Fog of Chaos: Tech and Politics in This Moment
Tracking the Shifting Battle Lines from Silicon Valley to DC and the world
Right now, understanding the tech-policy landscape feels impossible. In the past six weeks, every time I think I’ve wrapped my head around what’s happening in tech and politics, the landscape shifts again. It’s like navigating in dense fog, where you can see just enough to take the next step but not much further. Military strategists call this the 'fog of war'—the uncertainty that clouds perception and decision-making in battle. What we’re experiencing now is similar: the fog of chaos*.
Amid this uncertainty, I’ve been paying close attention to key shifts. Here’s what’s standing out right now.
I kicked off some of this reflection in my latest podcast appearance with
at , where we revisited the early days of social media in campaigns and how we arrived at this moment. Given the broader shifts in trust and safety, online speech, and AI in elections, the conversation felt particularly relevant. Plus, I had an absolute blast. I’m ready to go start editing that first draft of my book.One major shake-up many are watching is DOGE, though I won’t go too deep into it here—plenty is being written by those with firsthand government experience. Instead, I’m more focused on another critical area of government disruption: the restructuring of agencies like USAID and foreign aid programs.
While I think these agencies have much room for improvement, the way this overhaul is being conducted is not responsible.
I also know that just because many of these organizations have been paused and/or no longer exist, it doesn’t mean people's passion for the work has disappeared. I’m curious to see where these folks get absorbed and how that reshapes the community.
The entire community is not gone, either. Some orgs have different funding models that allow them to remain open and not furlough their staff. We’re seeing funders like MacArthur step up to give more funding to support the work. This is one where it’s important to remember that we are only six weeks into this administration, and it will take time for people to regroup - but it’s starting to happen.
This kind of upheaval isn’t limited to foreign aid. We’re seeing a similar story in trust and safety, where regulatory pushback is reshaping the balance of power—particularly in the escalating battle between the Trump administration and Europe.
We have to start with the wild geopolitics happening in this space with the Trump administration’s blistering attack on Europe, beginning with Vice President Vance’s speeches at the AI Summit in Paris and then in Munich, where he blasted the European Union and the United Kingdom for the Digital Services Act and the Online Safety Act—accusing them of betraying freedom of speech and unfairly censoring Americans. FCC Chair Brendan Carr echoed these sentiments during his trip to Brussels this week, and Jim Jordan summoned European officials to explain themselves. He has subpoenaed the tech companies for their correspondence with these and other governments. Trump also released a memo threatening tariffs on any country that taxed big tech. Meta was out there telling Europe that if they continue to be targeted in investigations, they’ll run to Trump. The Europeans visited the DC from February 24th to 28th and claimed the meetings “clarified] some misunderstandings,” but Carr’s comments suggest otherwise.
I was not expecting this to be the opening message to Europe by the Trump administration, nor it to happen so forcefully. Europeans are not ready for this type of attack on their laws by the United States, and I’m curious how this will all play out - mainly since we are operating with new and different leaders in the commission than the old tech guard. I also have difficulty believing any country would be comfortable with the U.S. government asking tech companies for their correspondence. I haven’t seen any public pushback, but I’m willing to be there is a lot behind the scenes.
And this isn’t just a U.S.-Europe fight—similar legal battles over online speech are unfolding globally, with one of the most fascinating cases happening in Brazil.
Recently, Truth Social and Rumble sued Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes—the person in Brazil with the legal authority to ask platforms to take down content or suspend users—for a recent order he had made to Rumble to take action on content that he said was spreading misinformation and threatening judges.
Reading the filing is wild as there are a lot of facets to this case, including whether or not Moraes’ ruling was global or just for Brazil, if Rumble and Truth Social can geoblock (meaning not show content in just one country), can a foreign court do to block Moraes’ ruling, the fact the person Moraes wants to be taken down has asked for political asylum in the U.S. and so much more. As of this writing, the U.S. judge said Rumble did not need to comply with the order, but the service remains blocked in Brazil.
One has to imagine Jordan’s subpoena of these companies and any actions by other countries - especially looking at you, Australia - could also get on the radar of the Trump administration or their allies. Just like I and others once warned that the companies make their actions to comply with the DSA apply globally, we’re now seeing the reverse. We know companies like Meta are changing their approaches to content moderation, and I imagine we’ll see others continue to follow suit.
With these battles playing out across continents, the big question is: What does this mean for the trust and safety industry itself? First, this work isn’t going away. Even Truth Social, in their suit against Brazil, admits they do moderation. However, we will continue to see a shift in how the work is discussed and approached. I got one idea from David Inserra’s piece at Tech Policy Press about embracing expression. Since 2016, the approach to much of this work has been about mitigating harm. That makes sense, as it was born out of the shock of Brexit and Trump’s wins, as well as concerns about Macedonian teens pushing fake news to make money and Russians being able to buy ads.
Perhaps it is time to shift our approach to the other side of this trade-off: protecting expression. David makes some good points about incentives: “While teams should continue to be rewarded for being experts on safety, managing risks, and taking down violating content, performance and compensation policies should also reward Meta employees for expanding and protecting users' speech.”
I want to consider this shift in framing—from mitigating harm to protecting expression—more in the coming weeks and months.
Beyond trust and safety, a few other major shifts in tech and policy have been on my radar.
First, I’m having more people ask me for help learning to use AI, which wasn’t happening last year. There’s an opening here - much like there was in the early days of social media - to be training folks on these tools. To that end, I’ve noticed that OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, and others are trying to build partnerships with governments to use AI to make them more efficient.
Second, remember to pay attention to what is happening in the states. Hundreds of bills on AI alone are being considered in state legislatures. Campaigns and Election, and Covington, have some good roundups.
Finally, I’ve got a presentation I’ve been giving as a guest lecturer for a few universities on the state of technology in 2025. I made this in late January, but most of it is still relevant. It looks back on 2024, the changing information environment, how platforms are approaching politics, how campaigns are using AI and a little of what to watch for this year and next. You can see my slides here. Please get in touch with me if you are interested in me presenting this to your class or organization!
The future is unpredictable, but one thing is clear: Adaptability is key. Spot the signals, stay agile, and be ready to pivot. The fog of chaos won’t last forever, but the choices we make now—what we build, regulate, and defend—will determine what comes next.
*Note: I used ChatGPT to help edit this piece and brainstorm the title. It gave me the idea of the fog of chaos, which I then Googled and saw others have used the term. Since there are a few references, I linked to the Google search to acknowledge this, as I’m unsure where it originated.