Tech Regulation and Investments in the United States – Antitrust, Semiconductors, and Section 230

Technology has been a central focal point in the United States, and it has increased in importance in recent years with technological progress. The United States hopes to be a leader in tech research, design, and manufacturing, and has offered many incentives for firms to develop in these capacities. Yet simultaneously, concerns have arisen over the market and political power held by a small number of Big Tech firms. Under the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) firmly enforced antitrust legislation, and Trump’s FTC nominees indicate a desire to continue strictness on tech monopolies. Debates over Section 230, which protects online platforms from liability for content published on these indicate a need for policy revision. President Trump has shown his distaste for the policy in the past, and in response the Department of Justice has proposed new additions to Section 230. Yet counterarguments claim that Section 230 allows for new companies to enter the market, as they are subject to less legislation. In goals of maintaining tech leadership, Trump’s administration announced new incentives to pursue AI advancements. Simultaneously, Taiwan’s TSMC, the largest semiconductor company in the world, announced an investment to build semiconductor manufacturing firms in the United States. This represents the focus on U.S. control over all aspects of technological production, from creation to manufacturing. Combined with tariffs on foreign imports from countries such as Mexico and Canada, these all represent a U.S. desire to take ownerships of value chains in technological sectors.

Big Tech Regulation

Antitrust Laws and Enforcment

The United States emerged as a leader in technological development, particularly through the rise of Silicon Valley, however now Big Tech has gained too much power. Under the Obama administrations, the federal government largely supported the tech sector, limiting regulation and investing in research and development (Pecequilo & Marzinotto, 2022). This was done through direct funding, such as through a 2009 stimulus package which included $100 billion in “financing and subsidies for the discovery, development and implementation of several technologies” (ibid). This government support allowed for the setup of the tech sector in the United States, benefiting firms and the U.S. alike. However years later, this limited regulation has created a digital oligopoly, in which the largest tech firms (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft) use “their market influence to eliminate competitors and to control the ‘digital public sphere’” (Pecequilo & Marzinotto, 2022).

Given the power held by Big Tech, antitrust regulation and enforcement have become frequent topics of discussion for policymakers. Antitrust laws serve to prevent monopolies and allow for free competition (Arguello & Lagnese, 2025).  Under the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) enacted strict enforcement measures for antitrust laws, and it appears that the Trump administration will continue this trend (Brown, 2025). Trump’s nominees for leadership roles in the FTC and DOJ’s Antitrust Division have been vocal critics of Big Tech’s power (ibid). The DOJ has previously successfully sued Google for “allegedly dominating online advertising technology markets” and currently has pending lawsuits against other large firms, showcasing a commitment to free competition in this space (Godoy, 2025). However, concerns have arisen over Tesla founder Elon Musk’s political power, as his desire to shrink the federal workforce may impede antitrust enforcement capabilities (ibid). Furthermore, though the DOJ and FTC have been active in targeting monopolies through antitrust, they have been less active in preventing mergers and acquisitions, and it is likely that focus will not be shifted to these under the Trump administration. Preventing mergers is a “ key anti-monopoly strategy” as it allows for the prevention of monopolies by tackling the problem at the root (Brown, 2025).

Section 230

Debates surrounding censorship and illegal activities on online platforms call for revisions of Section 230. As it stands, Section 230 serves as a protectant for online platforms, removing their legal responsibility for illegal or harmful content posted by their users. However, this means that platforms can allow their users to engage in these activities, and victims cannot seek legal action against platforms. Platforms are not only irresponsible for content posted; they also have the freedom to remove content as they see fit, leading to censorship concerns. Section 230(c)(2) states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of…any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected…” (Draper, 2022). Thus, platforms have the freedom to remove content their users without providing any justification other than referencing 230(c)(2). Under President Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, the U.S. Department of Justice proposed revisions to Section 230, mainly aimed as clarifying definitions, to shift responsibility onto online platforms for both content posted on these, and decisions made to take down content (U.S. Department of Justice). Given increased illegal activities on platforms, such as illicit substance sales, terrorism, and cyberstalking, the DOJ proposed to remove blanket immunity for such cases. This would incentivize platforms to remove such content, as well as allow victims to pursue legal action. Other proposed amendments to Section 230 target vague language used in Section 230(c)(2), such as replacing “otherwise objectionable” with “unlawful” and “promotes terrorism: (ibid). Platforms would, as a result, need to be more transparent in their reasoning for removing content. Though these revisions would allow for safer online platforms, increased regulation may increase the market entry costs for new platforms, which may not have the resources to keep track of all content posted by their users.

Artificial Intelligence

Stargate

As a global leader in artificial intelligence, the United States under Trump’s administration will focus on maintaining its position. Recently, Trump announced an investment of $500 billion from the private sector, which will go towards funding AI infrastructure (Holland, 2025). This project, called Stargate, is a joint venture between Softbank, OpenAI, and Oracle to create 20 new data centers in the United States. In 2024, Stargate was announced, and since then, construction has already begun on the first center in Texas. Trump estimates that Stargate will create around 20,000 new jobs in addition to boosting AI capacities in the United States. Yet, it is important to note the high amounts of energy required for AI; the U.S. power grid does not yet possess the capacity to support this energy use (Holland, 2025). The North American Electric Reliability Corporation states that rising energy consumption from these data centers (as well as from other initiatives in progress) will lead to “increased risk of power supply shortfalls in the next decade” (ibid). This necessitates investments into strengthening the U.S. power grid and increasing its capacity, in order to support the centers. 

AI Initiatives

Donald Trump has stated that, “Continued American leadership in Artificial Intelligence is of paramount importance to maintaining the economic and national security of the United States” (White House Archives, 2025). This leadership position is to be maintained through the combined efforts of industry, academia, and government” (ibid). The U.S. Department of State states that AI technologies can be used as a “force for good,” to create a safer world and promote human rights. Within the United States, AI can improve social well-being in its use in precision medication and education (U.S. Department of State). On Trump’s second day in office, he revoked Biden’s executive order on AI, which regulated AI to ensure its application was ethical and safe (Holland, 2025). Removing regulation will certainly allow for expedited advancements in AI, however these may come at the cost of safety and ethics. However, the U.S. State Department claims that the “United States is working to ensure AI technologies are developed responsibly,” indicating a will to regulate AI on some level (U.S. Department of State).

Semiconductors

As part of its goals to become an overall leader in technology, the Trump administration has brought semiconductor manufacturing to the United States in partnership with the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). Semiconductors are “necessary for essentially all modern technology”; almost 1 trillion semiconductors were sold globally in 2023 (U.S. 2024 Semiconductor Industry Report). This means enormous profits for nations with semiconductor manufacturing capabilities. Currently, the United States as well as other countries (e.g. Netherlands) lead in chip research and design (R&D), while Taiwan and other East Asian nations (e.g. China) lead in chip manufacturing (Goldberg et al., 2024). In 2022, the CHIPS and Science Act was passed under President Biden’s administration to increase U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. By August 2024, there was $450 billion in investments and 90 new manufacturing projects were starting, showcasing the success of the CHIPS Act (U.S. 2024 Semiconductor Industry Report). The recent announcement from TSMC of their $100 billion investment into the U.S. signals a continuation of the process to bring chip manufacturing to the U.S.. This investment will bring around 20,000-25,000 new jobs, Trump has said (KFDM Youtube, 2025). As tariffs enter into effect for countries exporting into the United States, it is predicted that many may move production to the U.S.; Honda, for example, may come to the U.S., Trump said in a recent announcement (ibid). The tariffs, coupled with efforts to develop a semiconductor production industry in the U.S., signal a shift in U.S. policy, as the nation aims to become a leader in manufacturing, securing itself from volatile global value chains.

Conclusions

Recent policy interventions indicate a desire for the United States to continue its focus on technology, both through its expansion (through AI initiatives) and its within-country regulation (antitrust and Section 230). Investments by the private sector in AI processing centers solidify the role of the United States as a global tech leader. Yet simultaneously, the Trump administration aims for strictness in the enforcement of antitrust laws, ensuring the Big Tech does not hold too much power, and that fair competition is promoted. In conversations on tech policy, regulation of online platforms through Section 230 has been a large bipartisan issue. The U.S. government seeks to modify Section 230 to ensure safer and lawful activities on platforms, while ensuring free speech for online platform users. The same cannot be said for Artificial Intelligence. The recent revocation of Biden’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which calls for ethical AI applications, showcases a U.S. desire to advance first, and regulate later. This will certainly be beneficial in allowing for rapid AI development with less regulation, however there may be ethical consequences. In its expansion of technological research and development, the Trump administration has also acted on goals to bring manufacturing processes to the U.S., through its investments in semiconductor manufacturing. This highlights a U.S. desire to not only be a leader in tech development, but also in manufacturing, creating national value chains which will remain unaffected by international affairs and tensions.