Trump’s Tech Governance: Making Sense of the First 100 Days

In the wake of the 2024 election results, the Open Technology Institute (OTI) has closely observed the direction of U.S. tech policy under a second Trump presidency. OTI is a program that envisions all Americans having access to technology and its benefits. Underlying this vision are principles of openness and privacy. We hoped this administration would continue to uphold some of the basic principles that have steered the open web for much of its lifespan—openness, security, and innovation.

As part of New America’s Technology and Democracy programs, we highlighted five key tech policy directions—not tailored to a particular political party but instead focused on advancing fundamental policies that ensure emerging technologies serve the public good. We urged the Trump administration to prioritize:

1. Responsible data use, privacy, and freedom of expression
2. Equitable internet access as the gateway to democracy, digital competition, and U.S. success
3. Advancing responsible use of AI and other emerging technologies
4. Tech that enables opportunity for all
5. Ensuring a secure and healthy public square

By our assessment, the first 100 days of the second Trump administration have not only failed to prioritize these policy directions but have also constituted an attack on the principles of openness, security, and innovation on which the internet was built. As scholars from across the political spectrum have noted, the defining theme of Trump’s first few months back in the Oval Office is a concerted effort to assert authoritarian control over government agencies, academic institutions, companies, and the press. The way the administration has used its power, data, and technology to cripple federal agencies; target vulnerable groups; and compel support from private actors, including large tech companies, is alarming.

Through OTI’s series on the Trump administration’s first 100 days, and in various complementary publications, we have tracked and spoken out about the use of data and technology in the backsliding of American democracy. As expected, the first weeks of this Trump presidency were filled with executive actions that repealed his predecessor’s policies. On the first day alone, he rescinded 78 of Biden’s executive orders, including EO 14110: “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI.” So far, President Trump has penned 139 executive orders to reduce the federal workforce and apparatus; eliminate commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion; and encourage rapid deregulation across industries. Within the tech governance ecosystem, these actions are a comprehensive attempt to exert authoritarian control in the following ways:

1. Stifling speech through government surveillance
2. Eliminating independent oversight
3. Courting industry allegiance

Stifling Speech Through Government Surveillance

In the first 30 days, OTI documented how the administration, through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has accessed and consolidated sensitive personal data from across government agencies to target vulnerable groups like immigrants and people whose political beliefs run contrary to the administration. Every administration seeks to maximize surveillance powers, but most post-Nixon surveillance efforts have at least purported to focus on international terrorism and foreign policy and have operated with some civilian oversight. By contrast, this administration repeatedly invokes the First Amendment and then uses domestic surveillance and censorship to suppress speech. On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” reduced federal government pressure on social media platforms to police content, and even encouraged investigations into officials or researchers who moderated content deemed to stifle conservative voices. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr has engaged in punitive investigations into media companies, privately and publicly funded, which they consider chilling expression because the companies either disagree with the president’s stances or promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The administration is also using social media monitoring and data from higher education institutions to target students who have participated in First Amendment-protected activities; attempting to access sensitive personal data provided for income tax purposes to enforce its immigration agenda; reviewing social media profiles upon entry into the United States; and mounting attacks on the media. These actions are undoubtedly designed to create fear, suppress speech, and stifle dissent.

Elimination of Independent Oversight

As part of a broad push to remove Democratic members and commissioners at independent agencies, the administration has dismantled critical oversight bodies and weakened the U.S. tech regulatory environment. What began with relatively obscure actions, like firing Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and leaving it without a quorum to take action, then progressed to firing all Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). We’ve noted that even dismantling agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has implications for technology, as the CFPB has been one of the few regulators to consistently protect consumer privacy. And while the FTC continues to pursue antitrust cases against three of the largest tech companies—Apple, Google, and Meta—we are left wondering how, simultaneously, the FCC will implement its content moderation agenda, which will pressure some of these same companies to privilege content favorable to the administration.

Courting Industry Allegiance

Civil society is deeply concerned over the crony capitalist, tributary-focused nature of this administration, especially as it relates to companies that control our access to the free flow of information. We have documented clear private sector winners, like Elon Musk’s Starlink and SpaceX, and how X and Musk amplify the administration’s messages. For instance, amid Trump’s attempt to negotiate a cease-fire between Ukraine and Russia—where Ukraine has been vilified—Musk amplified false claims that widespread outages at X were the result of Ukrainian attacks. Soon thereafter, President Trump returned the favor, claiming that consumer boycotts of Tesla are “illegal” and encouraged Americans to support the company.

The quid-pro-quo dynamic is not unique to Musk. During the previous Trump administration, Amazon lost high-profile contracts, for which it directly blamed the president. This time around, the company has reportedly made a series of overtures, including signing a $40 million deal to support a documentary from the first lady. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ decision to intervene in the Washington Post’s endorsement of Kamala Harris was also widely scrutinized, as it came on the heels of visits with then-candidate Trump. Most recently, President Trump reportedly pushed Bezos away from a stance that would display the extent to which tariffs changed the price of products on Amazon. As companies ingratiate themselves with this administration, we fear that policy stances are shifting to the detriment of privacy, security, and political freedom.

While OTI has championed responsible data use, privacy, and freedom of expression; equitable internet access; advancing responsible use of AI; and opportunity for all in a secure and healthy digital public square, the administration is decidedly steering the country in the opposite direction.

Imperiled Data Use, Privacy, and Freedom of Expression

The administration’s embrace of DOGE as a tool of centralized data collection and control suggests little interest in championing the privacy of Americans. With Senator Ted Cruz as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, there is little expectation for robust privacy legislation, much less FTC enforcement, which is something he has publicly opposed. On the national security front, those who were hopeful about the prospects of surveillance reform were heartened when the Director of National Intelligence acted decisively to push back against the United Kingdom’s attempts to access Americans’ encrypted communications. But these privacy-protective glimmers pale in comparison to the administration’s efforts to enhance its ability to surveil Americans in service of mass deportation, censorship, or other objectives fundamentally contrary to responsible data use, privacy, and freedom of expression.

Stalled Universal Internet Access

Any grand hopes that a second Trump presidency would build on previous investments and commitment to our nation’s digital infrastructure are now in limbo. This administration’s FCC has emphasized removing barriers for the private sector and promised to change or halt investments under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grants. While some changes, like improving the permitting process, could accelerate infrastructure deployment, they are also designed to lower the quality-of-service requirements so that a company like Starlink can expand rural coverage. The only new investments to date in this area come vis-à-vis project Stargate. Still, again, it’s unclear how this $500 billion initiative to boost data centers across the country will be operationalized and funded and, better yet, how it will serve the public interest.

Techno-Nationalism as a Primary Driver of AI

Trump’s first 100 days accelerated the techno-nationalist tone of AI governance: one of ambitious goals for AI with minimal emphasis on risks and constraints. The day-one repeal of Biden’s AI executive order explicitly suggested that the new U.S. AI policy is strictly “pro-innovation” and primarily driven by Trump’s desire to outpace China. While it is good to see in both the new AI executive order and the implementing OMB memo a commitment to civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy, actions like DOGE’s efforts to create a master file for AI that would be used to deprive Americans of liberty, showcase a gulf between words and actions.

Diminishing Opportunity for All in a Secure and Healthy Digital Public Square

A secure and resilient digital infrastructure is foundational to a healthy public square. In the first 100 days, while cybersecurity strategies have largely remained consistent, purges of the federal government workforce and the insertion of DOGE across agencies introduce instability in the federal government’s cybersecurity apparatus. True opportunity for all relies on protecting digital spaces where we learn, connect, and innovate. This is evident as we live through transformational shifts in our country’s education system, which stand to dismantle avenues for cultivating the next generation of technologists. A thriving digital public square requires technology that serves the public interest—ensuring that communities are informed, engaged, and able to express their interests peacefully. Opportunity for all in the digital age demands equitable access to the internet, the ability to navigate the web and express yourself freely, and digital technologies that empower individuals in their daily lives. Any push to erase programs and funding that support a more representative digital public square will only increase the schism between the haves and have-nots.

A hundred days in, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The initial flurry of activity has established the contours of the Trump administration’s tech policy: one that is bold and unapologetic in reshaping the status quo. The question now is: Where do we go from here? As we look ahead, there is an urgent need for public engagement, accountability from all corners of civil society, and the vision to imagine a future with technology that binds us together—not pull us apart. Lawmakers, industry leaders, and citizens must unite to influence the next chapter of this story. Will the United States double down on a path that favors rapid innovation by favored players at any cost, or can we chart a more balanced course that fosters innovation while upholding privacy, equity, and security? The answer lies in what we all do next.

It’s clear that leaving these issues on autopilot is not an option. Continuing to treat technology policy as distinct from the democratic process will not do when digital tech is so deeply ingrained in our lives. Civil society must do more to engage across issue areas and build a “big tent" to advance a new era of technology policy. Democracy doesn’t pause for technology, and technology policy shouldn’t be left on autopilot by democracy.