America
Critical case in the US: Big tech companies vs government intervention
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 national debt hits record $40 trillion as borrowing accelerates
The US national debt has reached a record $40 trillion as borrowing expanded at a historic pace.
The development has heightened investor concern over the state of US public finances, despite Donald Trump’s pledge to bring spending under control.
Gross federal debt crossed the threshold on Tuesday, according to Treasury Department data published on Wednesday.
Calculations by the Financial Times show that debt climbed by $3 trillion over the past year, registering the fastest rate of increase in history outside the pandemic period.
Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget think tank, said:
“This is like a giant, flashing ‘check engine’ light. It doesn’t mean your engine will melt down tomorrow, but it is a clear sign that things have gotten quite out of hand. And it’s not just the size of the number; it’s the speed at which we’ve reached it.”
The US national debt has surged over the past two decades, climbing from below $6 trillion at the start of the century (about $12 trillion in 2026 dollar terms) as massive public spending during the financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic compounded enormous budget deficits.
In the past 10 years alone, the total debt load has doubled. Debt held by the public—a key gauge tracked by markets that excludes intra-governmental holdings—now exceeds $32 trillion, roughly equal to the size of the US economy.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expects debt held by the public to surpass the post-Second World War record of 106% of GDP by the end of the decade and to reach 120% by 2036.
As borrowing increased, investors began demanding a higher premium to hold US bonds.
This has driven interest rates higher, leaving debt servicing costs larger than national defence spending.
The situation has created unease in Washington. On Wednesday, prior to the release of the debt data, the Treasury Department announced it would double its buybacks of long-term government debt in a bid to halt a recent sell-off.
Last week, the US paid its highest borrowing costs since 2001 to sell 30-year bonds.
Wednesday’s 10-year Treasury auction produced the highest yields since 2007 as investors fretted over the scale of the debt.
Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, said: “That is an awful lot of money being borrowed. It is going to feed on itself with interest expenses. If interest rates rise because of concerns about the high debt load, that will lead to even more interest expense. It’s a vicious cycle.”
Trump returned to office in 2025 promising to rein in “wasteful” government spending.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged to reduce the budget deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of Trump’s term.
However, measures to trim spending in some areas were offset by broad tax cuts in the president’s signature 2025 fiscal legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which will add more than $4 trillion to the debt by 2034.
Trump also requested an increase of more than 50% in annual defence spending, seeking $1.5 trillion in the largest budget request in US history.
The deficit fell to 5.9% of GDP in 2025 from 6.3% the previous year. The CBO expects the deficit to decline to 5.8% this year. The US national debt comprises years of accumulated deficits compounded by interest charges.
Analysts noted that both US political parties missed opportunities during periods of economic expansion to take significant steps toward curbing spending.
Calculations by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee indicate that over the past year, total national debt grew by roughly $7.9 billion a day, or approximately $91,000 per second.
Budget specialists said they hoped crossing the $40 trillion threshold would spur politicians from both parties to take meaningful steps to bring borrowing back under control.
Michael Peterson, head of the Peterson Foundation, a think tank dedicated to returning debt to a sustainable trajectory, said:
“My hope is that this serves as a national alarm and wake-up call to address our fiscal future. If we keep borrowing this much, we are going to face a day of reckoning in financial markets… People will wake up one day and decide: ‘You know what? I’m more worried about the United States now. I’m going to demand higher interest rates, or I’m going to put my money somewhere else.'”
America
Independent US oil firms set to sign output deals in Venezuela
Several independent US oil producers are expected to sign production contracts with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company in the coming days.
According to sources who spoke to Politico on condition of anonymity because details of the event have not yet been made public, a signing ceremony involving several small US producers and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) was scheduled to take place in Houston on Tuesday (18 August) evening.
One source said Venezuela’s oil minister and the head of PDVSA’s exploration division were scheduled to attend the ceremony. Another source added that the event could be postponed until Wednesday morning.
The White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, was not expected to be officially involved in Tuesday’s ceremony.
However, the development follows a visit by senior officials to Caracas in late April, where they signed memorandums of understanding that established the framework for formal production agreements in the country, which holds some of the world’s largest oil reserves.
Despite the tailwind provided by high crude prices, negotiations had stalled over key details such as dispute resolution, while officials in Caracas contended with two devastating earthquakes in June that claimed thousands of lives.
Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, announced new regulations last month that offer more favourable fiscal terms to international oil companies.
According to an industry source close to the negotiations, the signing of the contracts comes after the Trump administration renewed pressure on Rodríguez to ensure PDVSA concludes agreements with American firms.
