Standard large nuclear reactors won’t achieve scale or cost competitiveness with alternative energy sources. DOE should focus its resources on small modular reactors, which are a more promising technology with the potential to achieve price and performance parity.

China’s industrial strategy calls for gaining market share in e-commerce to expand its global influence, financial footprint, and ability to compete in AI. Policymakers should act now to avoid leaving U.S. platforms at a structural disadvantage and exposing U.S. consumers to harm.

Rather than adopt the European Union’s model for regulating competition, policymakers considering how to govern digital markets should carefully evaluate whether digital antitrust regulation is justified and consider whether concerns about anticompetitive behavior can be addressed with less intrusive and more cost-effective tools.

Follow-on biopharmaceutical innovations deliver substantial health and economic benefits by improving the safety and efficacy of existing therapies, addressing unmet patient needs, expanding therapeutic applications, and enhancing adherence. Supportive policies are essential to sustain progress and ensure broad access to these medical advances.

As the Trump administration seeks to rebalance America’s trade relationships, it should focus the most attention on countries where U.S. industries face the worst trade distortions and imbalances, and where the greatest gains can be achieved for the U.S. economy. China, India, and the European Union top that list.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) undermines innovation in small-molecule drugs by subjecting them to price controls after 9 years, whereas large-molecule drugs (biologics) are allowed 13 years of market pricing. Congress should pass the bipartisan EPIC Act to remedy this issue.

Now updated for 2025–2026, ITIF’s Tech Policy To-Do List is a knowledge base of nearly 140 actionable policy ideas for Congress, the administration, and regulatory agencies to spur innovation, growth, and U.S. global competitiveness.

South Korea stands at a crossroads as its restrictive “positive regulation” and “shadow regulations” stifle innovation in AI, crypto, and mobility tech, allowing China to race ahead. Korea must modernize this framework or risk losing its position as a global innovation leader.

This collaborative project between ITIF and Chey Institute for Advanced Studies compares and contrasts the national innovation systems of five economies—the United States, Korea, China, Japan, and Taiwan—to determine how well they are positioned to support innovation in key foundational and emerging technologies.

The U.S. government must adopt a clear-eyed view of China’s technology security strategy by recognizing China is temporarily lagging in some sectors, rapidly catching up in others, and already leading in many.

Opponents should argue 1) this beef with Canada and Mexico is trivial; 2) without allies, America will lose the war against China, period; and conversely 3) a key way to beat China is to develop a North American production system.

The Trump administration and Congress have a golden opportunity to put clean energy policy on a new, more viable track by adopting an innovation-based strategy to spur technologies that can compete with fossil fuels on both price and performance.

The administration should reform the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program to stop favoring overly expensive fiber when LEO satellites could do the same job for less. Taking a technology-neutral approach to broadband deployment would save money that could be better spent on other causes of the digital divide.

Congress should create a more targeted and durable Affordable Connectivity Program by aligning funding priorities with the remaining causes of the digital divide. By prioritizing affordability rather than deployment, the new program can connect low-income households without new federal spending.

China’s primary goal is to damage the U.S. economy and become the world’s pre-eminent power. America must respond by expanding its competitiveness in key technologies and industries ranging from AI to aerospace.

Mandatory labeling for AI-generated content, particularly through watermarking, is neither a reasonable nor effective solution to the issues policymakers seek to address. Rather than singling out AI-generated content, policymakers should prioritize building trust within the digital ecosystem as a whole.

Policymakers in South Korea are weighing a raft of digital market provisions inspired by the EU’s Digital Markets Act. Their goal is to rein in allegedly anticompetitive practices by Big Tech firms. But the proposed interventions are unwarranted and risk harming innovation, straining relations with the United States during uncertain times, and opening the door to China.

In most cases, local governments have neither the competence nor the economies of scale to deliver broadband as well as private ISPs. So, favoring government-owned networks wastes societal resources, creates unfair competition, and is frequently unsustainable in the long run.

Neo-Brandeisians aim to reinvigorate the Robinson-Patman Act to protect small businesses. But the act doesn’t address any anticompetitive conduct that isn’t already covered by the Sherman Act, and enforcing it will only harm consumers and limit growth. Rather than repeat history’s mistakes, the next Congress should repeal the act once and for all.

AI has the potential to transform drug development by enhancing productivity across the entire development pipeline, boosting biopharmaceutical innovation, accelerating the delivery of new therapies, and fostering competition to help improve public health outcomes.

In its bid for tech sovereignty, the EU has been aggressively targeting U.S. firms and industries with unfair protectionist policies. This cannot stand. To move forward into a new era of deeper transatlantic trade integration, America must first demand a level playing field.

There may be no more important question for the West’s competitive position in advanced industries than whether China is becoming a rival innovator. While the evidence suggests it hasn’t yet taken the overall lead, it has pulled ahead in certain areas, and in many others Chinese firms will likely equal or surpass Western firms within a decade or so.

Some conservatives have grievances with “Big Tech” companies and would marshal the power of government to punish them. But the policy proposals stemming from this conservative “techlash” would have significant costs for consumers, businesses, and the economy.

Digital IDs are a more convenient, secure, and versatile option than physical IDs, but few Americans currently have one. With the right investments and collaboration between federal and state governments, Americans could realize the full potential of digital IDs.

Protecting children from online harms requires a careful balance between ensuring safety and safeguarding free speech, user privacy, and parents’ rights. The most effective approach would split responsibility between the government, parents, and online services.

Some concerns are legitimate, but others are not. Some require immediate regulatory responses, but many do not. And a few require regulations addressing AI specifically, but most do not.

Congress has allocated $42.5 billion to bridge America’s digital divide through the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. To achieve that goal, states and territories must carefully craft plans to use their shares of the funds to the greatest possible benefit.

Technologies and tech companies are accused of creating a myriad of societal problems. Technology Fears and Scapegoats exposes them as mostly myths, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It issues a clarion call to restore the West’s faith in technological progress.