Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

A Look Ahead at AI, privacy and Social Media Regulation under the New Trump Administration

A Look Ahead at AI, privacy and Social Media Regulation under the New Trump Administration

Ai technology, Artificial Intelligence. man using technology smart robot AI, artificial intelligence by enter command prompt for generates something, Futuristic technology transformation.

Getty Images - stock photo
Sylvia Lu
By Sylvia LuJan 10, 2025
Sylvia Lu
See More Writings by author

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


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026