The source said these efforts included outreach by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss how increased oil revenues could assist the country following the devastating earthquake earlier this summer.
The source added:
“Delcy reached a renewed awareness that increased oil production is the way to rebuild after the earthquakes and to achieve what her government wants to do for the people suffering from the earthquakes.”
David Goldwyn, president of the international energy consultancy Goldwyn Global Strategies, said investments from independent oil producers and boosting output from existing fields would serve as the “primary source of new oil growth for the next few years” for Venezuela.
“While the oil majors are trying to buy time to see how the political situation clarifies and whether they can cherry-pick the best assets, independent companies can de-risk their projects in the short term,” Goldwyn said.
However, Goldwyn noted that these investments would add no more than 300,000 barrels per day to the country’s oil production over the next year, falling far short of the multi-million-barrel increase that officials in Caracas and Washington wish to see.
“Until the framework improves, electricity is restored, and the political picture becomes clear, all we will see is incremental production growth,” the strategist said.
America
US-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs
Diplomatic tensions between the two countries remain at a peak as the US government considers new sanctions targeting a judge on Brazil’s Supreme Court.
According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), the Trump administration is evaluating new measures against Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whom it sanctioned last year on human rights grounds before subsequently rescinding that decision.
Washington’s renewed focus on the magistrate threatens to widen the rift between Brazil and the US across trade and political spheres, casting a shadow over upcoming elections in Latin America’s largest nation.
A little over a year ago, De Moraes was subjected to sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused him at the time of engaging in a “repressive censorship campaign, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions,” including measures directed at former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro, an ally of Donald Trump, was sentenced last year to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup.
However, sanctions targeting the judge, his wife, and a company owned by his family were lifted in December following a meeting and phone conversations between Trump and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
According to a source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity, US interest in De Moraes was revived partly due to a case that ignited a debate over press freedom in Brazil.
The judge authorized police raids against a journalist and two sources as part of an investigation into media coverage concerning a Supreme Court justice and his family.
De Moraes defended the action, arguing that the information in question had been illegally obtained and disclosed, thereby endangering the safety of the justice’s family.
The judge gained global prominence several years ago following a public conflict with Elon Musk, which briefly led to the billionaire’s X platform being blocked in Brazil.
Supporters say he “helped protect Brazilian democracy against a wave of misinformation.”
However, critics, including the Trump administration, view him as violating free speech rights.
“He went after the president’s supporters. Not just Elon Musk, but MAGA supporters in Brazil as well. Even if we want to build good relations with Brazil, it is clear that this man is an adversary,” said a person familiar with the US government’s thinking.
Another person stated that the reimposition of Magnitsky sanctions is “under evaluation,” noting that such sanctions entail the freezing of US-based assets and a prohibition on American companies and individuals conducting business with targeted parties.
While it remains unclear whether or when a decision will be reached, any such move would intensify an escalating retaliatory spiral between the two most populous countries in the Americas.
Tensions initially erupted more than a year ago when Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil while demanding that prosecution proceedings against Bolsonaro be dropped.
That tariff was subsequently invalidated by the US Supreme Court.
A brief period of de-escalation since then has drawn to a close, with the US applying a 25% import tariff on numerous Brazilian products in July.
Last month, Brazil denied entry to two Trump envoys over concerns regarding potential interference in its upcoming October elections. Washington rejects those allegations.
Lula, who is seeking re-election for a fourth presidential term, suggested that the US might act to support his main opponent, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the jailed former leader’s son.
The 80-year-old president has also engaged in a sharp public exchange of words with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
On Sunday, thousands of supporters gathered to welcome Lula at a stadium in Sao Bernardo do Campo, an industrial suburb of Sao Paulo, for the official launch of his election campaign.
Lula originally achieved prominence in the area during the late 1970s as a union leader heading metalworkers’ strikes.
Speaking at the venue, Lula said, “I thank the working men and women of this country who believed that someone like themselves could achieve more than someone different from them. As long as I am alive, I will not stop fighting, and I will not allow the right [to prevail].”
-
Interview6 days agoDaniel Davis warns US strategy fails against Iranian defense grid
-
Diplomacy6 days agoErdogan blocked CIA-Mossad plan for armed Kurdish uprising in Iran, report says
-
America6 days agoAIPAC super PAC pours millions into key Democratic primary races
-
Middle East6 days agoUS considers land blockade on Iran involving Türkiye and neighbours
-
Interview2 weeks agoQuincy Institute expert says the United States had no plan B
-
Europe6 days agoUkraine uses British drones for long-range strikes deep inside Russia
-
Opinion2 weeks agoThe U.S. Economy and NATO’s Function
-
America6 days agoUS-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs
