It is remarkable to witness the shock from many in the tech accountability community over the prominent place of tech CEOs at President Donald Trump’s inauguration, warmly embracing the new administration and aligning with the MAGA values they once claimed to oppose. It is unclear whether this is just naivety or a disconnect from the realities of surveillance capitalist world order. 

This sudden display of affection toward Trump from tech CEOs is not necessarily rooted in shared values or long-standing ideological alignment. While Elon Musk is the President’s right-hand man and biggest patron, and Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is clearly in “the tent,” figures such as Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Apple CEO Tim Cook were more likely there for more calculated reasons. Nevertheless, the titans of surveillance capitalism are all driven by a singular agenda: to preserve and expand their empires in the US and globally. 

For years, many in government, civil society, and academia have viewed these companies as defenders of free speech, human rights, and the open Internet. Some even saw them as champions of progressive values. Many partnered with them, relied on their funding and overlooked the excesses of the surveillance capitalist business model built on unfettered data collection and monetization. They ignored their close ties to political power, their connections with law enforcement and national security, their dubious adventures in politics, and their huge lobbying budgets. And, worst of all, they dismissed those who had long warned that “the king is naked.” 

The last few weeks have been hard for Big Tech’s defenders. They — especially the heads of State who signed agreements and posed for photos with executives who now represent direct threats to their citizens, democracies, and digital sovereignty — may feel fooled and abandoned, and are now questioning how we got here. Welcome to the harsh reality of money and politics! 

This was preventable.

The sad reality is that much of this could have been avoided (at least to some extent) if those in governments who fell for the digital transformation trap, along with academia, think tanks, advocacy organizations, and politics (particularly pro-corporate Democrats in the US and neoliberal politicians in other countries) had recognized and acknowledged the risks of empowering the very corporations they now criticize and shame. 

There were many missed opportunities to make meaningful progress in curbing Big Tech’s power and addressing key societal challenges, including privacy, online protection of children, workers’ rights, AI regulation, and the survival of small publishers and local media. Legislative and regulatory efforts faced strong resistance from tech companies and their lobbyists, as well as from the broader tech policy community, academia, think tanks, and advocacy circles. Much of this resistance was driven by self-interest and funding priorities, — it is hard to combat tech empires while taking their money. These same tech companies, particularly Meta, were once supporters and funders of what the MAGA right now calls a “woke” agenda. Those issues no longer serve Meta’s interest after Zuckerberg discovered the perks of bro culture and discarded DEI policies. But don’t worry — Meta will likely continue to fund organizations to work on the “open washing” of AI now, given his latest corporate priorities.

These firms strategically shifted policy discussions while funding organizations to conduct research and advocacy on issues ranging from trust and safety to AI ethics. While the money flowed for so-called “woke” initiatives, trust and safety, and AI ethics, the spigot was closed for substantive discussions on regulatory frameworks or binding and enforceable tech regulations. This is how these firms and their bright and well-dressed policy executives —many of them plucked directly from civil society organizations, governments, or elite academic institutions — shaped the regulatory landscape for many years. 

For many, this is an “I told you so” moment. Activists who refused to “do business” with Big Tech — many from marginalized communities or geographies outside of Europe and the US — have always been dismissed or excluded from tech policy discussions. We hope now is a time for reflection and penance so that in a few years, instead of saying, “We told you so,” we can say, “We saw this coming, and together, we prepared.” 

Surveillance capitalism will expand in the Trump era.

Undoubtedly, the Trump administration will likely be the cosiest with tech tycoons since the Obama era. This close alliance will likely bring new and unpredictable pressures on countries' digital transformation efforts, particularly in the Global South. 

Given Trump’s transactional style and “America First” approach, his administration’s foreign policy and digital agenda will likely be shaped by economic coercion and tariffs. There is little doubt that Silicon Valley giants will fully exploit this approach. Trump has already criticized the “very unfair” treatment of US companies in the European market, citing difficulties in bringing products into the EU. Tech companies will likely leverage trade policies to strengthen their dominance in emerging markets, pushing for deregulation and prompting the widespread adoption of their products and services in the public sector. The dominance of US firms in artificial intelligence and its global market structure depends heavily on their oligopolistic control of large-scale data extraction, which translates into global control over knowledge production and consumption.

