The influence of Big Tech in 2025: 8 ways civil society can prepare for the incoming US administration
We ran our final Technology Salon of the year on December 16, with the goal of looking more closely at how Big Tech will influence the incoming Trump administration’s strategies, policies and actions. Big Tech, previously considered a progressive sector and regularly accused of favoring ‘wokeness’, has been moving to the political right whilst also gaining greater influencing and decision-making roles in the Trump administration.
For example, in the Guardian’s TechScape, Blake Montgomery writes about Elon Musk: “The biggest tech story of the year is Elon Musk’s rise to omnipresence and an unprecedented level of global power. In 2024, he managed to become the world’s most influential unelected man. He has the ear of the president of the United States and influence over the very agencies that would rein his companies. Those companies have become vital to the digital infrastructure of many nations. His purse makes US lawmakers genuflect or cower; his tweets make leaders around the world cheer or fly into a rage.”
While Musk may be the most prominent, he’s not the only billionaire tech owner currying favor with the Trump administration. Even before the elections, Big Tech was ‘bending the knee.’ We’re entering, as at least one journalist has warned, a world where the interests of select technology companies become indistinguishable from US government policy. At the same time, the Big Tech/Trump alliance is already seeing signs of strain – in late December Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy publicly traded vulgar insults with Trump’s ‘America first’ base over immigration for tech workers).
Here’s a summary of some of the key areas we unpacked at the Salon. We’ll be doing more Salons in New York City on these topics in 2025, so sign up here if you’d like to get on the list for these in-person, off the record meetings.
What core strategies will drive the Trump Administration’s policies and actions?
We kicked off with a deep dive into key strategies and policy documents embraced by and shaping the Trump administration. One of our Salon discussants provided details about what the Project 2025 document says about Big Tech, data, and domestic and global organizations focused on democracy and human rights. Other Salon participants supplemented with information about related bills and projects that appear to be aimed at dismantling civil society and progressive movements and targeting foundations and donors who fund this kind of work.
- Project 2025, authored by the Heritage Foundation (a right-wing think tank), aims to consolidate power in the executive branch and to infuse both the government and society with conservative Christian values. Going even further, many read the document as a blueprint for authoritarianism. While Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 during the election campaign, many newly appointed cabinet members of his administration authored and/or have close ties with Project 2025.
- Bill HR9495/S4136 (the so-called “Nonprofit-Killer Bill”) passed the House in November but died in the Senate on December 20, 2024, possibly due to civil society campaigns to stop it. Framed as an anti-terrorism effort, this Bill “would have let the Executive Branch (President-Elect Trump’s hand-picked Treasury Secretary or that of any president) unilaterally shut down any nonprofits they disagree with, without having to have or disclose evidence, without a fair trial, and without a reasonable process for challenging the smear” if they accused the non-profit of being a “terrorist organization.”
- Project Esther follows in the steps of HR9495/S4136. It states that “America’s virulently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-American ‘pro-Palestinian movement’ is part of a global Hamas Support Network (HSN) that is trying to compel the U.S. government to abandon its long-standing support for Israel. Supported by activists and funders dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and democracy, the HSN benefits from the support and training of America’s overseas enemies and seeks to achieve its goals by taking advantage of our open society, corrupting our education system, leveraging the American media, coopting the federal government, and relying on the American Jewish community’s complacency.” According to Yoav Litvin Project Esther would provide a green light for the Trump administration to begin dismantling civil society and targeting prominent social justice advocates and progressive Democratic Party representatives.
What is Project 2025’s rhetoric?
The Project 2025 document (officially titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise”) is over 900 pages long, so we did not covered it fully. Key points that we discussed during the Salon are below:
It’s anti-Big Tech
There is a lot of language about reigning in Big Tech with anti-trust powers. It links Big Tech to the Chinese community party – for example, it says TikTok is funneling data to the Chinese Communist Party. The document authors come up to the edge of regulation, but they do not actually suggest it, because Project 2025 is also in favor of small government and it is anti-regulation. It’s possible that this rhetoric will shift now that Big Tech has moved closer to the Right and is increasingly in the pocket of the Trump Administration and vice versa.
It addresses Section 230
Social media companies hold great power to shape public discourse and behaviors, sometimes fueling racism, violence, and other harms. Section 230 protects social media companies from liability for user generated content published on their platforms or for removal of such content. Content moderation on social media has been a major partisan debate in recent years. The Right has accused social media platforms of censorship and has taken legal action against those who investigate mis- and disinformation. At the same time, court decisions related to Section 230 have given online platforms permission to both allow a huge range of illicit activity and to remove content with little transparency or accountability. Project 2025 talks about Section 230 and how Big Tech is pushing woke extremism by curtailing free speech. Social media companies have bowed to pressure from the Right, however, backing down from content moderation and shrinking Trust and Safety teams over the past few years. This along with Big Tech’s embrace of Trump may signal a coming shift in this position on behalf of Project 2025’s authors and followers.
It pushes for tech-enabled border patrol
This includes increased funding for surveillance tech at the borders. It also suggests that US Customs and Border Protection should publish “timely and accurate border information without requiring White House Approval.” Salon participants worried that this gives tacit encouragement to anti-migration vigilante groups.
It emphasizes efficiency and austerity
When efficiency is a key goal, said one Salon attendee, this often leads to automated AI systems that end up punishing immigrants and poor people. Fraud control comes out at the top of the agenda, and the language of ‘government efficiency’ allows for the rollout of automated decision-making tech. The problems with automated decision-making were also in the news in late 2024 in relation to the murder of UnitedHealthCare’s CEO. A class action lawsuit was filed against the company in 2023 claiming that it illegally uses an algorithm “to deny rehabilitation care to seriously ill patients, even though the companies know the algorithm has a high error rate.”
It abolishes the collection of certain data
The document states that the new administration should abolish the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations (NAC) established by the Obama Administration in 2012 and re-upped by the Biden Administration in 2022. It states that “The committee is a hotbed for left-wing activists intent upon injecting racial and social-justice theory into the governing philosophy of the Census Bureau. The NAC should immediately be abolished by the incoming Administration….” Project 2025 uses data minimization language to bolster its agenda to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts which it deems ‘racist’ and ‘biased.’ For example, it mandates eliminating the collection of ‘intrusive data’ and ‘unnecessary data’. In principle, data protection enthusiasts would agree data minimization, however, the document goes on to describe this as “data on employment statistics based on race/ethnicity, which can then be used to support a charge of discrimination under a disparate impact theory. This could lead to racial quotas to remedy alleged race discrimination.” It also suggests eliminating certain questions from the national census.
It rescinds “gender” policy and language to refocus efforts on Women, Children, and Families
Project 2025 advocates for revising USAID’s Gender Equality and Female Empowerment regulation and removal of “all references, examples, definitions, photos, and language on USAID websites, in agency publications and policies, and in all agency contracts and grants that include the following terms: ‘gender,’ ‘gender equality,’ ‘gender equity,’ ‘gender diverse individuals,’ ‘gender aware,’ ‘gender sensitive,’ etc. It should also remove references to ‘abortion,’ ‘reproductive health,’ and ‘sexual and reproductive rights’ and controversial sexual education materials.”
It weakens the rule of law
As one Salon participant put it, “It’s not just about Trump and Right versus Left. It’s a document about authoritarianism and authoritarian management of the government.” A key section at the beginning of the document covers cabinet appointments, saying qualifications are less important than loyalty to the executive branch. The document also focuses on the disruption of the administrative state, with thousands of current government employees being replaced by political appointees. “There will also be efforts to test the loyalty of military generals to the presidency,” noted this Salon participant. “We’re going to see a next layer of implementation and removal of resistance within our democracy. This brings us to question about the rule of law. Trump and his appointment of other convicted felons to the cabinet is sending the message that there is a different set of rules for them.”
What should we do?
As one person said, “Folks are worried about the Trump administration’s first 100 days. But these are also our First 100 days! What are we going to do and how are we preparing for action?”
Key recommendations included:
1. Get focused, organized and cohesive
Some Salon participants felt that, similar to the previous Trump Administration’s tactics, Project 2025 is less a set of recommendations and more of a ‘shock and awe’ strategy aimed at keeping those who oppose it scattered and reactive. ”We’re seeing all these different pieces, all these various things. We need to call it out as a rule of law issue, as an authoritarian play. Rather than getting caught up in the details that fragment civil society, we need to find the cohesive, high-level messages to focus the debate and our actions.” It will be important to prepare for midterm elections as well. “Voters are currently disgruntled. If prices don’t go down – which they are unlikely to with Trump’s planned tariffs – the public will vote differently next time,” said one participant.
2. Find/build decentralized communities of trust
It will be important to work on our capacities for rapid response and responsiveness. We will need to get better at our conflict practices to avoid fracturing movements and actions. “We may want to move through space with people we trust, repairing conflict and harm as it happens,” suggested one Salon participant. This will also mean knowing what communications channels are safe to use for organizing and/or sharing information.
3. Encourage funders to be braver
Foundations were called out by several Salon participants for reigning themselves in from progressive programming with ‘preemptive self-restraint.’ “They are currently making decisions to focus their next ‘big bets’ on programming they think is the least on the radar of the new administration.” “They are abandoning civil society just when funding is needed the most.” “Why aren’t foundations being bolder?” “If now is not a rainy day, I don’t know when that rainy day will be!” were some of the comments. Some participants expressed frustration that the Philanthropy sector was not yet organized and prepared to offer rapid response support. “Many of these donors already work in places with authoritarian governments – why don’t they know how to respond? It’s not that different!” One person suggested that if the foundations that say they exist to support movements are pulling back their support for movements at this highly critical time, “it’s a big story that needs to be told.” While recognizing some of the constraints that Foundations may have, Salon participants underscored the need for funders to be courageous, willing to take risks and offer more unrestricted funding. Solidaire Network’s Movement Protection Fund was offered as a good example of Foundations living their professed values.
4. Leverage the Administration’s dysfunction
We should be looking for windows and small openings that we can take advantage of. This – like all crises – if leveraged properly, could be an opportunity for some kinds of positive change. The Federal Government is not without unnecessary bureaucracy; so, are there ways we can leverage change for our own interests? What can we do with this moment? It will require courage and focus and a united effort to further our own objectives during this next period. As one person said, “Project 2025 is saturated with ‘reorganize, deregulate, defund.’ While traditionally, the Right takes advantage of destabilization, Progressives are often caught up in a ‘protest and resist’ rhetoric.” We should be looking for administration dysfunction that gives us openings to sway public opinion, highlight what is not working, and show their weakness and incapacity. We should also be looking for any issues the public could agree on and where there is collective dissatisfaction across the political spectrum. For example, health insurance claims, judging by the widespread public reactions to the recent assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, seem to be a bipartisan issue. “There are key moments for class solidarity that we can catalyze. We can take a cue from other countries, too. In South Korea, 1 million workers mobilized, went on strike, and stopped martial law.”
5. Support the allies, helpers and dissenters on the inside
Tech workers know what is coming down the pipe at their companies. We can connect with employees about what is happening on the inside and find ways to work together. Philanthropy staff are also workers. We can provide information to support program officers to raise hard questions with higher up decision-makers. Within universities, there are massive movements happening that we can tap into and learn from. Other companies may also be allies, for a number of reasons. We can identify and work with them. For example, according to a December 27th CNN article, the big box store CostCo pushed back against anti-diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. CostCo’s proxy statement to its investors said “Among other things, a diverse group of employees helps bring originality and creativity to our merchandise offerings, promoting the ‘treasure hunt’ that our customers value….We believe (and member feedback shows) that many of our members like to see themselves reflected in the people in our warehouses with whom they interact.” It’s important not to paint entire industries with the same brush and to find leverage and convergence points.
6. Learn from social movements
We will be in this situation for the long-haul and can learn from social movements – they have years and years of experience working in difficult political contexts. Connecting up social movements, development agendas, tech for good, AI governance, and other groups needs to happen as soon as possible so that our efforts and initiatives are stronger. We can learn from the strategies used by ongoing movements. We should listen to existing movements and support the devolution of power to communities within these various efforts and avoid starting parallel initiatives. Importantly, as we enter difficult, dark times, how do we make sure that our movements center connection, hope, joy and care?
7. Work with the media
While some parts of the wider media sector have fallen immediately in line with the Trump administration, there are still allies within the media, including individual reporters and independent media houses. It will be important for civil society to work with these media representatives and for independent media to work with civil society and for both to support and back one another. Media plays a big role in holding private sector companies accountable – when companies are exposed for wrongdoing, it makes a dent in their brand. It will be critical for media to keep playing this role. Media should also help the public understand the ways that Big Tech is contributing to authoritarianism and how to protect sensitive data both individually and at the level of organizations. Civil society should be sure to give reporters extremely explicit information about how to cover stories about data protection, NGOs and movements. In addition, the media can provide explicit instructions to whistleblowers about how to anonymously leak information. Finally, the media should keep doing stories that offer tools, frameworks, and infographics to help readers understand complex and rapidly evolving systems so that news stories link up to a larger system. Movement Media Alliance (“a coalition of grassroots-aligned, social justice-driven journalism organizations committed to accurate, transparent, accountable, principled, and just media, and to working collaboratively to amplify our impact”) was offered as an example of how movements and the media can work together.
8. Do your scenario planning – and protect your data!
Civil society organizations should be in planning and preparation mode, making judgment calls on what the future scenarios are and mitigating the negative ways they will be impacted by the new Administration. Doing a complete risk assessment can help organizations plan for different possible scenarios. It is important to remember that data can be subpoenaed as new laws go into place and some types of encryption could be dismantled by new laws. It will be very important for organizations to know what data they have and where it is. We will need to get a lot more serious about data protection and security, securely deleting any sensitive data that could be used in harmful ways under the new administration, and being certain that any data retained has a clear purpose and is secured. We’ll also want to identify and use safer communication channels if discussing topics that could put people at risk. (See this post for starters.) The time to get moving on better data protection and security is now.We’ll continue to meet to explore these ideas in January and beyond. If you’d like to be part of the conversations, please sign up for the mailing list at TechnologySalon.
Technology Salons run under Chatham House Rule, so no attribution has been made in this post. If you’d like to join us for a Salon, sign up here. If you’d like to suggest a topic please get in touch! We are looking for sponsorship to help cover the costs of preparing and hosting salons – please contact us if you would like to discuss financial support for Tech Salon.