Big tech’s massive encroachment upon the levers of state authority under US President Donald Trump is creating a dangerous new power structure — one not confined to its homeland. Trump’s threats against nations — US allies and adversaries alike — that dare to regulate their digital markets and communications systems are not merely a case of economic bullying, rather, they are an attempt to export this power structure, and undermine the rule of law and democratic governance worldwide.
For example, Washington’s European allies risk tariffs and retaliation for enforcing much-needed digital regulations, as do the UK and Brazil for imposing a digital-services tax, but these challenges also create strategic opportunities for democracies. If they collectively refuse to submit to US pressure, it is less likely that any one government would bear the brunt of retaliation. These nations must therefore unite against the technology giants that mine their citizens’ data, control key information and commercial infrastructure, and refuse to pay taxes or even acknowledge the jurisdiction of national governments.
Of course, defending national interests while fostering genuine innovation is a difficult balancing act, but the unprecedented alliance forged between big tech and the Trump administration underscores the urgency of this task. As head of Trump’s US Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, has gained access to government data systems, fired thousands of federal workers and taken aim at regulatory agencies. Musk has also used the US Federal Trade Commission as a cudgel against businesses that are reticent to advertise on his social media platform X, which he has turned into a megaphone for right-wing extremists, and a tool for disinformation and political interference.
Illustration: Mountain People
Musk is not the only technology boss to have bent the knee. When Mark Zuckerberg announced in January that Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, would end its fact-checking program, he repeated Trump’s talking points. More recently, Instagram concealed results when users searched for “Democrats,” and Facebook amplified posts from Trump and US Vice President J.D. Vance.
These are only the most prominent examples of how the world’s most powerful technology chief executives have aligned themselves with an authoritarian leader, shaping public discourse to his (and their own) benefit. When technology interests capture the US government to this extent, other nations must stand up to Trump’s threats to avert a global slide into techno-fascism.
Some will argue that by taking a strong regulatory stance, these nations risk losing access to technological innovation, but this fundamentally misreads the situation. Given the extraordinary protections and privileges they have secured at home, US technology giants do not need more favorable treatment from other nations. They need access to these nations’ markets. Advanced economies with skilled workforces, including the UK, Japan and those in Europe, are highly valuable, as are middle-income and emerging economies such as Brazil, Indonesia and India.
The revelation that China’s DeepSeek developed a large language model comparable to those of dominant American artificial intelligence firms at a fraction of the cost has underscored this point. It belies the narrative that only the biggest technology companies with the most advanced chips and the least restrictive regulatory environment can develop the best artificial intelligence, and shows that alternatives to the Silicon Valley model exist.
So far, Brazil is the only nation with the courage and conviction to challenge Musk (albeit before he joined the Trump administration). It is less clear whether Europe, which has recourse to its digital markets and artificial intelligence directives, would defend its right to regulate and rein in the “broligarchs’” power.
Because enforcing competition policy has implications beyond traditional market concerns, more nations should regulate digital services, focusing not just on market dominance, but also on a corporation’s ability to shape public discourse, control information flows and leverage data advantages to entrench its power. Allowing big tech to pursue unfettered artificial intelligence development that is environmentally and culturally destructive — or, worse, subsidizing such innovation — could pave the way for techno-fascism on a global scale.
Clear rules for protecting competition and intellectual property are far more likely to foster innovation than enabling dominant players to strengthen their monopoly power. For example, the EU General Data Protection Regulation has, despite initial resistance, become a global standard, spurring privacy-enhancing innovation and acting as a safeguard against corporate overreach, especially with regard to data mining.
Similarly, requiring credit and compensation for the use of copyrighted materials for artificial intelligence training is not just about protecting creative industries. It is about integrating the development of these transformative technologies into the fabric of our economies and societies, before a handful of US companies get a chance to “move fast and break things” — like democracy and the rule of law — that are not easily repaired.
Instead of accepting a false choice between innovation and regulation, the world’s democracies have an opportunity to create the conditions for genuine innovation, not imitation, and show how democratic oversight can enable technological progress while preserving fundamental rights, but this requires recognizing that technology policy has become integral to resisting authoritarian tendencies.
Such a stance is not anti-US. In fact, it reflects concerns about the fusion of big tech and political power in the US that many Americans share. That makes it all the more important for other governments to ensure that digital technologies serve democracy and protect human dignity.
Courtney C. Radsch, director of the center for journalism and liberty at the Open Markets Institute and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the author of Cyberactivism and Citizen Journalism in Egypt: Digital Dissidence and Political Change.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS