Connect with us

America

Critical case in the US: Big tech companies vs government intervention

Published

on

On Monday, the US Supreme Court heard a significant case that challenges some of the fundamental ideas that have guided the American economic order for the last fifty years.

The case, known as ‘NetChoice v. Paxton’, raises the question of whether the First Amendment prohibits economic regulation of technology platforms such as Google, Meta, Amazon, and TikTok under the guise of ‘free speech’.

NetChoice functions as a trade association for online businesses. NetChoice’s members include Amazon, Google, Lyft, Meta, Nextdoor, PayPal, Snap, TikTok, Verisign, Waymo, and X. The list of members comprises some of the biggest names in the tech industry.

NetChoice and its financial resources

NetChoice is a lobbying group funded by Google, Facebook, Amazon and TikTok. It primarily sues against public rules designed to restrict such companies.

Its budget is huge, accounting for about 15% of the entire Anti-Monopoly department of the federal government.

NetChoice immediately sued to block the law, as well as a similar law in Florida. Initially, the big tech firms attempted to frame the case as a ‘partisan fight’ by claiming that Texas was defending political conservatives against them.

However, this argument failed as there are other laws, such as California’s ‘California Age Appropriate Design Code Act’, which NetChoice sued to block.

Summary of cases

In 2021, Florida and Texas passed laws mandating that social media platforms with over 50 million American users cannot discriminate against users based on their viewpoint. These laws were a clear reaction to Donald Trump’s expulsion from Twitter and Facebook.

In 2021, the two technology groups challenged the Florida law in federal court. The district court blocked enforcement of the injunction and determined that it likely violated the First Amendment. The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit sided with the trade groups after Florida appealed the decision.

The outcome of the case will have a direct impact on the multi-trillion dollar market, with potential political and social consequences in the US. Big Tech firms face claims related to anti-monopoly, privacy rights, civil rights, and free speech issues. Congress and state legislatures are taking action to address ‘surveillance advertising’ and the exploitation of children by these companies.

This case may disrupt counter-political moves as Big Tech companies’ lawyers claim that the US Constitution does not allow elected officials to interfere with private technology platforms, even when their decisions have significant societal consequences.The case has raised interesting and bizarre questions as arguments unfolded. For instance, Facebook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, argues that the company has the First Amendment right to discriminate racially or religiously in its services or to create services that addict children.

Similarly, Google’s lawyer confirms that the company can delete Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow’s Gmail account due to political disagreement.

During a discussion, Judge Neil Gorsuch inquired about the ability of technology companies, such as Gmail, to delete emails and private direct messages that contain sensitive topics like race, politics, and religion. Clement responded that the decision would depend on the application of the ‘equal protection’ clause, but also noted that this issue involves editorial judgments.

Big Tech received support from a variety of third parties, including the ACLU, privacy law professors, companies like Etsy, historians, civil rights groups, the US Chamber of Commerce, and national security experts such as General Stanley McChrystal.

The judges are uncertain

It is yet to be determined how the Supreme Court judges, who are hearing the case, will address the issue of ‘freedom of expression’.

Judge Gorsuch, for instance, inquired whether ‘algorithms specifically designed to lure young people into addiction or suicide, depression and that sort of thing’ are covered by freedom of expression and can, therefore, be regulated by the state.

Counsel Clement responded that the state could not regulate them.During the hearing, Judge Barrett inquired about the possibility of big tech companies banning users based on their religion.The response was affirmative, indicating that if Google wished to restrict its platform to only Catholics, it would have the right under the First Amendment to exclude Protestants from a Catholic gathering.

Jim Crow in anti-regulation

The argument that technology companies should not be regulated because the government cannot interfere can be traced back to the Civil Rights movement in the US and the conservative reaction to it.

This is reminiscent of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the views of Robert Bork, the Yale University law professor who opposed it. The new case has brought these issues to the forefront once again. Bork judged that racial discrimination could be defended as long as it was ‘privatised’ in relation to the civil rights movement’s struggle against it.His article in The New Republic defending racial segregation was highly controversial. The descendants of Southern slave owners expressed their satisfaction, with a South Carolina banker even writing to Bork that it was ‘very encouraging for them to have a Goldwater man at Yale’.Barry Goldwater was a conservative senator from Arizona.

