By Ashish Agarwal Brad Smith
The current crop of antitrust tech cases appears motivated, in part, by a desire to protect free speech. In April, after Google lost a case involving advertising technology, for example, Attorney General Pam Bondi said: “This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square. This Department of Justice will continue taking bold legal action to protect the American people from encroachments on free speech and free markets by tech companies.”
As a practical matter, however, it is unclear exactly how or whether these cases will advance the cause of speech. In particular, the aggressive remedy proposals to break up the biggest firms could result in some new companies having leadership that is less committed to free speech principles.
Moreover, if courts adopt such proposals, a future administration might find it easier to jawbone (read: intimidate) numerous smaller companies rather than a few larger companies. Finally, by breaking apart our largest and most globally competitive companies, the breakup proposals might advantage Chinese rivals whose commitment to free speech is, at best, questionable.
Strangers on a train
In general, antitrust has little to do with speech. Antitrust law protects the welfare of consumers, typically measured by objective factors such as price, quality and innovation. The tech cases — particularly against Google and Meta but also against Amazon and Apple — all allege that the companies harmed consumers via competitive practices such as mergers and pricing.
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson noted in March that “the FTC is not the censorship police” but said antitrust law might encompass collusion or an exercise in market power that results in censorship. None of the cases or initial court decisions, however, discusses speech concerns or alleges that any of the companies used market power to degrade certain users’ speech.
Instead, some observers appear to believe that the antitrust cases will promote speech by deterring the platforms from discriminating against conservative users or by breaking them up, leading to more conservative leadership of at least some of the newer, smaller companies.
Still, any such purported benefits seem marginal at best.
In terms of deterrence, companies have already admitted that they mistakenly bowed to relentless pressure from senior government officials to suppress certain stories. Moreover, upon retaking office, President Trump signed an executive order prohibiting federal employees from unconstitutionally abridging the free speech rights of any American citizen.
In other words, many corporate executives and federal employees have received the message from the November presidential election.
More antitrust, less speech?
At the same time, the breakup proposals could backfire on speech. In recent years, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and other tech leaders have affirmed their commitment to principles of free speech and political neutrality. In many instances, they have backed their words with concrete acts. If the government forcibly breaks up any tech platform, is there any reason to believe that successor companies would be led by conservatives rather than liberals with less of a commitment to political neutrality? If anything, the opposite seems true.
Similarly, the market has evolved to give conservatives many more outlets. Since 2020, Elon Musk purchased Twitter, Meta adopted Mr. Musk’s content moderation model, Mr. Trump launched Truth Social, and foreign-owned platforms have continued to maintain popularity. Earlier this year, Amazon decided to relist a conservative book it had removed, and it faces ongoing pressure from other retailers that are expanding their online presence.
Market forces rather than federal mandates appear to have created numerous choices for consumers.
More concerning, overly aggressive enforcement might empower a future administration to intimidate smaller platforms. Many liberals, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, have advocated for breaking up the tech platforms. This would naturally increase the government’s power relative to the power of the private sector. Conservatives should consider whether their interests and beliefs align with positions taken by such liberal policymakers.
Prior administrations have been accused of misusing governmental authority, such as tax law, to intimidate their political opponents. The same could prove true of antitrust. If one administration can break up companies to promote conservative voices, the next could use it to silence them. What’s to stop a future government from targeting Fox News or religious broadcasters for having “too much influence” or from persecuting gun manufacturers or oil producers in the name of “viewpoint diversity” or “climate truth”?
The true First Amendment concern is not platform size but rather government jawboning. Breakups don’t fix that problem; they multiply the number of potential targets.
Finally, forced corporate breakups could allow Chinese firms to supplant their U.S. counterparts as the globe’s most competitive and innovative companies, with devastating consequences for speech. According to a late 2024 study from the American Edge Project, Chinese artificial intelligence models actively censor historical events, deny human rights abuses and spread state propaganda.
One model even falsely claimed that “no one was killed” during the Tiananmen Square protests. Another labeled Uyghur repression claims as “baseless and false.” To counter such propaganda, the U.S. needs American companies to continue to invest, innovate and spread American technology around the globe.
Over the long term, China’s AI gains could threaten global values of freedom and democracy. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, said, “If China wins the AI arms race, their ability to steal technology and harm not just our country but the free world will be permanent.”
In the near future, China could “use AI to increase its authoritarian hold of people, advance its cyber espionage strategy and interfere with elections,” Rep. Hank Johnson, Georgia Democrat, said last year.
Weakening U.S. tech firms in the name of protecting speech risks empowering foreign platforms where censorship isn’t a bug; it’s a way of life.
To avoid these risks, the government should continue to enforce the antitrust laws against all companies, including tech platforms, in a measured, evenhanded manner grounded in precedent and consumer welfare. By doing so, the U.S. can continue to promote its economic prosperity, national security and values at home and abroad.
• Asheesh Agarwal served in the first Trump administration. Brad Smith is a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.