Trump’s Tech Governance: Making Sense of the Administration’s First 60 Days

In analyzing the Trump administration’s first 30 days, we unpacked efforts to weaken the federal government’s pillars of independent oversight, undermine institutions protecting consumers and their data, and access sensitive data across government without regard for privacy and security. Each of these efforts persists—as dramatically demonstrated by President Trump’s attempts to fire Democratic Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. These trends are also part of a dangerous new dynamic in tech governance. Large players in the private sector have long held influence in Washington, but a growing number of companies, investors, and other tech leaders are now directly aligning with governmental interests in a disconcerting reconfiguration. We need to fully recognize its impact.

The CEOs in the plum seats of President Trump’s inauguration were more than a symbolic reminder of the deepening alliance between Big Tech and this administration. The inauguration acknowledged the reality that the executive branch now picks winners and losers. Clear winners, like Starlink and SpaceX—both owned by tech executive Elon Musk—are winning new government contracts as federal agencies are gutted. In a long-running exchange of quid pro quos, Musk’s platform X has taken on a clearly pro-administration bent as he stumps in favor of its policies. For instance, he recently falsely claimed that widespread outages at X were the result of Ukrainian attacks. President Trump returned the favor, falsely claiming that consumer boycotts of Tesla are “illegal” and encouraging supporters to support the company. The attack on the FTC’s independence via the commissioner firings flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent and paves the way for the administration to pick winners and losers in overtly anticompetitive and consumer-unfriendly ways. (The firings prompted public condemnation from 25 civil society organizations, including OTI.)

Parts of the private sector are enjoying favored status, and tech companies in general may be heartened by the new administration’s deregulatory bent, especially on artificial intelligence (AI). But many companies are also motivated by the fear of what political disfavor could bring. Amazon CEO and The Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos’ decision to reshape the Post’s editorial page and limit critical coverage of his decisions are a prime example. Mark Zuckerberg’s moves at Meta to abandon third-party fact-checking and loosen the reins on content moderation are part of the company’s scramble to improve its political standing. Major tech players will continue to avoid the costs of political disfavor. Instead of serving as a counterweight to U.S. state power, many powerful tech companies appear cautious to the point of subservience.

The current dynamic between the private sector and our government is most dramatically visible in Elon Musk’s use of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to devastate federal agencies and hoover up Americans’ sensitive data. It is unprecedented to see a tech titan directing staff to gut federal agencies, calling for cuts to Social Security, and dominating Cabinet meetings.

But this phenomenon didn’t materialize out of thin air; the trend began well before last November’s presidential election. A long list of Silicon Valley investors were growing critical of the Biden administration’s attempts to regulate large tech companies and became frustrated by what they have characterized as a campaign to demonize them. Looking back over more than a decade, tech firms have been pouring money and time into federal and state lobbying. As Silicon Valley has augmented its ability to shape policymaking, some tech leaders have been focused not just on increased influence but also on remaking the political system in fundamentally undemocratic ways. These trends have at least played a role in setting up the dramatic scenes now unfolding.

Unlike lobbies of the past, titans in the tech industry control resources that can actively help the government consolidate its power. Big Pharma and Big Tobacco brought great financial resources to bear, but they do not control vast communications infrastructure, communications platforms, algorithms that shape content, large payment platforms, or huge e-commerce companies. And many of the Big Tech companies are no longer just lobbying; they are demonstrating an unprecedented willingness to act as appendages of the state. These resources are uniquely beneficial for an administration that finds it appealing to exercise unrestrained power, take control of modes of mass communication, and control the public narrative. What is unfolding is not public-private partnership in the public interest; it represents a public-private sector alignment against the public interest.

As always, OTI will continue to advance transparency, accountability, and fairness in tech policy. But these principles require continued commitment to the rule of law and functioning institutions across government. Congress must exercise its constitutional power to scrutinize executive branch policies and ensure government contracting and decision-making remain free from undue influence. So must the courts. And companies must resist becoming junior partners of the state in ways that undermine their independence, public trust in their technologies, and, ultimately, their bottom line.