Big Tech Policy

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.

Foreign governments are systematically deploying policies that constitute non-tariff attacks (NTAs) on America’s leading technology companies. ITIF and other think tank scholars and policy experts urge the administration to put these unfair NTAs on the U.S. trade agenda and insist that America’s trading partners address them.

For Trump, it’s a new world and Korean President Lee Jae Myung and his administration needs to treat it as such by negotiating a new deal that preserves Korean market access to America in exchange for real concessions on what at the end of the day are relatively minor things for Korean economic competitiveness.

Lilla Nóra Kiss speaks on the legal and economic ramifications of the Digital Markets Act at the Università del Salento.

EU policymakers frame their legislative and regulatory actions against U.S. tech companies as measures to promote competition and protect consumers. But they operate as protectionist trade barriers and revenue-generating mechanisms.

The magnitude of the total fines against U.S. companies is extraordinary. To put the amount in perspective, it is roughly the same as the GDP of Fiji. It could cover the cost of sending five rovers to explore Mars. It would be enough to build two new football stadiums in Washington, DC. It could even pay for every household in America to buy six dozen eggs.

U.S. trade negotiations must go beyond tariffs to confront the growing trend of foreign governments targeting American tech companies with discriminatory regulations, taxes, and fines. These non-tariff attacks undermine U.S. innovation and global competitiveness and must be a central focus to protect America’s techno-economic leadership.

While U.S. antitrust enforcement is likely to shift under a second Trump administration, ongoing cases against Big Tech are expected to continue. Rather than doubling down on neo-Brandeisian antitrust, the Trump administration should use evidence-based policymaking that recognizes how firms evolve in response to incentives and market dynamics.

Vice President Vance was right to warn against stifling AI innovation with excessive regulation, but the Trump administration must go further by pushing back against policies like the EU’s Digital Markets Act and similar U.S. regulatory efforts that undermine American tech leadership. To maintain global competitiveness, the U.S. should support its leading tech companies, ensuring they have the scale and capital needed to drive AI and technological advancements, rather than subjecting them to restrictive regulations that benefit foreign competitors.

While the DMA may be motivated by Europe’s commitment to its long-held ordoliberal model of competition policy, its disproportionate effects on U.S. firms are intentional.