Washington’s tech lobby has never been more fragmented. On one side are the industry groups still eager to defend the big platforms against antitrust pressure, state content rules and liability reforms. On the other are firms and associations that are willing to support regulation in one arena and fight it in another, depending on where the commercial risks lie.
That shifting alignment is clearest in artificial intelligence. According to reporting from Reuters and subsequent ...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
coverage, the Trump administration’s clash with Anthropic has become a defining test of how far Washington is prepared to go in pressing AI firms to comply with national security demands. In late February, after Anthropic’s chief executive, Dario Amodei, refused to allow unrestricted military use of the company’s technology, the White House and Pentagon moved against the company. By March, the Pentagon had formally notified Anthropic that it was being treated as a supply chain risk, a designation that could force government contractors to stop using its Claude chatbot.
The move was extraordinary because it appeared to repurpose a tool normally associated with foreign threats against an American company. Advocates for Anthropic argued that this was not simply a procurement dispute but a broader effort to punish a firm for refusing to weaken its safeguards around mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. The company’s critics, including President Donald Trump and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, portrayed Anthropic’s resistance as a national security concern.
That is where the trade groups stepped in. The Computer & Communications Industry Association, along with Microsoft, the Information Technology Industry Council and TechNet, backed Anthropic in court filings, arguing that the designation could allow agencies to bypass ordinary statutory and regulatory procedures at presidential command. Matt Schruers, the CCIA’s chief executive, said the government was using a power usually reserved for adversaries in a way that risked damage to innovation and competition in the US.
Other groups were more cautious. NetChoice and the Consumer Technology Association have largely supported the Trump administration’s AI posture, praising what they see as a lighter-touch approach that avoids a patchwork of state and federal rules. Patrick Hedger, NetChoice’s director of policy, said in March that the internet economy had been built under a low-regulation model and argued that AI would need the same treatment. CTA chairman Gary Shapiro has made a similar case, linking the fight over AI rules to the longstanding battle over Section 230.
That liability shield, adopted 30 years ago as part of the 1996 Telecom Act, has again become a fault line between lawmakers and industry. Section 230 protects online platforms from being treated as the publisher of user-generated content, and it remains one of the most important legal supports for social media companies. At the same time, it is also one of the most attacked, with critics saying it lets platforms avoid responsibility for harassment, fraud and other harms.
Senator Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, recently argued at a Telecom Act hearing that companies have long hidden behind Section 230 rather than doing more to protect users, especially children. Industry groups disagree sharply. Ahead of a Section 230 hearing in March, NetChoice described the provision as a vital legal barrier against liability that could stifle American innovation and suppress speech online. CTA made the same case, urging Congress to take a pro-innovation approach that preserves both the First Amendment and the current framework.
Trump’s own position on the issue has shifted over time. During his first term, he was one of the loudest critics of Section 230. But after founding Truth Social in 2022, he started framing liability protections as conditional on what he called neutrality in content moderation. He has not said much publicly on the topic in almost three and a half years, leaving industry advocates and critics to infer where he now stands.
The broader political picture is more complex than a simple pro-tech versus anti-tech split. Some firms want protection from state-level content moderation bills and liability changes, while backing tougher rules in other areas where they see a commercial advantage. Others are prepared to challenge the White House directly, as CCIA did in the Anthropic dispute, but remain aligned with the administration on deregulation more generally.
That tension is likely to persist. In June, major social media executives from Meta, Alphabet, TikTok and Snap were due to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, underscoring how regularly the sector is now pulled into Washington’s policy battles. For an industry that once assumed it could count on broad bipartisan indulgence, the new reality is messier: in today’s Washington, even defending big tech comes with conditions.
Source: Noah Wire Services