With these radical shifts in the development and trade agenda, US tech giants are well-positioned to solidify their position as exclusive providers of digital infrastructure, running entire economies digitally and becoming the default provider for countries still in the process of digitization. Their ambitions do not end there; they will push further into vertical integration of their services, enabling regional dominance and control over entire digital economies with minimum tax obligations and regulations, leaving recipient governments to bear the costs. This trajectory threatens to undermine local and national tech sovereignty and security, leaving countries more vulnerable than ever to political or military pressure tied to critical digital infrastructures. 

Think strategically, act collaboratively.

This must not be a moment of passivity – but a time for bold policy action. Those who are prepared will be better equipped to face the challenges ahead. 

Countries without a clear digital industrial policy, however, are the most vulnerable to the emerging broligarchy (a new political order dominated by tech bros). Without a proactive agenda and well-defined goals, these countries risk quietly accepting digital policy and trade impositions, and deregulation demands, locking themselves into long-term trade commitments and technological dependencies that hinder sustainable development efforts and leave their workers and consumers vulnerable, their governance weak, and their sovereignty stripped. The window of opportunity for developing independent and strategic industrial policies for digital transformation is rapidly closing. 

Unfortunately, passivity and confusion prevail in most countries. As policy space slips away, many existing catch-up efforts by the global majority remain misguided. Governments continue to conflate digital industrial policy with digitalization, leading to the unnecessary privatization of public spaces and services, the sharing of public data, and a deepening technological and infrastructural dependency on surveillance capitalist tech companies.

Civil society remains distracted by non-binding multilateral and multistakeholder processes that end in declarations never read in Washington. Organizations that operate in the orbit of the UN and other multilateral bodies seem completely unaware of the changing rules of the game. Unlike during Trump's first term, tech companies now have a playbook for leveraging lobbying power. They are strategically positioning themselves closer to the center of power. There is little value for them in engaging with global policy discussions or initiatives from the UN on AI, digital governance, or related issues. They can simply bypass these fora and focus on imposing their terms directly in trade talks. 

The next few years will be crucial for low- and middle-income countries. They have a choice: either stick to the status quo, relying on Big Tech infrastructures and deepening dependencies while taking pretend steps on digital or AI governance that lead nowhere, or take bold action to transform their national industrial policies to build self-reliant digital infrastructure and AI ecosystems for people and the planet. 

This is not an easy transformation. It demands coordinated policy action, a whole-of-government approach, extensive policy interventions, substantial financial resources, well-crafted strategies, and strong political will. Instead of falling for disconnected one-size-fits-all global strategies, local experts and academics must work with governments to develop creative, concrete strategies to address the range of coming challenges, from reducing reliance on foreign cloud infrastructure to fostering vertical integration of a different set of technologies beyond those dictated by Silicon Valley. 

Time is running out.

The sooner these efforts begin, the better, as policy space is rapidly shrinking. However, with well-crafted proactive policies firmly grounded and supported by strong political will, countries can shield themselves from external pressures and future trade impositions. The more participatory and well-informed these processes are, the more likely their outcomes will be resilient and sustainable. 

There is no time to lose. Governments must resist paralysis in the face of the uncertainties of this new political panorama and act decisively in response to shifting global dynamics. There is a crucial window of opportunity to take control of their industrial agendas, breaking free from the current extractive economic models championed by neoliberal policy agents and surveillance capitalist tech companies. Instead, they must pursue viable alternatives for a true digital transformation—one that places people and the planet at the core of sustainable economic progress. 

As the world faces unprecedented uncertainty, volatility, and a growing unease about the future, the choice is ours: stand by and watch and regret later, or start preparing and strategizing proactively for what lies ahead. 

At the Progressive International, we will mobilize our members around the world to win the fight for tech sovereignty in the era of the new tech oligarchs.

Photo by See-ming Lee. CC-BY-SA 2012