The editors of The New Republic argued against Bork’s legal opinions. Private property owners have always been able to conduct their affairs within certain public impositions. For example, under English common law, an innkeeper was obliged to admit all customers, provided they were sober and regular. Southern businesses in the US and Bork were abusing private property law and demanding exemption from public obligations. The vocabulary is accessible, and the grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct.

Bork did not defend racism in his article; he found it ‘abhorrent’. However, he believed that the state should not dictate the terms on which businessmen use their private property. The text is now structured logically, with short and simple sentences in the active voice. No changes in content were made.

Southern property rights combined with neoliberal financialisation

In effect, the Yale professor was echoing the arguments of slavery advocates on both sides of the Atlantic during the American Civil War. Southern slave owners and their supporters argued that their slaves were their private property and that state interference in private property was contrary to the fundamental principle of liberalism.

Although the abolitionist Northern republicans won the American Civil War, a compromise was made with the South immediately after the war, giving white landowners there the right to practice racial segregation. These laws, known as the ‘Jim Crow laws’, reinforced racial segregation in the South, with blacks, for example, no longer allowed to enter buses or hotels with whites.

The origin of the term ‘Jim Crow’ is attributed to ‘Jump Jim Crow’, a black-faced song and dance character first created in 1828 by white actor Thomas D. Rice. As a result of Rice’s fame, Jim Crow had become a pejorative expression meaning ‘Negro’ by 1838. When Southern legislatures passed racial discrimination laws against African Americans at the end of the 19th century, these laws became known as the ‘Jim Crow laws’.

Although racial segregation was ended at the federal level in 1964, these arguments continued to have a strong political impact. The South had always favoured civil service rules and anti-monopoly rules because Southerners saw these legal instruments as checks on the overwhelming power of Northern capital.

In the 1960s, Bork opposed anti-monopoly laws that protected small firms against large corporations. He argued that these laws were ‘inefficient’ and harmful to consumers. Large corporations cherished Bork after his article in Fortune magazine, and he gained access to ‘research’ funds with attractive fees.

During the neoliberal era, the trend towards deregulation led to the politicisation of small anti-monopoly corporations and white Southern property owners on an ‘anti-state interventionist’ platform. These groups aligned with the deregulatory aspirations of the era’s hyper-financialisation.

Interestingly, Bork’s theses also influenced the liberal left. Bork believed in economic specialisation and concentration of capital, but he was against populism and small businesses. He viewed monopolies’ price controls as their property rights and a matter of consumer rights.

As a result, he supported all forms of price controls except those based on gender and racial discrimination. The case before the Supreme Court may clarify whether there are any obstacles to this. Bork’s anti-Civil Rights and pro-monopoly reasoning in Big Tech’s defence is easily traceable.

America

US Senate panel seeks records in Trump-linked crypto investigation

Published

on

Richard Blumenthal, the ranking Democrat on the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), has requested documents from cryptocurrency exchange Binance, Tether, and crypto projects linked to President Donald Trump as part of inquiries into potential financial irregularities and conflicts of interest.

The documents were requested to be submitted by 4 January 2027.

Senators warned that they would resort to compulsory measures if the request was refused.

Entities sent document requests include World Liberty Financial and Fight Fight Fight LLC, both linked to President Trump’s family.

Blumenthal began examining the activities of these entities in May 2025 following reports that they may have engaged in transactions with foreigners under federal criminal investigation, attracted investments from foreign governments, and violated public ethics rules.

Notably, in 2026, it emerged that individuals close to the Abu Dhabi royal family had signed an agreement with the Trump family to purchase 49% of the shares in World Liberty Financial for $500 million.

The company, founded in September 2024 by the US President and his sons, launched a token called WLFI.

According to official disclosures, Trump made $800 million from this token alone.

Conversely, crypto analytics firm Nansen calculated, by tracking 1.48 million crypto wallets, that approximately two-thirds of those who invested in the token after its launch in January 2025 incurred losses.

While many retail investors spent several thousand dollars on purchases, the largest investors poured in millions of dollars.

