House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Chairman Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) announced this week the launch of a congressional investigation into South Korea's discriminatory targeting of American technology companies and issued a subpoena to Coupang, Inc. for documents, communications, and testimony.

This investigation represents an important escalation in Washington's pushback against non-tariff attacks (NTAs) on American technology companies. Unlike tariffs or conventional trade barriers that limit market access, NTAs erode the global competitiveness of American technology firms through regulatory fines, digital services taxes, forced localization requirements, restrictions on business practices, and other operational constraints. They are framed as legitimate domestic policies, but their function is to weaken American technology leadership.

Why This Investigation Matters

Korean authorities have long subjected Coupang to a series of regulatory actions including aggressive enforcement actions, escalating penalties, and threats to restrict the company’s operations. This is not an isolated case. The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) has a well-documented pattern of disproportionately targeting U.S. tech firms, including Google and Qualcomm.

Most recently, Korean authorities have used a 2025 data breach (which Coupang says involved only approximately 3,000 accounts with no financial data compromised) as a pretext to mobilize over a dozen government agencies in what investors describe as a coordinated campaign to "bankrupt" an American competitor. Indeed, U.S. investors in Coupang have filed arbitration claims under the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and petitioned USTR to investigate under Section 301. And Vice President Vance recently raised the issue of unfair treatment of U.S. firms with South Korean Prime Minister Kim Min-seok, who reportedly urged regulators to pursue Coupang "with the same determination used to wipe out mafias."

The investigation also comes amid broader U.S.-Korea trade tensions. President Trump recently raised tariffs on South Korean goods from 15 percent to 25 percent, citing Seoul's failure to honor its trade commitments as part of the U.S.-Korea Strategic Trade and Investment Deal in November 2025, where South Korea explicitly committed to ensuring that U.S. companies "are not discriminated against and do not face unnecessary barriers" in digital services. All the while, the Korean National Assembly continues to push DMA-style platform regulations, including the misleadingly named "Fairness Act," that would grant regulators broad discretion to target American companies operating in Korea—including Coupang.

As the House Judiciary Committee's announcement notes, “[d]espite this trade agreement,” Korean regulators have subjected Coupang to "discriminatory treatment, unfair enforcement practices, and even the threat of criminal penalties." Specifically, authorities have threatened to suspend the company's operations, impose massive fines, and even arrest Harold Rogers, an American citizen serving as interim CEO of Coupang's Korean subsidiary.

A Pattern of Non-Tariff Attacks

These discriminatory actions against U.S. companies extend beyond South Korea. American tech companies have faced fines and penalties from non-tariff attacks totaling more than $30 billion globally over the past decade. In 2024 alone, the European Union imposed $6.7 billion in fines on American technology companies, an amount equivalent to nearly 20 percent of what the EU collected in tariff revenue. Over 80 percent of fines collected under the EU's GDPR have been issued against U.S. firms.

These measures share three defining characteristics. First, targeted application: enforcement actions disproportionately burden a narrow class of leading U.S. tech companies. Second, strategic intent to undermine competitiveness or extract exorbitant fines, forced infrastructure investments, or impose operational restrictions designed to weaken American firms' global competitiveness. Third, regulatory cover: legitimate-sounding policy rationales (e.g., competition law, data privacy, consumer protection) that provide plausible deniability while achieving discriminatory effects.

The economic toll of these attacks extends far beyond direct fines. The accumulated revenue loss from EU digital regulations alone could reach $2.2 trillion by 2030 across the five largest U.S. technology companies, translating into $325 billion in foregone R&D investment. That accounts for more than one-third of total U.S. annual R&D expenditures. When compliance costs divert tens of billions of dollars annually from research and development, the drag on American innovation capacity becomes clear.

These attacks also create openings for Chinese competitors. In markets where American firms face operational constraints or exclusion, Chinese state-backed enterprises expand unchallenged. China currently controls approximately 40 percent of global 5G infrastructure through Huawei and ZTE. And yet, the EU's Digital Markets Act designates only one Chinese service (ByteDance's TikTok) as a "gatekeeper" while capturing multiple services from each of the five largest U.S. companies, creating asymmetric regulatory burdens that advantage Chinese competitors.

Congressional Oversight Is Critical

The House Judiciary Committee's investigation sends an important signal: The U.S. government will not tolerate discriminatory attacks on American companies by trading partners, including close allies.

This kind of congressional oversight can serve multiple purposes. It formally documents the pattern of discriminatory enforcement that American companies face abroad. It elevates non-tariff attacks as a priority issue in trade negotiations. It supports the administration's use of trade enforcement tools, including Section 301 investigations. And it makes clear to trading partners that discriminatory measures will have consequences.

But a congressional investigation is only one piece of what needs to be a comprehensive response. The administration should systematically track and quantify NTA impacts, make digital barrier removal a binding priority in all trade negotiations, and launch Section 301 investigations not only against Korea but also against the EU's Digital Markets Act and discriminatory GDPR enforcement.

Most importantly, the United States needs to be ready to implement reciprocal measures with escalating consequences. Foreign governments must face a concrete response, not just the occasional scold or vain threat. The Coupang case is a test. How Washington responds will signal to trading partners around the world whether discriminatory attacks on American technology companies will be tolerated or confronted.