Good morning!

Under the Trump administration, the United States Department of State just slashed more than a thousand jobs, affecting more than 300 bureaus across the world in addition to its domestic offices. And earlier this year, the US Agency for International Development (USAID)—a longstanding pillar of American soft power—was dismantled, with its operations folded into the State Department. These moves have hobbled or ended a substantial amount of work on Internet freedom and digital rights across the globe.

The US retreat from the Internet freedom agenda is not just a geopolitical shift but a normative collapse, writes Konstantinos Komaitis, a senior resident fellow at the Democracy and Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council, where he leads the Council’s work on global governance and democracy. The US once linked the governance of cyberspace to the broader project of liberal democracy. That project is now in crisis, he says. Will new leadership emerge to pick up the torch?

“Unless another coalition emerges to carry the torch—perhaps among EU member states, global South democracies, or transnational civil society—the world may soon be governed by a different digital logic: one that prioritizes order over openness, security over freedom, and state power over individual rights. If that happens, the Internet as we know it—the Internet as a space of shared, decentralized, democratic possibility—may become a historical anomaly,” writes Komaitis.

Case in point? The US was once a reliable pillar of bipartisan support for pro-democracy efforts in Myanmar. But recent policy shifts have introduced new uncertainty, write Access Now’s Wai Phyo Myint and Faiz Naeem. That’s just one factor working against the resistance there. The story unfolding in Myanmar is not only a national tragedy — it is a warning of what happens when authoritarian regimes seize control of the digital sphere, they write.

Another seeming casualty of the US foreign aid freeze is the fight against human trafficking and forced labor in Southeast Asia, writes Columbia University lecturer Laura Scherling. This includes the battle against scam compounds, hubs for organized crime and forced labor.

But even as the State Department is retreating from pro-democracy work, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is using his authority to pursue President Donald Trump’s campaign to defend former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is on trial for his role in leading an attempted coup d’etat. On Friday, Rubio announced visa revocations targeting Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, claiming he is responsible for a “political witch hunt against Jair Bolsonaro” and the creation of a “persecution and censorship complex so sweeping that it not only violates basic rights of Brazilians, but also extends beyond Brazil’s shores to target Americans.”

Close readers of Tech Policy Press may recall that contributing editor Dean Jackson and I wrote about Rubio’s threatened visa restrictions “targeting foreign nationals who censor Americans” in May. Alongside the introduction of tariffs against Brazil on the same basis, which São Paulo-based Tech Policy Press fellow Laís Martins wrote about earlier this month, it’s a stunning intrusion into Brazilian affairs on behalf of the far right.

Just before Friday’s news, we published three related pieces:

• As the US escalates trade probes and attacks on foreign tech regulations, the question arises: Is this about protecting the internet, or advancing a global deregulatory agenda? Bruna Santos, a policy and advocacy manager at WITNESS and a member of the Coalizão Direitos na Rede, says the administration’s moves, including an investigation by the US Trade Representative, show a “serious disregard for Brazil's sovereignty by taking aim at the country’s legitimate decisions on affairs related to platform regulation, the prosecution of individuals responsible for inciting attacks on Brazilian democracy, the review of the country’s intermediary liability rules, and even the creation of a payment method that has been broadly adopted by Brazilians.”

• Observers need to understand what the debate over differing approaches to online freedom of expression in the US and Brazil is missing, writes Dr. Fernanda Buril, the Deputy Director of the Center for Applied Research and Learning at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). When it comes to platform regulation, policymakers who consider the realities in their countries, develop reasonable regulations, and also invest in sustainable solutions can chart a path forward without compromising the democratic foundations they aim to protect, she writes.

• Trump’s intervention in Brazil is a clear attempt to protect far right interests there and around the world, exposing the degree to which “free speech” arguments have been co-opted by the far right to preserve the ability to mislead and incite violence, writes James Görgen.

Concerns about authoritarianism were prevalent in pieces from multiple contributors this week:

• The Trump administration, aided by Big Tech, is reportedly building a centralized database pooling data from federal and state agencies. Pushed to the brink, many states are pushing back, Adele Jaspere writes.

• “Without safeguards to press freedom online, tech platforms risk becoming the fifth column of authoritarian governments, closing off what little space remains for dissenting voices,” write Marius Dragomir and Minna Aslama Horowitz.

