A Conservative Approach to Digital Regulation
Washington is rushing to regulate the digital economy, but America’s global technological leadership depends on accelerating innovation, not slowing it down. Following revelations that global competitors like China are racing ahead in key technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), it is abundantly clear that the U.S. must put the pedal to the metal towards continued innovation. With this in mind, Congress should approach onerous regulations that target everything from social media services to AI with some reservation. Many proposals boil down to key overlapping features which allow the government to dictate appropriate online speech or replace market competition with federal oversight. Protecting American citizens from negative impacts is a laudable goal, but bureaucrats often misunderstand digital technologies. As seen from recent examples, like Chinese AI startup DeepSeek, innovation must be prioritized to avoid jeopardizing the very things that make America the world’s tech superpower.
Why These Proposals Miss the Mark
Protecting children online, preventing anticompetitive behavior, and reducing bias in AI enjoy strong bipartisan support. Yet, many current proposed solutions would likely do more harm than good. For example, under the guise of protecting children online, some proposed bills would create a federal speech police with broad powers to decide what Americans can and cannot say online. Numerous documented evidence shows the negative consequences associated with federal agencies inappropriately pressuring digital services into suppressing diverse viewpoints. The Constitution also forbids federal legislation that authorizes viewpoint-based speech restrictions, making such proposals legally indefensible.
Then there is the bureaucracy problem. Certain regulatory proposals would either expand the powers of existing agencies or create entirely new ones—each requiring substantial taxpayer funding and government resources. At a time when the federal budget is already under pressure and essential programs face cuts, adding new costly programs requiring substantial federal operations is not just inefficient, it is irresponsible. In addition, enforcing complex digital rules would likely demand vast new infrastructure without delivering sizable benefits. This result could balloon expenditures and incentivize an anti-innovation approach through regulatory overreach.
Perhaps most critically, misguided regulations could undermine American competition in an increasingly global landscape. Our adversaries are racing ahead to develop cutting-edge technologies that can threaten our privacy, safety, and security. Any legislative efforts that voluntarily handicap ourselves should be met with increased skepticism. Poorly crafted regulations could also stifle the innovation that allows America to maintain its technological edge, handing our rivals a decisive advantage. If our regulations leave us less competitive on the global stage, then we are doing something wrong.
Market Forces Offer Superior Solutions
Rather than expanding government control, lawmakers should allow competition on the merits to continue to foster the environment that supports our technological advancements. Markets can deliver faster and more effective solutions without sacrificing fundamental principles or compromising global competitiveness. Dynamic competition in digital markets has provided significant benefits to consumers and businesses alike, making American businesses the undisputed global leaders in tech.
Markets enforce genuine accountability through consumer choice rather than bureaucratic mandates. This isn’t mere theory—it is happening right now. When companies fail to meet user expectations, consumers vote with their clicks and take their business elsewhere, creating powerful incentives for improvement that no regulatory framework can replicate. These market forces prove more effective than government intervention because companies must continuously innovate to earn and maintain user loyalty in order to survive.
Moreover, innovative solutions to compete in dynamic markets can be faster than top-down government regulation. Companies can rapidly deploy new and innovative changes, while government interventions generally require onerous debate and rulemaking. The dynamic evolution and constant innovation of digital markets differ from the slow and burdensome bureaucratic process of regulatory approvals. Worse, misguided regulations force companies to prioritize compliance over innovation, impeding the natural market solutions that would emerge more quickly.
Finally, globally competitive American companies advance American interests. Our rivals would love nothing more than for America to regulate itself into technological irrelevance while they advance unrestrained. Europe’s heavy-handed regulatory approach offers a cautionary tale—their restrictive policies have stifled innovation and left European markets dependent on American and Chinese industry. We should not repeat this mistake by gifting competitors strategic advantages through unnecessary regulatory constraints. Why should the U.S. follow the lead of a region with few innovators, whose leading export is regulation, when the U.S. is the leading global exporter of innovative new technology?
The Path Forward
The choice to embrace markets over expanded government control is an easy one. Our greatest competitive advantage lies in unleashing American entrepreneurship, not constraining it with bureaucratic restrictions that serve our adversaries’ interests. While our competitors are moving full steam ahead, American innovation must not be left in the dust.
