Prepared remarks: The Foundations of Effective Governance, Innovation, and Economic Growth (August 17, 2025)

Remarks delivered at the Technology Policy Institute on August 17, 2025

The American experiment in democratic governance and a free enterprise economy—subject to responsible public oversight—remains a work in progress.  In my remarks today, I will highlight a few pillars of that experiment and some emerging risks to them, calling on policymakers to safeguard the foundation of our national economic success story.  For today’s purposes, let me touch on three pillars for continued American exceptionalism in technological leadership, economic growth, and shared prosperity—(1) the foundations of responsible governance and the rule of law; (2) investments in research and technological progress; and (3) responsible guardrails and a stewardship of the public interest.

I. Foundations of Governance

The Declaration of Independence is a remarkable document.  It is, in short, a celebration of the “rule of law.”  The idea that judges should be independent, that an executive’s powers should be limited and subject to the law, and the commitment that citizens enjoy basic protections from government abuse of power were revolutionary concepts that laid the foundation for our republic and our constitutional tradition.  And they have served our nation very well.

The rule of law, as economists describe it, creates a framework for economic activity and growth.  For years, I taught regulators from around the world about how to encourage economic growth, entrepreneurship, and technological innovation in the telecommunications sector as part of the late Mickey Gardner’s work at the United States Telecommunication Training Institute.  The most important topic, and often the most difficult, arose when I was asked how a nation that lacks a tradition of respecting the rule of law can develop one.

For nations without a commitment to the rule of law, it is not easy to develop one.  Take, for example, the case of access to spectrum.  In the United States, with a strong tradition around the rule of law and economic rigor, auctions for spectrum licenses developed and formed the basis of a vibrant wireless sector. For other countries, however, the temptation to pick and choose winners in the sector based on their political ties is often the undoing of entrepreneurial initiative.  If you are thinking about building a wireless network in a country and know there is a material risk that your spectrum license—the basis of your business—can be taken away and given to a competitor solely because of her political connections, you are likely to think long and hard about whether to make those investments.

The Nobel Laureate Oliver Williamson wrote a tour de force book on “The Economic Institutions of Capitalism,” and his leadership in what we now call “new institutional economics” includes an appreciation for the rule of law as a critical institution that enables economic growth.[1]  As Williamson later wrote, a foundational question for economic growth is whether there is “lawlessness where the state provides limited or unreliable protection for property and contract,” or “lawfulness, where the state undertakes to protect property and enforce contracts in a principled way.”[2]  At a conference held here 25 years ago, former FTC Chair Tim Muris added a third element to the concepts of the rule of law and private enterprise; he identified “[p]ublic agencies [that are] entrusted to promote consumer welfare by preserving competition and protecting consumers” as the third leg of the stool for stable economic growth.[3]  In the American experiment, this third leg developed in the Progressive Era, which recognized the importance of sound antitrust and consumer protection enforcement, represented powerfully by the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

For this third leg of the stool to operate effectively, it is important that these public agencies operate with integrity and fidelity to rule-of-law principles.  In short, it is essential that like cases be treated alike, and parties before antitrust enforcers and public agencies not be treated differently based on who they are.  During the Watergate era, this principle was tested—when President Nixon ordered favorable resolutions of antitrust cases for generous donors to his campaign—and resulted in the passage of the Tunney Act, which calls for independent judicial review of antitrust settlements.[4]  As for the Federal Trade Commission, by contrast, which was constituted as an independent agency, no such review was seen as necessary.

It is fair to say that, for the first time since Watergate, this bipartisan consensus that antitrust law must operate in a rule-of-law fashion is on shaky ground.  On the positive side, the work of state attorneys general remains bipartisan and we are working well with the Department of Justice on a number of cases, including the ongoing case against Google.[5]  On the less positive side, the Federal Trade Commission is, as a result of the Trump administration’s actions, no longer an independent agency with bipartisan membership, leading to an ongoing court battle.[6]  And in a recent DOJ merger case, Trump administration-aligned lobbyists helped Hewlett Packard secure a settlement—now being reviewed under the Tunney Act—that falls painfully short in addressing the competition concerns at issue in the suit.[7]

The Federal Communications Commission’s approach to merger review also raises serious concerns.  For years, the agency’s merger review process—under a public interest standard—often operated in an amorphous fashion and risked wading into fields that were not necessarily merger-related.  Take, for example, the AOL-Time Warner merger, where the FCC used the merger as a basis to oversee instant messaging services.[8]  At the time, Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Powell blasted the action as unprincipled and inappropriate.[9]  He was right, and the FCC later abandoned its oversight of the technology.[10]

The FCC is now seeking to regulate companies’ diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in exchange for approval of license transfers.  This effort places the agency in dangerous territory, as it is outside the agency’s expertise, bears no relation to the merger in question, and invites an escalation of using merger reviews to advance political agendas.  To gain merger approval of its US Cellular acquisition, for example, “T-Mobile said it will no longer have any individual roles or teams focused on DEI, is removing any references to DEI on its websites and has removed references to DEI from its employee training materials.”[11]  It is easy to imagine, with a different agency composition, that the FCC could take the opposite stance—which would also be inappropriate—of requiring such programs and specifying how they operate.  In this case, it is deeply troubling that the agency is taking this action because, as I have explained elsewhere, appropriately developed and implemented diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are not only lawful, but morally and practically sound.[12]  That’s why companies like Costco have stood their ground and kept them in place.  As FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez explained, “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies are rooted in fairness and equal opportunity.  They were created to fight discrimination—not promote it.  Anyone claiming otherwise is distorting the truth to justify and reward discriminatory behavior.”[13]

Most recently, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr openly said that the FCC was using its review authority in the Paramount-Skydance merger to effectuate President Trump’s mission to “fundamentally reshap[e] the media landscape.”[14] In particular, the FCC conditioned the  merger approval on Skydance’s commitment to “embod[y] a diversity of viewpoints” in their programming, among other commitments.[15] From a First Amendment perspective, this is extremely dangerous territory and goes against one of the core reasons the FCC was established as an independent agency in the first place.  Indeed, the FCC has an explicit mandate to avoid engaging in censorship.[16]  Commissioner Gomez’s dissent from the Paramount merger approval rightly warned that the FCC had “emboldened those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage.”[17]

With respect to interfering with companies, universities, and other organizations, President Trump does not respect or operate within established legal processes.  Rather, he regularly threatens adverse consequences or promises special treatment for favored companies.  As business professor Anne Harrison put it: “This isn’t rational industrial policy. This is intervention into who runs companies and threatening businesses with penalties if they don’t do what Trump says.”[18]  That makes such actions dangerous and a threat to U.S. competitiveness, as companies may be forced to change business plans or strategies on the whims of the President.

Finally, and painfully, I will note that President Trump’s occasional threats to not follow court orders and personal attacks on judges are a grave threat to the concept of the rule of law.  As Chief Justice Roberts remarked in response to the President’s judicial impeachment threats, “[f]or more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.  The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”[19]

II. Investments in Research and Technological Progress

Another foundational element of American prosperity is investment in scientific research and technological progress.  During the Obama administration, I helped lead the work on the Strategy for American Innovation, which celebrated this country’s rich history of technological innovation and laid out a roadmap for maintaining America’s leading edge.[20]  In particular, this strategy recognized the indispensable role of federal funding for early-stage R&D on innovations that are promising but too risky for private-sector investment.  It explained that “[a]lthough companies must ultimately invest a great deal to commercialize emerging technologies, the new insights, early prototypes, and the first markets for them are often supported by the Federal Government.  Absent Federal investment, many new products would not ever reach the market, let alone reach world-changing scale.”[21] Breakthroughs ranging from genome sequencing to the smartphone to artificial intelligence to recent innovations in diabetes drugs were made possible by federal dollars.[22]

Now, through unilateral and unlawful cuts to research funding, the Trump administration is seeking to undermine some of the investments that make American technological leadership possible.  In Colorado, we’ve gone to court to protect grant funding from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health for our universities and research institutions.[23]  The Trump administration has also taken aim at programs that encourage more women, minorities, and people with disabilities in fields related to science, technology, engineering, and math (or STEM).  This is a mistake.  For years, fewer women in STEM limited the potential of our workforce, prompting efforts to build a greater tech talent pipeline.  In Colorado, the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT) has addressed this very challenge.[24]  And as the Obama administration’s strategy recognized, “broadening access to STEM [. . .] is critical to achieving America’s full potential.”[25]  Cutting off pathways for underrepresented groups to enter these fields only undercuts American competitiveness.

The recent effort to undermine the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)’s investment in strategic development of emerging energy technologies is another step in the wrong direction.  The IRA represented a response to China and other countries’ lead in electric vehicles, battery technologies, and wind and solar power.  By encouraging American development of these emerging technologies, the IRA sought to enable the United States to remain competitive as this technological transformation takes hold.  In dismantling this effort, the recent omnibus bill set back U.S. efforts to build strength in these areas and effectively ceded the field to China and other nations.[26]

Another challenge for U.S. technological leadership is not only whether we will continue to invest in the development of leading-edge technologies, but whether we will welcome the brightest minds from around the world to come to America to learn, research, and develop new companies.  To that end, the rhetoric around and attacks on universities’ recruitment of foreign students is also a threat to American competitiveness.  Take, for example, Princeton University President Chris Eisgruber’s story about Duncan Haldane, a British Nobel Prize winner in physics.[27]  When Professor Haldane was asked why he did his research at Princeton rather than in his home country, he responded that the National Science Foundation was far more willing to fund the kind of long-term research that would not have been funded in England.  As President Eisgruber explained, “[i]f we stop that compact between the government and research universities, we’re not going to be doing the kind of research anymore that Duncan Haldane did.  And that research is either going to happen someplace else or it’s not going to happen at all.”

This story illustrates the key role of federal funding, but it also shows how important openness to immigrants has been in securing this country’s scientific leadership.  That’s why the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent immigrant researchers and entrepreneurs from doing their work in the United States are so harmful.  American innovators from Albert Einstein to Nikola Tesla to Google co-founder Sergey Brin were born outside the US.  It merits concern at this moment that the next generation of scientific and entrepreneurial talent will be diminished or will flourish elsewhere.

III. The Stewardship of the Public Interest

An important question for our time is whether and how public agencies can steward the public interest.  The concept of regulating private property for the “public interest” dates back to the case of Munn v. Illinois, which established the principle that states have the power to regulate rates on monopoly services when the service in question is “affected with a public interest.”[28]  For almost the last 150 years, this principle has recognized the role of the government to act in the manner suggested by FTC Chair Tim Muris—that competition policy and consumer protection are necessary guardrails to ensure consumers are treated fairly.

For the wide sweep of American history, regulatory oversight—as opposed to government ownership, which was the norm in most of the world—served to ensure that the means of communication in the United States served the public interest.  In his tour de force book, “The Creation of the Media,” Paul Starr talks about this tradition.[29]  In practice, this meant that, for a range of communication technologies, public policy addressed key concerns around ensuring appropriate access to the technologies (universal service), competition (interconnection), and consumer protection (including privacy and preventing deceptive practices).

In my talk today, I’d like to highlight four areas in technology policy that urgently require government intervention in the public interest.  The first issue is the impact of social media on children.  Today, we know that adolescents are being harmed by social media, and there is now significant litigation and a call for oversight to address these concerns.[30]  But one of the challenges of the current moment is that there is a lack of political will or capacity to develop any forms of oversight at the federal level.  To the contrary, the enactment of Section 230—established as a sound protection of emerging platforms against potential liability—is now readily invoked by some of the most powerful companies as a shield against protections for kids and other public interest concerns.  In the litigation brought by state attorneys general against Meta, for example, the company claimed that Section 230 would prevent claims of deception (including assurances that excessive and addictive social media does not harm minors) and unfairness (including the use of algorithms that present dangerous content).[31]  The responsible answer to this challenge is for Congress to address this issue by enacting a law along the lines of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).[32]

A second and related issue is data privacy regulation.[33]  For consumers, data privacy is increasingly on their minds.  Consumers are aware, for example, that lots of information about them and their habits is being collected, analyzed, and monetized without their knowledge or consent.  In some cases, moreover, incorrect or fragmented information about consumers can lead to adverse outcomes in a range of contexts, from eligibility for credit to job opportunities.  And for businesses, it is critical that they not manage important consumer personal data irresponsibly and leave consumers open to harms like identity theft.  To be sure, the opportunity for innovations that benefit consumers is considerable, but if consumers do not trust that they are being treated fairly or if they learn that their personal data is being used or sold against their wishes, they are going to view these technological and economic changes with hostility.