• AI can help protect democracies or empower those who threaten freedom: corporations, oligarchs, or governments. The key question is: who does AI serve? We should all care about the answer, writes Richard Reisman.

We had multiple pieces this week that addressed questions around mis- and disinformation as well as content moderation, online safety, and what to do about issues such as media pluralism and the rise in AI slop:

• Bills under consideration in the Indian state of Karnataka that ostensibly target “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech” signal a shift in the Overton window on speech issues in India towards illiberalism, writes Tech Policy Press fellow Prateek Waghre.

• Tackling climate disinformation requires sustained investment, yet the counter-disinformation community remains underfunded, and regulation faces significant resistance, writes Zora Siebert, who leads the EU Democracy and Digital Policy Programme at the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union in Brussels.

• Social media feeds are increasingly being overrun by AI slop, writes political scientist José Marichal. But while the dangers of AI slop are often framed as large tech companies imposing dangerous tools on an unsuspecting public, perhaps we should also consider why we are so receptive to low quality content, he says.

• While the solutions to online safety vary, “they all have one thing in common,” argue Drs. Charlotte Moore Hepburn, Ashley Vandermorris, Alene Toulany, and Rachel Mitchell, “a recognition that children face an unacceptable risk, and to do nothing would be reckless, irresponsible, and dangerous.”

• Safeguarding media pluralism in the digital sphere requires fundamentally different strategies than in traditional media environments, writes Urbano Reviglio, a research associate at the Center for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF) at the European University Institute (EUI). Algorithmic pluralism is not just algorithmic plurality, he writes; it must be part of a broader structural effort to uphold media pluralism.

Two pieces touched on questions around AI governance in US states:

• With the recent demise of the state AI moratorium in Washington, the flurry of AI-related lawmaking will likely continue apace, but the direction in which that movement will go remains uncertain. Texas's new law, TRAIGA, forges something of a middle path, Crowell & Moring lawyers Matthew Ferraro and Anna Z. Saber write.

• In the absence of federal regulation of AI vendors, procurement remains one of the few levers governments in the US have to push for public values, such as safety, non-discrimination, privacy, and accountability, researchers Nari Johnson, Elise Silva, and Hoda Heidari write.

There was a great deal more on the site this week:

• Competition: How are Alphabet, Meta, and ByteDance adapting to the EU's Digital Markets Act? Tech Policy Press fellow Megan Kirkwood shares key takeaways from the European Commission’s latest compliance workshops.

• Digital public infrastructure: India’s digital public infrastructure is going global—open-source, low-cost, scalable, writes Anuradha Sajjanhar. But big questions remain, she says: What kind of states are we building? Whose power does it serve? What politics are other nations importing?

• Transparency: The UK’s foray into social media data access offers a unique opportunity to learn lessons from the EU’s data access efforts to create a regime that is more nimble, more secure, and better aligned with society’s growing need to understand global platforms’ real-world impacts, writes Tech Policy Press contributing editor Mark Scott.

• Growing the movement: If we want people to move toward a healthier, greener, more responsible society, we have to make that movement feel like something worth joining, writes Frenk van Harreveld, a professor of social psychology and director of the Psychological Research Institute at the University of Amsterdam. That must happen not through fear or guilt alone—but by making it visible, rewarding, and human, he writes.

Finally, many readers of the Tech Policy Press newsletter are involved in the field of Trust & Safety. Next week, practitioners will gather at the Hyatt Regency in San Francisco for TrusCon, an industry sponsored event hosted by the Trust & Safety Professionals Association (TSPA). Ahead of TrustCon, Tech Policy Press fellow Anika Collier Navaroli spoke with two experts on Trust & Safety about balance and resilience in the notoriously difficult field, including Alice Hunsberger, head of Trust & Safety at Musubi, a firm that sells AI content moderation solutions, and Jerrel Peterson, director of content policy at Spotify. They discussed how they broke into the field, why they continue to love the work, their feelings about the current state of the industry, how to better the working relationship between civil society and industry, and their advice for the next generation of practitioners. Listen to the podcast here, and stay tuned for more on the subject next week.

Have a good week-

Justin