Is Venture Capital Becoming Political? Andreessen Horowitz, American Exceptionalism, and Europe
Source: Startup Insider – Original Episode (episode in German)
The Andreessen Horowitz fund announcement of $15 billion was not a routine funding announcement. It was a manifesto. In this episode I talk with Jan Thomas about what it means when a major VC fund adopts American Exceptionalism as its core thesis, why Europe has simply stopped featuring in this worldview, and what it means for founders, investors, and European technology policy.
Key themes in this episode
- A manifesto, not a funding announcement: Why Ben Horowitz's blog post goes far beyond capital market communication — and what it explicitly states
- American Exceptionalism as a VC thesis: How a $15 billion fund strategically links state interests and capital — and what that means for European founders
- Europe as a bystander: Why the continent no longer features in the American worldview — with China as the sole rival
- Which capital do I take?: How investor decisions send political signals — and why this is rarely discussed openly enough
- What Europe would need to do: Strengthen key industries, pick up pace, think European — without abandoning its own values
Transcript
This transcript has been edited for readability. The content and statements have not been changed. The original conversation was in German; this is an English translation.
Jan Thomas: Björn, hi, great to have you.
Björn Rieckhoff: Hi Jan, likewise.
Jan Thomas: We've already discussed this topic with Daniel Höpfner and Henrik Kühnert, but you said you couldn't help but come back to it — from a different angle. What's this about?
Björn Rieckhoff: It's about the Andreessen Horowitz fund announcement — $15 billion across several funds. But I didn't read it as a funding announcement. I read it as an ideological document, practically a manifesto. And against that backdrop I wanted to talk about what's actually happening in the US venture capital scene right now. I think it's important, given the current political situation, that we become aware of the dynamics involved — and of the gravitational force behind them. $15 billion represents roughly 18 percent of all venture capital investments in the United States. I looked it up: over the same period, European funds raised a combined total of around 8 billion euros. That's a different order of magnitude. It's approaching the GDP of individual nations.
Jan Thomas: That is remarkable. Though money alone is only half the story — we saw SoftBank, Tiger Global, massive capital, a lot of poor investments. Capital doesn't predetermine outcomes. But as a concentration of power, it's significant.
Björn Rieckhoff: Absolutely. And that's exactly the bridge I want to build: what's actually behind this announcement, what was communicated? We can link the Ben Horowitz blog post in the show notes — I'd like to take it apart and examine the thinking. Because it goes far beyond standard capital market communication.
The only sentence that actually sounds like a funding announcement is the first one: we raised over $15 billion. After that, it stops. You'd normally expect: here's how we invest, here are our theses, our focus areas. Instead, the text shifts into moral-philosophical territory. It begins with a broadly shareable value — that a good society should give every individual a chance, regardless of ethnicity or background. Hard to disagree with. But then comes the ideological demarcation against communist societies — which is to be expected from an American fund. Fair enough.
But then comes the real core of the post: American Exceptionalism is defined as the central thesis. The United States is framed as the superior system for wealth creation. And crucially: this comes with a claim to legitimacy — the right to export this system. The blog post explicitly states that if America doesn't win, the world loses — economically, militarily, geopolitically, and culturally. That's the point where the hair stood up on the back of my neck. This is no longer a funding announcement. It's a political statement — from a fund that just raised $15 billion. That kind of elevation, that grandiosity, really bothers me. That's my personal view — listeners can agree or disagree.
Jan Thomas: I completely understand that. For context: Andreessen Horowitz is fairly close to Trump — they openly aligned themselves with the Trump administration in 2024, there are connections to Peter Thiel. But I'm going to consciously take the opposing position for a moment: if this were a European fund controlling roughly 20 percent of European venture capital and putting out the same statement — but saying "Europe must win" — would we really find that so objectionable?
Björn Rieckhoff: Probably not, and I'll grant you that. But I think the difference is that we wouldn't necessarily mean: if Europe doesn't win, the whole world is doomed. And that exact formulation is what's in the blog post. The world will lose — economically, militarily, geopolitically, and culturally. No line is drawn anywhere.
