Big Tech Policy

Please join ITIF’s Aegis Project for an expert panel discussion with leaders from the Council on Global Competitiveness and Innovation (CGCI) and Shield Capital as we examine the vital role Big Tech plays in U.S. technology leadership and national security.

Korea now faces a clear choice between abandoning discriminatory policies disguised as domestic regulation or risking losing access to American semiconductors and advanced technologies on which its own tech sector depends.

The EU’s €376 million fine against Intel for decades-old conduct risks weakening a struggling Western chipmaker at a time when China is heavily investing to dominate the semiconductor industry.

The European Commission’s DMA action against Meta reveals a strategy of using data protection law principles to stretch competition rules beyond their intended scope—ultimately setting a compliance bar no gatekeeper can meet, infantilizing users, and selectively targeting successful integrated American platforms.

Space safety is an important and shared interest of governments, private industry, and consumers around the world. But a regulatory framework for it should be evidence-based and even-handed. If the EUSA proceeds, we can expect the same proliferation of copycat space regulations through the Brussels effect.

Policymakers seeking to rein in or break up market-leading tech firms should consider a more balanced approach that recognizes the crucial role they play in strengthening America in its intensifying economic and geopolitical competition with China.

After facing U.S. backlash over a bill modeled on the EU’s Digital Markets Act, South Korea appeared to pause its digital antitrust push. But rather than stepping back entirely, the government has shifted focus to the Online Platform Fairness Act, which may prove even more intrusive.

The Trump administration should push back against foreign governments enacting policies specifically tailored to undermine American tech companies and US leadership.

In its push for digital sovereignty, the European Commission is reportedly planning to replace Microsoft Azure with the French cloud provider OVHcloud or another European alternative. But this move, while politically symbolic, would be costly. Far from enhancing security, this migration would sacrifice sound procurement and EU legal obligations in service of a hollow vision of digital nationalism.

Policymakers must justify why they should be allowed to tax the major digital companies differently from the leading firms in other industries. This challenge explains why so much of the DST debate has centered around obscure and abstract notions of a company’s “physical presence” and whether the company’s users “create value.”