Artificial intelligence harms, problematic social media content, data privacy violations – the issues are the same, but the policymakers and regulators who deal with them are about to change.
As the federal government transitions to a new term under the renewed leadership of Donald Trump, the regulatory landscape for technology in the United States faces a significant shift.
The Trump administration’s stated approach to these issues signals changes. It is likely to move away from the civil rights aspect of Biden administration policy toward an emphasis on innovation and economic competitiveness. While some potential policies would pull back on stringent federal regulations, others suggest new approaches to content moderation and ways of supporting AI-related business practices. They also suggest avenues for state legislation.
I study the intersection of law and technology. Here are the key tech law issues likely to shape the incoming administration’s agenda in 2025.
AI regulation: innovation vs. civil rights
The rapid evolution of AI technologies has led to an expansion of AI policies and regulatory activities, presenting both opportunities and challenges. The federal government’s approach to AI regulation is likely to undergo notable changes under the incoming Trump administration.
The Biden administration’s AI Bill of Rights and executive order on AI established basic principles and guardrails to protect safety, privacy and civil rights. These included requirements for developers of powerful AI systems to report safety test results, and a mandate for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to create rigorous safety standards. They also required government agencies to use AI in responsible ways.
Unlike the Biden era, the Trump administration’s deregulatory approach suggests a different direction. The president-elect has signaled his intention to repeal Biden’s executive order on AI, citing the need to foster free speech. Trump’s nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission, Andrew Ferguson, has echoed this sentiment. He has stated his opposition to restrictive AI regulations and the adoption of a comprehensive federal AI law. With limited prospects for federal AI legislation under the Trump administration, states are likely to lead the charge in addressing emerging AI harms. In 2024, at least 45 states introduced AI-related bills. For example, Colorado passed comprehensive legislation to address algorithmic discrimination. In 2025, state lawmakers may either follow Colorado’s example by enacting broad AI regulations or focus on targeted laws for specific applications, such as automated decision-making, deepfakes, facial recognition and AI chatbots.
Data privacy: federal or state leadership?
Data privacy remains a key area of focus for policymakers, and 2025 is a critical year to see whether Congress will enact a federal privacy law. The proposed American Privacy Rights Act, introduced in 2024, represents a bipartisan effort to create a comprehensive federal privacy framework. The bill includes provisions for preempting state laws and allowing private rights of action, meaning allowing individuals to sue over alleged violations. The bill aims to simplify compliance and reduce the patchwork of state regulations.
These issues are likely to spark key debates in the year ahead. Lawmakers are also likely to wrestle with balancing regulatory burdens on smaller businesses with the need for comprehensive privacy protections.
In the absence of federal action, states may continue to dominate privacy regulation. Since California passed the Consumer Privacy Rights Act in 2019, 19 states have passed comprehensive privacy laws. Recent state privacy laws have differing scopes, rights and obligations, which creates a fragmented regulatory environment. In 2024, key issues included defining sensitive data, protecting minors’ privacy, incorporating data minimization principles, and addressing compliance challenges for medium or small businesses.
At the federal level in 2024, the Biden administration issued an executive order authorizing the U.S. attorney general to restrict cross-border data transfers to protect national security. These efforts may continue in the new administration.
Cybersecurity, health privacy and online safety
States have become key players in strengthening cybersecurity protections, with roughly 30 states requiring businesses to adhere to cybersecurity standards. The California Privacy Protection Agency Board, for example, has proposed rulemaking on cybersecurity audits, data protection risk assessments and automated decision-making.
Meanwhile, there is a growing trend toward strengthening health data privacy and protecting children online. Washington state and Nevada, for example, have adopted laws that expand the protection of health data beyond the scope of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Numerous states, such as California, Colorado, Utah and Virginia, have recently expanded protections for young users’ data. In the absence of federal regulation, state governments are likely to continue leading efforts to address pressing privacy and cybersecurity concerns in 2025.
Social media and Section 230
Online platform regulation has been a contentious issue under both the Biden and Trump administrations. There are federal efforts to reform Section 230, which shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, and federal- and state-level efforts to address misinformation and hate speech.
While Trump’s previous administration criticized Section 230 for allegedly enabling censorship of conservative voices, the Biden administration focused on increasing transparency and accountability for companies that fail to remove concerning content.
With Trump coming back to office, Congress is likely to consider proposals to prohibit certain forms of content moderation in the name of free speech protections.
On the other hand, states like California and Connecticut have recently passed legislation requiring platforms to disclose information about hate speech and misinformation. Some existing state laws regulating online platforms are facing U.S. Supreme Court challenges on First Amendment grounds.
In 2025, debates are likely to continue on how to balance platform neutrality with accountability at both federal and state levels.
Changes in the wind
Overall, while federal efforts on issues like Section 230 reform and children’s online protection may advance, federal-level AI regulation and data privacy laws could potentially slow down due to the administration’s deregulatory stance. Whether long-standing legislative efforts like federal data privacy protection materialize will depend on the balance of power between Congress, the courts and the incoming administration.
T ech law in 2025: a look ahead at AI, privacy and social media regulation under the new Trump administration was first published on The Conversation, and was republished with permission.
Sylvia Lu is a Faculty Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.