Trump also launched his own memecoin, TRUMP, on 17 January 2025, prior to his inauguration.

Rising 10.6-fold in value within three days, the cryptocurrency’s market capitalisation reached $15 billion at its peak.

However, after those three days, the price entered a downturn, plunging by 97%.

Trump reported in his financial disclosure that he earned $635 million in income from sales of these memecoins.

In July 2026, Blumenthal held public hearings on the family crypto projects from which the President made $1.4 billion.

The losses suffered by TRUMP memecoin investors were also addressed during these hearings.

Cryptocurrency exchange Binance and Tether, which issues the largest stablecoin, USDT, are under scrutiny over their dealings with the Trump administration.

Lawmakers suspected conflicts of interest stemming from the exchange’s collaboration with World Liberty Financial.

Previously, a group of senators had demanded an inquiry into the terms of the presidential pardon granted to Binance founder Changpeng Zhao.

Separately, The New York Times reported that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) gaining access to American artificial intelligence chips coincided with a $2 billion investment by a UAE entity into Binance using USD1, a stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial.

While this deal rapidly expanded the volume of tokens in circulation, it enabled Trump’s company to generate revenue from interest on government bonds where USD1 reserves were held.

Trump, for his part, described the report as slander.

Continue Reading

America

US credit card debt hits record $1.29 trillion, New York Fed reports

Published

on

Americans’ credit card debt reached a record $1.29 trillion in the third quarter, according to a new report published by the New York Fed.

Falling behind on credit card payments can trap struggling households in a cycle of fees, credit score downgrades, and increasingly expensive borrowing.

Although delinquency rates across the country have shown improvement, the latest figures indicate that financial distress is concentrated in lower-income communities.

Consumer credit card balances rose by $22 billion in the third quarter, representing an increase of 1.7%. This figure is $52 billion higher than it was a year earlier.

The figures are not adjusted for inflation, which may mean that part of the increase reflects rising prices rather than more borrowing in real terms.

Total household debt, which includes mortgages, student loans, and auto loans, rose by $334 billion in the third quarter to reach a record $19.1 trillion.

This total represents an increase of $5 trillion compared to 2019, just before the pandemic.

The volume of credit card balances falling into serious delinquency is declining, indicating some improvement in Americans’ ability to make their payments on time.

The rate of credit card debt transitioning into serious delinquency fell to 6.9% in the third quarter. However, this rate remains distinctly higher than the 5.2% recorded prior to the pandemic.

Americans living in lower-income neighbourhoods are facing greater difficulty in keeping up with their credit card payments compared to more affluent groups, according to a separate report published by the New York Fed on Tuesday.

Delinquency rates across all neighbourhood income tiers remain above pre-pandemic levels, while the gap between the wealthiest and poorest areas has widened since 2022.

In the lowest-income neighbourhoods, 10.3% of credit card balances transitioned into serious delinquency over the past year.

This is more than double the 4.4% rate observed in the wealthiest neighbourhoods.

The average credit card balance per borrower now stands at $6,678, according to TransUnion’s third-quarter analysis report.

Among borrowers under the age of 30, the rate of credit card debt falling at least 90 days delinquent reached the highest level, according to the Fed’s report.

Democrats won the midterm elections promising to bring down prices, but delivering relief that voters can genuinely feel in their household budgets will be a difficult target to achieve.

Continue Reading

America

Mamdani quietly asks Trump to release detained immigrants

Published

on

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is using his rapport with US President Donald Trump to secure the release of selected detained immigrants.

According to reporting by Politico, Mamdani persuaded Trump during their second White House meeting in February to free a university student who had been detained that day by ICE.

The outcome served as validation for Mamdani, who pointed to the release of the Columbia University senior as proof that his surprisingly cordial relationship with Trump could produce tangible results for New Yorkers.

Mamdani subsequently continued to seek similar immigration-related interventions from the Republican president.

Since that February meeting, Mamdani and his aides have quietly forwarded the names of approximately two dozen immigrant New Yorkers held in ICE custody to Trump’s team, asking the president to order their release.

Two sources familiar with the matter said Mamdani most recently shared names of detained immigrants during a September meeting with Trump at Gracie Mansion.

The sources said the individuals in question had no serious criminal records, though they declined to disclose their identities, citing safety concerns.

According to Politico, these ongoing efforts regarding detained immigrants indicate Mamdani’s belief that he can leverage his rapport with Trump to advance causes the mercurial president might not ordinarily support.

Mamdani’s decision not to disclose these continued appeals publicly suggests an inclination to keep his interventions private to improve their chances of success.

Yet it remains unclear whether any immigrant besides Columbia University student Elmina Aghayeva has actually been released as a result of these efforts, and concern is mounting within City Hall that the window for securing such releases may be closing.

Mamdani’s aides working on the releases, including his Chief of Staff Elle Bisgaard-Church, communicated primarily with Trump’s White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, according to people familiar with the matter.

Last week, Trump replaced Wiles with Stephen Miller, the architect of the administration’s most hardline immigration proposals and one of the loudest internal voices urging the president to pursue a mass deportation agenda in his second term.

A person familiar with the Mamdani administration’s thinking said the mayor’s team views it as unlikely that Miller will continue cooperating in the manner Wiles did, given his stance on immigration.

Mamdani spokesperson Dora Pekec declined to comment on internal concerns regarding Miller and did not provide details about the immigrants whose release the mayor had requested.

Pekec noted, however, that Mamdani has “consistently advocated directly on behalf of New Yorkers in his calls and meetings with the president.”

Murad Awawdeh, a close Mamdani ally and president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition, said the mayor’s team should not halt engagement with the Trump administration on immigration matters because of Miller’s promotion:

“Stephen Miller is a cruel individual who has spent his career attacking immigrants, but he is not the president; Donald Trump is, and this is his deportation agenda. New York expects the president to work with the mayor to serve this city and end the terror in our communities. Miller’s promotion changes none of that.”

Mamdani’s warm dynamic with Trump has confounded both allies and critics.

During last year’s New York mayoral election, Trump referred to Mamdani as a “communist lunatic” and threatened to have him arrested.

In turn, the 35-year-old democratic socialist branded the president a “fascist” and pledged to fight him relentlessly if elected mayor.

Yet that animosity fell away late last year during their first White House meeting, where an amicable tone prevailed.

The thaw culminated in September at Gracie Mansion, where Trump said Mamdani had “great potential” to be a “terrific mayor.”

Mamdani returned the compliment by noting that the president had “built quite a bit of housing in our city.”

Despite the polite exchange, questions remain over how much substantive progress Mamdani can genuinely secure through Trump, including on immigration.

To date, Aghayeva’s release stands as one of the few concrete concessions Mamdani has obtained from Trump.

Aides on both sides are also discussing a multi-billion-dollar federally backed housing initiative in Queens, and last month Mamdani used his channel to Trump to help secure a temporary visa for a Ghanaian woman whose son was shot and killed in the Bronx.

Beyond those instances, few tangible results have emerged, though Trump’s decision not to enact punitive measures against New York is viewed by Mamdani’s allies as a win for the city.

Trump’s political standing is widely seen as weakened following the Republican Party’s loss of both houses of Congress in elections last Tuesday.

How this political shift will affect Trump’s willingness to engage with ideological adversaries such as Mamdani remains uncertain.

Miller’s appointment as chief of staff appears to signal little presidential interest in moderation, particularly on immigration policy.

Even so, the mayor said last week that he does not intend to stop seeking Trump’s assistance, despite “fierce” policy disagreements.

“We have found an area of common interest in the well-being of New York City, and as long as that can deliver for our city, I’m going to keep that door open,” Mamdani told Politico on Friday in Puerto Rico.

Mamdani and other elected officials from New York had gathered in Puerto Rico for the annual Somos political conference.

Two days later, in an interview on Fox News, a network Trump is known to watch regularly, Mamdani described a “productive relationship” with the president, saying the two text and speak by phone frequently:

“Through those conversations, we were able to get a New Yorker out of ICE detention. We were able to secure a visa for a grieving mother who would have otherwise had to watch her son’s funeral from thousands of miles away. What that tells me is: My job is to deliver for New Yorkers, and I have to work with whoever has the power to do that, wherever they may be.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey