiel (b. 1967), David Sacks (b. 1972), Chamath Palihapitiya (b. 1976), and Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss (b. 1981). The intellectual wing runs from Michael Anton (b. 1969) through Curtis Yarvin (b. 1973), Sohrab Ahmari (b. 1985), Yoram Hazony, Christopher Rufo, and Patrick Deneen (b. 1964). The operational wing, the men who hold actual offices and write actual orders, includes Stephen Miller (b. 1985), Russ Vought (b. 1976), and Susie Wiles. Heritage, under Kevin Roberts, supplied the staffing blueprint through Project 2025, and Charlie Kirk and Turning Point feed the youth pipeline. The court’s atmosphere is masculine, fast, contemptuous of credential, and fluent in the grammar of social media. It does not want a seat at the old table. It wants the table.
The progressive-managerial class is the populist right’s mirror, and the two define each other. It runs on foundation money from George Soros (b. 1930), Reid Hoffman (b. 1967), Laurene Powell Jobs (b. 1963), Pierre Omidyar (b. 1967), and the Open Philanthropy and Dustin Moskovitz orbit, and it staffs the Center for American Progress, Brookings, New America, and a wide nonprofit archipelago. Its hero is the credentialed reformer who marries managerial skill to moral language. Pete Buttigieg (b. 1982) is the type’s purest specimen. Around him stand Neera Tanden (b. 1970), Jen Psaki (b. 1978), Ezra Klein (b. 1984), Anand Giridharadas (b. 1981), Kara Swisher (b. 1962), and Anne-Marie Slaughter (b. 1958). Its words are democracy protection, inclusion, resilience, equity, and disinformation. Its credentials are the Ivy degree, the foundation board, the fellowship, and the TED stage. Out of power in the executive, it has retreated into philanthropy, litigation, and the universities, where it remains dense and well funded.
The AI and defense-technology court has risen fastest and may already weigh more than any of the others. Its geography lies less in Georgetown than in McLean, Tysons Corner, Palo Alto, and Austin, and in the classified rooms scattered through Northern Virginia. Its firms, Palantir, Anduril, OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX, and Scale, now sit inside the national-security state rather than beside it. Its men present intelligence as a moral rank: Sam Altman (b. 1985), Dario Amodei (b. 1983), Alex Karp (b. 1967), Marc Andreessen (b. 1971), Ben Horowitz (b. 1966), Palmer Luckey (b. 1992), Eric Schmidt (b. 1955), and Mira Murati (b. 1988). Elon Musk (b. 1971) straddles this court and the populist right and answers to neither. The court treats artificial intelligence as the strategic ground of the century, which folds its commerce, its philosophy, and its lobbying into one project. It speaks of deterrence, compute, supply chains, and civilizational risk in the same breath, and it has learned to make senators feel slow.
The conservative legal movement is the most disciplined court in the city. Leonard Leo (b. 1965) anchors the donor system, the Federalist Society anchors the network, and the federal bench anchors the prize. Its members circulate through the elite law schools, the clerkships, the Catholic intellectual institutions, and the donor retreats, and they have moved from reforming the administrative state to dismantling it. Clarence Thomas (b. 1948) and Samuel Alito (b. 1950) supply the jurisprudence. Adrian Vermeule (b. 1968) and Patrick Deneen (b. 1964) supply the post-liberal theory. John Eastman (b. 1960), Harmeet Dhillon, Ed Whelan, and the litigators at America First Legal supply the combat, and they treat the injunction and the procedural challenge as instruments of permanent administrative war. Stephen Miller’s outfit feeds the same current.
The progressive legal world answers in kind. Marc Elias (b. 1969) built an election-law machine, Democracy Docket turned litigation into a continuous campaign, and the American Civil Liberties Union and a row of impact-litigation shops treat the courtroom as the front that survived the loss of the executive. Norm Eisen and the assorted accountability outfits belong here too. Both legal courts have abandoned the older fiction that judges merely interpret. They fight, and they say so.
K Street persists beneath all of it, indifferent to the wars above. Ballard Partners, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, BGR, Akin Gump, and the successors to Patton Boggs sell access and survive every transition. Brian Ballard’s proximity to the current administration made his firm the clearinghouse of the hour, much as other firms held that place under earlier rulers. The lobbyist’s hero is the operator who keeps his lines open through any turnover. He prizes stamina, discretion, and a calculated vagueness, and he wants operational continuity, not purity. He translates between courts that no longer speak to one another, and he profits exactly because they do not.
Several smaller courts deserve names. The crypto lobby, organized around Coinbase and Brian Armstrong and flush after a friendly turn in policy, now funds campaigns at a scale that buys deference in both parties. The foreign-policy restrainers at the Quincy Institute, and the libertarians at Cato and Niskanen, occupy a thin but articulate middle that both major coalitions ignore until they need a vote. The Never-Trump remnant at The Bulwark, Sarah Longwell and Charlie Sykes among them, holds an audience without holding any office. The new-media center of gravity sits outside the District entirely, with Joe Rogan (b. 1967), Tucker Carlson (b. 1969), Megyn Kelly (b. 1970), Ben Shapiro (b. 1984), Bari Weiss (b. 1984), Matt Taibbi (b. 1970), Glenn Greenwald (b. 1967), and the Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball axis, each commanding more direct reach than most editorial boards and most senators. A figure now rises by owning an audience rather than by climbing an institution, and Washington has reorganized itself around that change in the route to power.
The geography maps the courts. Kalorama and Georgetown keep the diplomats and the legacy press. Tysons Corner and McLean hold the defense-tech corridor and the intelligence veterans. Capitol Hill and Alexandria fill with nationalist staffers, podcasters, and the insurgent-right donor set. The Wharf and Navy Yard draw the younger progressive-managerial workers tied to the nonprofits and the agencies. Each quarter carries a separate moral air, and the men in one rarely dine with the men in another.
The single fact that organizes all of this is not polarization. It is multiplication. Washington no longer has an establishment. It has rival establishments, each certain it deserves to be the establishment, each arriving in power with its own staffing system, its own donors, its own legal theory, its own technologists, and its own moral vocabulary. A transition now looks less like an alternation than an occupation. The capital still governs the country. It no longer agrees on what governing means, or on who may say.

The fault lines do not run between the parties. They run inside each court and between courts that nominally share a flag. The bitterest fights of 2026 are family fights, and family fights are always the worst.
The Iran war split the populist coalition down the middle. On February 28, 2026, the United States joined Israel in major strikes on Iran, and Trump announced the start of major combat operations. Tucker Carlson condemned the joint attack as disgusting and evil and went further, branding the campaign Israel’s war and calling Trump a slave to Netanyahu’s ambitions. This is no longer a podcast disagreement. It is the central feud of the year, restrainer against hawk, and it has set Carlson, the America First isolationist wing, and a younger nationalist readership against the administration that they helped install. The hawks answer with the old vocabulary of deterrence and credibility, the men around the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Israel-aligned donor class, and the talk-radio enforcers led by Mark Levin (b. 1957). Vance sits in the worst seat in the house, bound by office to a war his own intellectual coalition treats as betrayal. The fight matters because it reruns the Iraq argument that defined an earlier generation, except now the antiwar voice comes from the right and carries an audience of millions. The restrainers think the hawks captured the president. The hawks think the restrainers flirt with treason. Neither side forgives.
The second great fracture splits the tech court from the nativist base, and it broke open over immigration. The H-1B quarrel of late 2024 set the Silicon Valley faction, Elon Musk, David Sacks, Vivek Ramaswamy, against the restrictionist core of the movement, Steve Bannon (b. 1953) and Laura Loomer foremost. The engineers want skilled foreign labor and global talent. The nativists want the border sealed and the wage floor raised, and they regard the founders as opportunists who bought a seat in a movement they do not believe in. Bannon has called the tech men a hostile occupation of the right. The feud never fully closed. It only went quiet, waiting for the next flashpoint, and the men on each side hold each other in contempt that no shared enemy quite erases.
The Trump and Musk rupture. The two broke in June 2025 over the spending bill Musk called an abomination, traded insults across Truth Social and X through the summer, and then made peace. By May 2026 Musk rode aboard Air Force One to Beijing, a sign that the pair had made amends. The reconciliation is real, but the episode taught both courts a lesson about how fast an alliance of convenience can detonate, and the scar tissue remains.
Now the legal court, where the bitterest feud carries the most consequence for the structure of the state. Trump has turned on the men who built his judiciary. He called Leonard Leo a sleazebag and blamed the Federalist Society for bad advice on judicial nominations, after a panel that included his own appointee struck down his tariffs. He accused Leo of bragging that he controls judges and even Supreme Court justices. The attack opened a rebellion. A MAGA legal faction led by Mike Davis and his Article III Project now pushes a loyalty test for judges, advancing nominees like Emil Bove, and treats the old Federalist Society network as a spent and disloyal establishment. The originalists who spent forty years building a bench answer that loyalty to a man is not law. Leo himself declined to fight back and praised Trump’s record on the courts, which only confirmed the insurgents’ charge that the old guard bends to keep its access. Beneath this runs a deeper theory war, the common-good constitutionalists around Adrian Vermeule and the post-liberals around Patrick Deneen against the proceduralist originalists who still believe the text restrains the ruler. One side wants the judiciary as a weapon. The other wants it as a wall. They no longer pretend to want the same thing.
The AI court has its own civil war, and it tracks a real division about danger. The accelerationists, Marc Andreessen and David Sacks among them, treat fear of artificial intelligence as a racket that regulators and rival firms use to slow the leader and capture the field. The safety faction, centered on Dario Amodei and Anthropic, argues that the technology carries civilizational risk and needs guardrails. Sacks, holding a White House technology portfolio, has attacked the safety camp as self-interested doom merchants seeking regulatory moats, and Amodei’s warnings draw open scorn from the men who want no brake at all. The firms fight commercially at the same time, OpenAI against Anthropic against Musk’s xAI against the cluster of defense-AI shops, so the philosophical quarrel and the market quarrel feed each other. The court that presents intelligence as moral rank cannot agree on whether its own creation is salvation or threat.
The Democratic side fights its own war of recrimination, quieter because it holds no executive power, no less bitter for that. The managerial-abundance liberals, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson and their readers, blame the activist left and its language for the 2024 defeat and want the party to deliver housing, energy, and competence rather than slogans. The populist left, Bernie Sanders (b. 1941), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the insurgents drawn to figures like Zohran Mamdani, blame corporate capture and timidity and want confrontation. The party’s internal fights, including the ouster of David Hogg from a Democratic National Committee post, are skirmishes in this larger argument over who lost and why. The foundation donors who fund the managerial wing and the small-dollar base that funds the populists pull the party in opposite directions, and each faction privately thinks the other is the reason they lost.
The media war pits the new audience-owned operators against the legacy press they have hollowed out, and it turned strange when the Free Press and Bari Weiss moved inside CBS News through the Paramount deal, which set the old network journalists against a new editor they regard as an ideological import. And the Never-Trump remnant, The Bulwark and Sarah Longwell and Charlie Sykes, wages a war it cannot win against a movement that treats it as a museum of the defeated, made sharper by the death of Dick Cheney, whose late turn toward the Democrats and whose daughter Liz completed the expulsion of the old Republican establishment from the party it once ran.

The Iran war already leans toward the bad column. Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz, the national average for gas has reached $4.56, the highest in four years, and military analysts describe Iran as more resilient than anticipated, with the Hormuz closure disrupting world trade. A ceasefire mediated by Pakistan and a possible deal are in play, but nothing is settled. So the maps below are not symmetric bets. The downside is closer to the present than the upside. 
If the war goes badly, prolonged, bloody, Hormuz still strangled, oil high, American casualties mounting, no clean victory, the restrainers win the future of the right. Tucker Carlson becomes a prophet. The man who called it Israel’s war and named Trump a slave to Netanyahu (b. 1949) gets to say he told them, and the America First antiwar wing inherits the movement’s energy. The old Iraq argument returns, except now the antiwar voice comes from the right and owns a mass audience. Thomas Massie (b. 1971) and the libertarian-leaning skeptics gain standing. The hawks lose everything they staked: the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Mark Levin, Lindsey Graham (b. 1955), Ted Cruz (b. 1970), and the Israel-aligned donor class find themselves holding the bag that Wolfowitz and Perle held twenty years ago.
The national-security institutionalists and the Never-Trump remnant get a sour vindication. They can say reckless populism produced a quagmire, and the realists at the Quincy Institute and the libertarians at Cato gain a hearing they have lacked for years. They win the argument without winning power, which is the establishment’s familiar fate.
The progressive-managerial court wins the most in plain political terms. A failed war damages the administration before the 2026 midterms and hands Democrats an issue they did not have. The litigation wing gains real traction, because many experts argue the war is illegal under US law, a claim the administration rejects, and Marc Elias and the accountability lawyers turn that claim into a weapon. Trump himself loses, and the populist-right establishment in power loses with him. Vance loses if he stays tied to the war and survives only if he finds daylight, which the office makes hard.  
The defense-tech court is the hedge that wins either way. A long war means more contracts, more drones, more targeting software, so Palantir, Anduril, and the AI-defense cluster, Alex Karp and Palmer Luckey foremost, profit even from a war that goes badly for everyone else. The only thing that hurts them is a public backlash severe enough to turn the country against the whole project, and that takes a deep and visible failure.
If the war ends successfully, a fast and decisive outcome, the nuclear program ended, Hormuz reopened, oil normalized, Khamenei already gone and no slide into occupation, the map flips. The hawks win total vindication. Levin, Graham, Cruz, the FDD, and the donor class who pushed the strikes get to say force worked where talk failed, and Netanyahu collects the credit abroad. Trump wins biggest. A foreign-policy triumph launders the legality question, drowns the antiwar critique, and might carry the populist-right establishment through the midterms on a victory rally. Vance wins by loyalty, having stayed in the boat that reached shore.
Carlson and the restrainers lose hardest in this scenario. The man who called it evil and called the president a slave watches the war end in success, and his prophecy becomes the thing his enemies quote back at him. The antiwar right goes quiet, at least for a season, and the Quincy and Cato skeptics lose the hearing a failure might have bought them. Democrats lose an issue. The illegality lawyers find their case moot, because victory pardons procedure in the public mind even when it should not.
The defense-tech court wins here too, and wins cleaner. A quick victory credited to American technology proves the thesis that engineering decides modern war. Palantir and Anduril become national champions, the founders move from contractors to statesmen, and the money and the prestige both rise. The institutionalists, by contrast, gain nothing from a clean win. A Trump-led victory shows the populists can wage and win a war without the old foreign-policy class, which might push Kissinger‘s heirs further toward the museum.

The Filtration Rooms: Washington’s Highest-Status Parties in 2026

The best parties in Washington no longer put the governing class on display. They sort it. A great party in the capital now does the work that the old civic spectacles pretended to do and never did. It decides who belongs inside a trusted network, who can hear a sensitive thing without repeating it, who stands close enough to money and power to be worth knowing, and who carries enough standing to cross between rival camps without setting off alarms. The guest list does the governing. Glamour is incidental.
A party counts now when the list is short and chosen, when several centers of power sit in one room at once, when nothing leaks to a phone in real time, when financial, political, technological, and media people overlap, and when the invitation itself reads as a stamp of legitimacy. The old society prized being seen. The new society prizes insulation, and the shift tells you most of what changed about the city.
At the top sits Executive Branch, the clubhouse of the Trump court. It opened in a Georgetown space in 2025 and bills itself as a club for the MAGA elite. Donald Trump Jr. owns it with Omeed Malik, with Chris Buskirk of 1789 Capital, a Vance ally, and with Alex and Zach Witkoff, the sons of Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. Founding membership ran half a million dollars, and a later tier opens at a hundred fifty thousand with fifteen thousand in annual dues. The point of the price is the filter. The club bans phones and keeps reporters and unknown lobbyists out, a rule its founders state plainly. David Sacks (b. 1972) described the older Washington clubs as stuffy and Bush-era and pitched this one as the Trump-aligned answer.
What gives the room its weight is the concentration of regime-adjacent people inside it. At the opening, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang (b. 1963), the investor Keith Rabois (b. 1969), the Jets owner Woody Johnson (b. 1947), and Mehmet Oz (b. 1960) moved through alongside the crypto and AI czar David Sacks, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (b. 1961), Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (b. 1962), Attorney General Pam Bondi (b. 1965), the health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (b. 1954), and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem (b. 1971). Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss and Chamath Palihapitiya hold founding cards. The kitchen serves a menu approved by the administration’s health camp, beef tallow in place of seed oils, and former Navy SEALs run security; one guest called the night a Gilded Age experience. The club draws its prestige from a kind of chosen invisibility. The man who matters is the one who gets in, brings a guest, and keeps his mouth shut afterward.
Against this new court stands the old order’s surviving monarch, Tammy Haddad, whose White House Correspondents’ Garden Brunch remains the single most integrative event in the city. The 2026 brunch was the thirty-second, held at the Beall-Washington House in Georgetown on the Saturday of correspondents’ weekend. Haddad runs it with a steady ring of connectors, Kevin Sheekey, Mark and Sally Ein, David Urban, Franco Nuschese, and Jon Banner. These are not ideologues. They are brokers, and their value lies in staging controlled collisions among tribes that no longer dine together. The brunch survives because it still does what the factional rooms cannot. It mixes media owners, cabinet officials, billionaires, diplomats, generals, Hollywood faces, tech chiefs, lobbyists, reporters, and donors in one garden for two hours, and an invitation still signals arrival. This year a line formed around Governor Gavin Newsom (b. 1967) at the brunch, and Van Jones (b. 1968) and David Urban handed out the Garden Brunch award, the small rituals of a court that refuses to die. 
The Georgetown and Kalorama dinner circuit is the purest survival of the old aristocracy. These gatherings happen inside historic homes owned by financiers, ambassadors, media chiefs, and donors, and the aesthetic runs anti-flashy on purpose: candlelit gardens, a private chef, inherited rooms, a curated cellar, low light, no cameras, a short list. What separates them from New York or Los Angeles is the worship of institutional power over celebrity. The guests are senators, intelligence veterans, Supreme Court litigators, NATO officials, Silicon Valley founders, think-tank presidents, and donors. David Ignatius (b. 1950), Fareed Zakaria (b. 1964), Robert Kagan (b. 1958), Anne Applebaum (b. 1964), Michèle Flournoy (b. 1960), and ambassadors from Gulf, European, and Indo-Pacific posts circulate through these rooms. The aim is strategic intimacy, the chance to test an alliance over wine before risking it in daylight.
Embassy parties hold their weight because diplomacy is one of the last neutral grounds where rival American camps still mix. The British, French, Australian, Irish, Swiss, and Gulf missions all host through correspondents’ weekend and across the year. Yet embassy culture has split. The European receptions keep the older cosmopolitan ideal of bipartisan coexistence. The Gulf receptions have turned into sovereign-wealth networking, where political access meets infrastructure money, AI financing, defense procurement, and energy strategy in the same handshake. In some of those rooms the most courted man is not an elected official at all but an investment manager who can move billions into a technology or defense partnership.
Correspondents’ weekend remains the social Super Bowl because it compresses every ecosystem into one stretch of geography for a few days, and the 2026 edition carried more charge than any in a decade. Trump attended the dinner for the first time as president after boycotting it through his earlier years, and the association replaced the comedian with the mentalist Oz Pearlman after dropping last year’s headliner under pressure from Trump allies. The satellite parties show how media and talent firms now manufacture the social reality they once merely covered. Puck threw a penthouse pre-party on the Hepburn rooftop, the Journal and ABC and the Washington Post held their receptions inside the Hilton, and Politico‘s event with CBS News featured Bari Weiss (b. 1984), the network’s new chief. Substack, Semafor, Puck, and Status staged their own rooms, UTA hosted the night before, CAA and Vanity Fair shared an evening, and MS NOW ran dueling afterparties with NBC News. Corporate money followed, with Boeing, Amazon, and Meta backing events. The strangest entrant captured the new overlap of capital culture with internet culture. Grindr, the dating app, threw a Georgetown party of its own, a hyper-mediated nightlife scene a long way from a candlelit Kalorama dinner, and the contrast itself maps the fracture of elite Washington into separate prestige languages.
Beneath the new court runs a more internationalized luxury layer. Ned’s Club opened steps from the White House earlier in the cycle, modeled on the Soho House idea, and it draws younger administration aides, tech-policy hands, founders, luxury-brand executives, and globally mobile financiers. Its look is polished and cosmopolitan rather than ideological, the merger of political power with hospitality branding.
The real hierarchy inside all these rooms is quiet. Fame counts for less than density of connection. A little-known donor with a line to sovereign capital outranks a cable celebrity. A Supreme Court clerk on the right trajectory draws more attention than an actor. Seating charts carry weight. Who arrives with whom carries weight. The status game is read by people fluent in a grammar outsiders never see.
The deepest change under the canapés is the collapse of ecumenical confidence. The older society assumed that rivals still belonged to one governing civilization and could be trusted to behave like it. That assumption is gone. Today’s parties sort people into fortified camps and reproduce trust inside them. The most in-demand room is no longer the largest or the most glamorous. It is the room where valuable people relax their guard, where talk stays off the record, where several kinds of power meet at once, and where a future alliance can be tried out without risk. Washington throws these parties to govern a ruling class that no longer trusts itself.

Posted in America, Washington D.C. | Comments Off on The Rival Courts of Washington