In The Trump Era, Deregulation Has Become A Foreign Policy Directive

Bruna Santos is the Policy and Advocacy Manager at WITNESS and a Member of the Coalizão Direitos na Rede.

On July 15th, the Trump administration launched an investigation into Brazil under the guise of examining “unfair” trading practices. The probe seeks to determine whether practices adopted by the Brazilian government and the recent Supreme Court ruling on the country's platform liability regime amount to "unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict US commerce.”

It’s the latest instance of the Trump administration repeating a tactic already deployed against the European Union and Canada, and follows threats of tariffs and letters to the Brazilian Supreme Court. The Office of the US Trade Representative’s probe into Brazil’s trade practices focuses on digital trade and electronic payment methods, as well as alleged attacks on American social media companies and other supposed unfair trading practices that would harm US companies, workers, farmers, and technology innovators.

From protecting freedoms to inaugurating a global deregulatory agenda

At a time when the US government repeatedly abandoned its positions regarding internet freedoms, dismantling international development agencies, and getting rid of bureaus and offices at the State Department that were responsible for addressing human rights abuses, one must wonder: is this move really about protecting the internet as it is and defending users from alleged attacks on tech companies? Or is this yet another attempt by the US to export its domestic agenda and antagonize countries and economic blocs as a means for targeting the administration’s political opponents?

In this context, the classic fallacy that regulation inherently hinders innovation has now been transformed into a global level deregulatory agenda. When it comes to digital policy, divergences have always been part of the conversation. While the US has been historically more prone to avoiding state intervention on companies, places like Brazil, Australia, and the European Union have been doing their homework when it comes to discussing proper frameworks for addressing online abuses and pressuring social media platforms to protect their users.

But the current moment is no longer characterized by these policy disagreements. In the past few months, the European Commission has been subject to several attempts at intervention from the US government, which has strongly voiced its disapproval of the EU's approach, citing its potential impediment to industry innovation. Added to that, the disparity between US and EU approaches to artificial intelligence regulation have become clear with US Vice President JD Vance’s statement at the Paris AI Action Summit, which outlined a pro-accelerationist approach, and more recently with the US Mission to the EU’s feedback letter about the bloc’s Code of Practice on General Purpose AI, which focused on attempting to streamline the code and emphasizing the wider impacts of the EU’s approach to trade and an eventual tariff increase.

BRICS as a current threat to US superpower?

BRICS nations were another recent target of US government interventions. These actions suggest that Trump is concerned about the prominence of the forum, which is now responsible for 24% of the world's commercial exchanges and represents 39% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and also contains nations with considerable technological power — which could come to threaten American firms.

One of BRICS’s main goals is to also push for greater standing for the Global South as a potential driver of positive change in different areas. This year’s summit, chaired by Brazil, issued a historic commitment to more inclusive and sustainable governance, which included a shared Global South perspective on AI. This perspective reinforces the need for governance mechanisms that can mitigate potential risks and meet the needs of all countries. It asserted that a “collective global effort is needed to establish AI governance that upholds our shared values, addresses risks, builds trust, and ensures broad and inclusive international collaboration and access."

Given that the declaration and the call for companies to address risks and build trust, the threat of extra tariffs and the criticisms that the forum is an anti-American space come as no surprise.

What stake does Trump have in Bolsonaro’s investigations?

Last but not least, there's Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president and noted Trump ally. In a letter published online in July, Trump threatened Brazil with 50% tariffs, arguing that the country — and its President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — are conducting a witch hunt against Bolsonaro by pursuing charges against the former Brazilian president for attempting to stage a coup after losing the 2022 election.

The recently launched USTR probe looks like yet another escalation of the accusations issued in Trump’s letter, but also showcases 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.

If this remains the rule, does that mean that the US, one of the most powerful countries in the world, will need to approve any policy related to changes issued by countries in the global majority? And this all in the name of protecting a series of companies who are mostly known for prioritizing profit over tackling tech harms all over the world?

We are at a turning point when it comes to how Big Tech companies are able to influence the world with the development and integration of AI, and the development of this technology is outpacing regulation. At the same time, the threats it poses to society, politics, and democracy are real. At WITNESS, we see a growing need for centering those protecting human rights and democracy at the frontlines of this debate, and placing even greater responsibility across the AI, tech, and information pipeline. In order for us to achieve these goals, we need to abandon global strategies that are based on tariffs and driven by the goal of keeping the concentration of technological power housed exclusively in the US.