In the absence of federal leadership, states are forging ahead with regulatory frameworks to oversee data privacy.  Colorado was the third state to adopt comprehensive privacy legislation back in 2021, and our office is now working to adopt regulations that provide strong protections for consumers as well as clarity for businesses. But as I have often emphasized, these actions are a “second best solution.”[34]  State regulation in these areas presents a number of potential hazards, including disparate state regimes that are not interoperable, additional compliance costs for technologies that operate on a national scale, and a potential lack of capacity to oversee fast-moving technologies.  But at the same time, it is challenging to ask states to wait for federal action in these areas given that, despite a longstanding bipartisan consensus for the need to adopt federal data privacy standards, Congress has failed to act.

A third area ripe for public action is ensuring universal broadband access, which allows people in rural areas to participate in the modern economy, access education and healthcare, and contribute to our democratic republic.  I led a bipartisan coalition of 39 attorneys general calling on Congress to expand broadband access.[35]  And we recently successfully defended the Universal Service Fund at the Supreme Court—a critical lifeline for internet and phone service in rural Colorado and across the country.

Lastly, it is essential that we protect against monopolies in the technology sector.  As I have often emphasized, this is an area where states can and should play an important role.[37]  That’s why our office has brought three antitrust cases against Google.  In one of those cases, the court found that Google was a monopolist in search and search advertising.  In one of those cases, the court found that Google was a monopolist in search and search advertising and had acted like one.  We are now awaiting a ruling from the judge on the proper remedy, are well aware that we will be facing an appeal at the D.C. Circuit, and are ready to defend the decision on liability and remedy.

* * *

We are facing a challenging moment for the three pillars of America’s technological leadership: fidelity to the rule of law, investments in research and technological progress, and stewardship of the public interest.  Even in the face of a challenging environment at the federal level, I am encouraged and even inspired by how states have stepped up to fill these gaps.  That’s why I am hopeful that the virus of political polarization, which is fueling much of the challenge at the federal level, can be countered and overcome by antibodies of creative problem solving now being exemplified at the state and local level.

[1] Oliver Williamson, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (1985).

[2] Oliver Williamson, The Economics of Governance, Am. Econ. Rev., Feb. 2005, at 2. (PDF)

[3] Timothy Muris, Former Chairman, Fed. Trade Comm’n, The Federal Trade Commission and the Future Development of U.S. Consumer Protection Policy, Remarks at the Aspen Summit: Cyberspace and the American Dream (Aug. 19, 2003). (opens new tab)

[4] E. W. Kenworthy, The Extraordinary I.T.T. Affair, N.Y. Times (Dec. 16, 1973) (opens new tab).

[5] Philip J. Weiser, Colo. Att’y Gen., Lessons from Microsoft: A State AG Perspective, Remarks at the Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies (Apr. 25, 2025).

[6] Leila Fadel & Obed Manuel, The Federal Trade Commission keeps tabs on big business. Trump fired 2 of its members, NPR (Mar. 20, 2025) (opens new tab).

[7] Matt Stoller, An Attempted Coup at the Antitrust Division, BIG by Matt Stoller (July 25, 2025) (opens new tab).

[8] Philip J. Weiser, Reexamining the Legacy of Dual Regulation: Reforming Dual Merger Review by the DOJ and the FCC, 61 Fed. Comm. L.J. 167, 171 (2008) (opens new tab).

[9] Id. at 171 n.14; Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations by Time Warner, Inc. and America Online, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd. 6547, 6713 (2001) (dissenting statement of Commissioner Powell).

[10] Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations by Time Warner and America Online, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd. 16835, 16841 (2003) (granting the AOL Time Warner petition for relief from instant messaging condition); see also Philip J. Weiser, Internet Governance, Standard Setting, and Self-Regulation, 28 N. Ky. L. Rev. 822, 842-44 (2001) (opens new tab).

[11] David Shepardson, T-Mobile ending DEI programs as it seeks US FCC approval for 2 deals, Reuters (July 9, 2025) (opens new tab).

[12] Philip J. Weiser, Colo. Att’y Gen., The Limited Reach of the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Decision in SFFA v. Harvard & University of North Carolina, Remarks to the National Organization of Lawyers for Education Associations (Oct. 5, 2023).

[13] FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez (@‪agomezfcc.bsky.social), Bluesky (July 9, 2025, 11:44 AM) (opens new tab).

[14] CNBC Television, FCC Chairman: President Trump is fundamentally reshaping the media landscape, YouTube (July 25, 2025) (opens new tab).

[15] Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Paramount Global, Docket No. 24-275, FCC No. 25-43, 26 (July 24, 2025) (PDF).

[16] 47 U.S.C. § 326 (“Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship.”).

[17] Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Paramount Global, Docket No. 24-275, FCC No. 25-43, 29 (July 24, 2025) (dissenting statement of Commissioner Gomez) (PDF).

[18] Tripp Mickle, Trump Has Made Himself Commander in Chief of the Chip Industry, N.Y. Times (Aug. 13, 2025) (opens new tab).

[19] Andrew Chung & John Kruzel, US Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump’s attack on judge, Reuters (Mar. 18, 2025) (opens new tab).

[20] Nat. Econ. Council & Off. of Sci. & Tech. Pol’y, A Strategy for American Innovation (Oct. 2015) (PDF).

[21] Id. at 14.

[22] Peter L. Singer, Federally Supported Innovations: 22 Examples of Major Technology Advances That Stem From Federal Research Support, ITIF (Feb. 2014) (opens new tab).

[23] Attorney General Weiser sues Trump administration over illegal cuts to National Science Foundation funding, Colo. Dep’t of L. (May 28, 2025); Attorney General Phil Weiser sues Trump administration for defunding medical and public health research, Colo. Dep’t of L. (Feb. 10, 2025).

[24] National Center for Women and Information Technology, Bridging the Talent Gap in The U.S. Technology Sector: Expanding Participation for a Stronger Future (2024) (PDF).

[25] Nat. Econ. Council & Off. of Sci. & Tech. Pol’y, supra note 18, at 25.

[26] See Ilaria Mazzocco, Why the New Climate Bill Is Also about Competition with China, CSIS (Aug. 25, 2022), https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-new-climate-bill-also-about-competition-china; Ben King et al., Three Key Outcomes of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” on US Manufacturing and Innovation, Rhodium Group (June 9, 2025) (opens new tab).

[27] The University President Willing to Fight Trump, N.Y. Times (Apr. 9, 2025) (opens new tab).

[28] Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 130 (1876).

[29] Philip J. Weiser, The Ghost of Telecommunications Past, 103 Mich. L. Rev. 1671 (2005) (reviewing Paul Starr, The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communication (2004) (opens new tab).

[30] See Bipartisan Coalition of Attorneys General File Lawsuits Against Meta for Harming Youth Mental Health Through Its Social Media Platforms, Colo. Dep’t of L. (Oct. 24, 2023).

[31] In re Soc. Media Adolescent Addiction/Pers. Inj. Prod. Liab. Litig., 753 F. Supp. 3d 849, 878-89 (N.D. Cal. 2024) (addressing Meta’s assertions that Section 230 bars state consumer protection claims).

[32] Miranda Nazzaro, 32 state attorneys general call on Congress to pass Kids Online Safety Act, The Hill (Nov. 18, 2024) (opens new tab).

[33] This discussion is taken from my earlier address. Philip J. Weiser, Colo. Att’y Gen., The Way Forward on Data Privacy, Prepared Remarks (May 4, 2023).

[34] Philip J. Weiser, Colo. Att’y Gen., The Way Forward on Data Privacy and Data Security, Remarks at Data Privacy Day 2022 (Jan. 28, 2022).

[35] Attorney General Phil Weiser leads bipartisan effort of 39 state attorneys general in urging Congress to fund expanded access to broadband, Colo. Dep’t of L (May 21, 2020).

[36] Attorney General Phil Weiser statement regarding SCOTUS ruling on FCC Universal Service Fund, Colo. Dep’t of L. (June 27, 2025).

[37] Philip J. Weiser, Colo. Att’y Gen., Lessons from Microsoft: A State AG Perspective, Remarks at the Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies (Apr. 25, 2025); Philip J. Weiser, The Enduring Promise of Antitrust, 52 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 1 (2021) (opens new tab).