I think a self-referential perspective — we have our set of values, we need to strengthen them — is entirely right and important. And if we don't do that, others will do it for us, and we'll lose values that have historically meant a great deal to us. But the moment I want to impose my system on others, I'm crossing a line. That's what I find so problematic about this post.
Jan Thomas: I'm fully with you. And at the same time — there was that bizarre statement from Trump that he's no longer bound by international law, only by his own moral compass. Which is the one thing he most clearly lacks. You could actually argue: if we don't try to embed and internationalize European values, we risk watching everything we've built over the last hundred years crumble. I just watched the Lanz episode with Christian Miele — former chair of the German Startup Association — who went quite hard against the Berlin government. But ultimately: we simply can't catch up. We're completely dependent. And now here are the bullies from the US, making sure their lead gets exponentially secured.
Björn Rieckhoff: Yes, absolutely. And we need to be self-critical here: in the current state of things, Europe simply doesn't feature in these discussions. Not even in this funding announcement — the only rival mentioned is China. Maybe Russia geopolitically. Europe doesn't come up, because from the American perspective, we simply don't matter anymore.
And that's precisely why it's important that we understand what's happening. In Germany, people don't automatically read a funding round as a geopolitical signal. Elsewhere they very much do. What American Dynamism frames positively as innovation potential and national resilience is in reality an aggressive, strategic alignment between venture capital and state interests. At $15 billion, it is entirely legitimate to speak of state interests.
Jan Thomas: But isn't that also a good thing, Björn? Wouldn't we also want governments here in Europe to understand that venture capital is what secures tomorrow's innovation capacity?
Björn Rieckhoff: I would want that too. But in Europe — at least I hope this is still true — that comes with a different understanding: socially embedded innovation, technological sovereignty, and implicitly always a pluralist instinct. None of that is here. Pluralism isn't discussed at all in this post. It's about power and security interests that are systemic — and that extend far beyond capital markets.
Jan Thomas: The Lanz discussion basically went nowhere. Christian Miele hit the table a few times and apparently said something to the effect of: we're not even at the children's table in this discussion — we're the lunch. And no one had an answer. What would you do if you could? More capital through KfW directed at Germany's top ten funds?
Björn Rieckhoff: We've been having the same conversation for years: not enough follow-on capital in Europe, which is why tech companies eventually leave — they go to the US because that's where the bigger cheques are. Understandable from an individual founder's perspective.
But that's only the venture capital layer. What's worse is when companies get acquired — when a Meta or someone similar simply buys them away. And what was missed can't be reversed overnight. Initiatives like the Germany Fund are good and important — but they'll only bear fruit the day after tomorrow. The point is that we can no longer afford to nibble around the edges. We need to make the decisive, sometimes aggressive moves now to have any chance of playing a role tomorrow.
And it goes beyond capital allocation: a16z is also globally active — which means it represents American interests within Europe as well. Historically, that was never a problem; it was welcomed. I grew up in a world where following a certain American lead in technology was the default. But I would argue that in the future, American thinking within Europe will no longer be automatically viewed as a positive.
Jan Thomas: But the reality: Black Forest Labs, one of Germany's flagship AI startups — Andreessen Horowitz was there from day one, paving the way. And simultaneously, the painful reality: Aleph Alpha just laid off 17 percent of its staff. Three years ago they were being mentioned in the same breath as OpenAI. Everyone thought they were Germany's great hope. That became clear fairly quickly. There's now a vacuum. We keep looking at France, at Mistral, hoping they'll play some meaningful role.
Björn Rieckhoff: Yes. And as a side note: a16z is invested there too, I believe.
Jan Thomas: I didn't know that. Okay, that's wild.
Björn Rieckhoff: I think so, yes. And it's important to understand this from a founder's perspective: whoever sits on your cap table always comes with a certain directional pull. Historically that was implicit and only mildly political. I've had this conversation with founders many times — why did you choose investor A over B? It comes down to network, reputation, personal fit. But it is also — and this was very visible with Mistral and Aleph Alpha — a decision about what political signals you send. If European sovereignty is the goal, you probably can't take a Saudi sovereign wealth fund on board, or Andreessen Horowitz for that matter.
Jan Thomas: But isn't that then the founder's mistake? In the absence of alternatives?
Björn Rieckhoff: Exactly. That's the thing. If I need to keep my company running and I need to finance it, I have to weigh up: what matters more to me? Where is the money coming from? This is a conversation GPs have too — around human rights, around which investors they allow into their own funds. I can't blame a founder for taking the money from certain funds. I understand the reasoning. But it requires making an individual judgment about what you accept and what you don't. And that judgment is made far too rarely explicitly. We too seldom talk openly about the fact that founders, and GPs, should be doing this — and actually are, increasingly.
Jan Thomas: In the US right now you have this circle — Peter Thiel, Stephen Miller, the people around Trump — where you just think: if this is the new reality, this is a moral framework with which very few of us can identify as a model for the future. And I find myself wondering: what should Europe look like in ten years? What needs to change now? I don't see it. We're having debates about whether we should work one extra hour per week.
Björn Rieckhoff: You're completely right. And it would be naive to think the tech industry in Germany has no lobbyists — of course it does. But when you see how tightly Thiel, Musk, Andreessen, and Karp are now woven into the White House — and how casually Trump handles these alliances — this is a new tech establishment that has consciously positioned itself as an elite, while Trump campaigned on dismantling elites. The contradiction couldn't be sharper.
Jan Thomas: Lobbying itself isn't inherently bad. If you have the right goals and the right people are being heard, lobbying can actually work. I'd genuinely like to see someone like Verena Pausder or Christian Miele in the Chancellery once a week. But what's going through the press right now is a proposed VAT cut for print publications. I wonder whether the message has landed that this is a declining industry, and that even making it cheaper doesn't change that. We're losing ourselves in the wrong places.
Björn Rieckhoff: Completely. What's missing is a target image: here are our problems — the pension gap, the ageing workforce, the structural shift in the automotive industry. Elon Musk says — setting aside everything else one might think about him — correctly that the problem in the Western world will not be overpopulation but labour scarcity. That's a reality we share. We need to name it, build a plan, and work towards that plan. Not stumble from one month to the next.
What's happening in America right now, visible through the Musk example, is that entrepreneurs are going deep into politics. But running a state like a company is problematic, because the incentives are fundamentally different. What's the central goal of a CEO in capitalism? Shareholder value maximisation. Apply that logic to a nation and you end up back in Manchester capitalism. We all eventually recognised that wasn't a good idea — which is why we built in social safeguards. That instinct is, I believe, still clearly anchored in Europe: the rule of law, individual freedom, social embeddedness. The American version — deregulate, scale fast — has its advantages. But I don't believe that if we simply play the game by American rules, the future will be socially sustainable.
Jan Thomas: No state ultimately functions without a functioning economy. Our cash cow was called the automotive industry and mechanical engineering for decades. That's now in trouble. The question is: what's the next cash cow in five or ten years? The world moves in phases. Germany hasn't collapsed yet. But if we don't set the right course now, it will be very difficult going forward. And then there's the other point: we'd love to push back against what Trump is currently fantasising about — Venezuela, Greenland, whatever comes next. But we're not in a position to. Cloud servers get switched off, digital infrastructure gets cut, and suddenly you realise you're so dependent that you can't even push back.
Björn Rieckhoff: And that happens. When I look at statements about Venezuela — and we're now genuinely deep in politics — I think: just give your opinion. But it's almost as if no one in Europe dares to openly say: no, I disagree. It does us good to say that, and to stand up for our values. I also believe there are many key industries where Germany plays a very strong role — robotics above all. The important thing is to strengthen those industries properly, not with token amounts, but at the right scale.
And here's something that often gets lost: Europe's venture capital industry as a whole is not that much smaller than the US one. While a16z represents roughly 18 percent of all US VC investment, Europe accounts for around 25 percent of global VC. We're not starting from nothing. We have excellent infrastructure, a good ecosystem. But we keep getting lost in slow-moving debates and regulatory minutiae — whether bottle caps need to stay attached, for instance. I understand the underlying concern. But can we please also talk about the real levers?
Jan Thomas: That would also be an important signal: we pause all secondary agenda items for six months and focus exclusively on what keeps Germany and Europe internationally competitive. You have to set the course. I wonder whether politicians like Philipp Amthor even grasp what a $15 billion a16z fund actually means. Maybe it doesn't register that this is, in effect, the R&D department of the future.
Björn Rieckhoff: Raising awareness, making the urgency tangible — that matters, and it has to reach politics. That's why we need stronger voices: whether that's Christian Miele on Lanz, or other tech entrepreneurs and investors. It's important that these competencies exist in parliament — to make certain urgencies visible.
And the problem isn't that people don't know. Many do. The question is execution. And here the point is: we can't think at the level of individual nations, with national subsidy programmes. That has to be Europe as a whole. Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria can't each do their own thing. Europe needs to apply leverage as a single entity.
Jan Thomas: Don't get me started on federalism. But I did find Karsten Wildberger — the new State Minister for Digitalisation and Modernisation — reasonably promising, precisely because he's a lateral entrant. He brings practical experience, which is exactly what you're describing. At the same time: the first Minister for Digitalisation arriving roughly 40 years after the invention of the internet. Maybe in 40 years we'll have a minister for AI. At some point you need to be able to move faster than the party conference allows.
Björn Rieckhoff: Right. And there's nothing wrong with things going sideways sometimes — you can correct course. If you spend forever deliberating over structure and never get to implementation, that's the real problem. It's the same as in company building: if you never actually bring the product to market and see how it performs, you'll never get real feedback. You just keep iterating internally. This has a lot to do with error culture. Politicians are allowed to make mistakes — as long as we keep moving forward. The aggregate will be more successes than failures, and we correct the failures.
Jan Thomas: To close, Björn: we live in a reality where venture capital is no longer neutral — it probably never was, but it is now very strongly coupled to state interests. At least elsewhere. Is venture capital a patriotic issue?
Björn Rieckhoff: What matters to me is that we talk openly about which topics get funded, why, and what the ethics behind it are. When a handful of people at a $15 billion fund are making the decisions, their value system plays an enormous role in determining the direction things go. We need to be conscious of that.
Jan Thomas: And that value system is going to wash over here. That's something we genuinely can't afford to forget. You can say all you like that you dislike Palantir and what it does with surveillance — but at some point it becomes the only option available.
Björn Rieckhoff: Exactly. Those who don't stand up for their values and speak up lose the ability to choose. I'd like to see people — in the startup scene as much as in politics — take clearer positions, be willing to create friction, and understand that it's okay to have a different opinion and say so. Standing up for values that we hold, rightly, and that should matter to us.
Jan Thomas: Tough times. But we stay optimists — that's just who we are. We'll link in the show notes: the Ben Horowitz blog post, the Lanz episode with Christian Miele and Philipp Amthor, and the episode with Henrik Kühnert and Daniel Höpfner. Björn, thank you.
Björn Rieckhoff: Cheers!
About Björn Rieckhoff
Björn Rieckhoff is an independent advisor and business angel with nearly ten years of experience in early-stage venture capital. He helped build Cavalry Ventures as its first employee and later became a partner of the fund. Today he supports founders more directly with fundraising — sharpening their story, stress-testing business models, and setting up lean financing processes. With over 80 transactions and board seats from seed to Series B, he brings this perspective as a sparring partner for entrepreneurs.
About Startup Insider
Startup Insider is the industry portal for the startup scene in the DACH region. It covers news from all regions and industries, along with an overview of key players and events in the German-speaking startup world.