When Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term on January 20, 2025, the photo-op of Silicon Valley royalty in the Capitol rotunda looked like the closing scene of a corporate hostage video. Mark Zuckerberg. Jeff Bezos. Sundar Pichai. Everyone standing close enough to be in the shot, far enough to deny they were friends.
Back then, the story many MAGA populists wanted to tell was simple: Big Tech had spent years undermining Trump, and now Trump had them cornered. They were “supplicants,” as Steve Bannon put it, showing up at Mar-a-Lago, cutting checks, and hoping not to be next on the regulatory chopping block. One year later — January 21, 2026 — that story looks more like wishful thinking than a power map.
In “One year in, Big Tech has out-maneuvered MAGA populists”, Tina Nguyen of The Verge argues that Silicon Valley didn’t just survive Trump 2.0 — it learned to thrive inside it by weakening the populist wing’s influence over tech policy. citeturn1view0
This article builds on Nguyen’s reporting and expands the picture: the coalitions that once promised a tech crackdown have splintered, AI has become the all-purpose justification for deregulation, and the “anti-Big Tech” right has discovered that fighting monopolies is harder than fighting vibes. Meanwhile, the industry’s transactional skill set — lobbying, litigation, donations, and strategically timed “alignment” — is doing what it does best: turning political chaos into regulatory optionality.
What The Verge’s “one year in” diagnosis gets right
Nguyen’s core point is less “Big Tech is beloved” and more “Big Tech is once again useful.” In Trump-world, usefulness beats ideology almost every time. The Verge column frames the first year of Trump’s second term as a period where populist MAGA expectations — breakups, speech wars, TikTok bans, state-level AI rules — repeatedly ran into a White House that was increasingly receptive to Silicon Valley’s priorities. citeturn1view0
The column also highlights a recurring Trump management pattern: rival factions compete for his attention, and whoever provides the most immediate leverage wins. In early 2025, populists believed the tech CEOs hovering around Trump were in retreat. By early 2026, it looks more like the CEOs figured out the rules of engagement faster than the populists did. citeturn1view0
That doesn’t mean populism vanished. It means it lost the steering wheel on tech policy — or at least on the parts that matter most to Silicon Valley’s balance sheets.
The coalition that wanted to break up Big Tech didn’t survive the AI moment
For a brief, strange period in US politics, “Big Tech is too powerful” was a bipartisan sentence. On the left: antimonopoly advocates, labor-focused Democrats, and the Lina Khan-era FTC. On the right: MAGA populists who saw platforms as cultural enemies, plus conservatives who wanted to punish content moderation.
That coalition was always fragile, because its members didn’t agree on the problem. Was the problem monopoly power? Or “censorship”? Or cultural influence? Or data extraction? Or the fact that your aunt got radicalized by a Facebook group?
Axios put it bluntly in late 2025: AI fractured the bipartisan anti-Big Tech alliance, as Trump embraced AI and warmed to the industry. citeturn1view1
AI conveniently reframes “break them up” into “don’t slow them down”
The AI boom has done something remarkable in Washington: it turned regulation into a national security talking point for both parties, but with very different conclusions.
- For skeptics, AI is a reason to increase oversight, safety testing, transparency, and accountability.
- For the pro-industry wing (in both parties, but especially in Trump 2.0), AI is a reason to avoid “fragmentation,” reduce “red tape,” and keep “America ahead of China.”
Even the language is telling. “Fragmentation” is what companies call laws they don’t like when the laws appear in multiple jurisdictions.
Exhibit A: The White House order that targets state AI laws
If you want one document that captures how the gravitational center of tech policy shifted, it’s the White House executive order titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence”, dated December 11, 2025. citeturn3search1
The order’s thesis is straightforward: the US should maintain AI dominance with a “minimally burdensome” national framework, and the federal government should actively check state laws that threaten innovation. citeturn3search1
Key mechanisms in the order include:
- An “AI Litigation Task Force” inside the Department of Justice tasked with challenging state AI laws deemed inconsistent with federal policy. citeturn3search1turn3search3
- Funding leverage: the order contemplates conditions on states’ eligibility for certain BEAD program funds, with “onerous AI laws” potentially affecting access to some non-deployment funding. citeturn3search1
- Preemption framing: it pushes arguments that certain state requirements could be preempted by federal law, including the FTC Act in specific contexts. citeturn3search1
Nguyen notes the role of billionaire and Trump-world AI figure David Sacks in the push to crush state-by-state AI rules, and the conservative backlash to that approach. citeturn1view0
Whether an executive order can actually do everything its authors would like is another matter. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, argued that the president cannot preempt state action and framed the idea as “AI amnesty.” citeturn3news14
Still, the bigger political reality is this: the federal government can make life difficult for states, and the threat alone can chill legislation. The order is also a powerful signal to agencies about what the White House wants them to prioritize — and what it wants them to ignore.
The MAGA-populist tech agenda ran into courts, complexity, and corporate stamina
Populist energy is great at rallies. Enforcement is what happens on boring weekdays — in courtrooms, committee rooms, and compliance departments. One reason Big Tech keeps “winning” is that it is built for long games.
Content moderation wars: the Supreme Court hit the pause button
One of the major populist goals has been to punish platforms for moderating conservative speech (or, depending on your preferred framing, to stop platforms from performing editorial control over user content).
In Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, the US Supreme Court on July 1, 2024 vacated and remanded lower-court decisions about Florida and Texas laws that sought to restrict platforms’ ability to moderate content. Justice Elena Kagan authored the opinion, and the Court sent the cases back because the lower courts did not properly analyze the facial First Amendment challenges. citeturn4search3turn4search5turn4search1
The practical result: legal uncertainty. And legal uncertainty favors incumbents with strong legal teams — which is, to put it mildly, not a scarce resource at Meta, Google, or X.
Antitrust: still alive, but breakups are not a weekend project
MAGA populists expected a sustained “break up Big Tech” effort. Instead, the record looks messy. Antitrust is still happening, but it isn’t reliably aligning with populist messaging — and courts have shown reluctance to do the maximalist thing.
On January 20, 2026, the FTC said it will appeal a court ruling that dismissed its antitrust case against Meta. The FTC argues Meta unlawfully maintained monopoly power through acquisitions (Instagram and WhatsApp), while the district court concluded the agency hadn’t proved its monopoly theory as pleaded. citeturn4news14turn4news13
Even when regulators are aggressive, these cases are long, technical, and uncertain. A populist movement that wants fast symbolic victories often loses patience — while corporate defendants treat the timeline itself as a strategy.
TikTok: when culture-war logic meets campaign utility
TikTok has been a recurring villain in US politics — national security fears, China fears, “kids are being brainwashed” fears — pick your aisle and there’s a rationale. Nguyen notes that MAGA’s push to force an American acquisition of TikTok has stalled, and that Trump has embraced the platform anyway. citeturn1view0
This is where tech policy collides with electoral reality. If a platform is useful for political communication, it becomes harder to maintain a hardline stance against it — especially in an administration where “policy consistency” is not the brand promise.
Immigration and H-1B: the tech labor market wins a carve-out (again)
Nothing tests “America First” rhetoric quite like the labor needs of the very companies that are expected to deliver “American dominance” in AI.
Trump’s defense of H-1B visas triggered backlash within the MAGA base. Axios reported Trump telling Laura Ingraham that the US needs to “bring in talent” and pushing back with: “No, you don’t … you don’t have certain talents.” citeturn3search4
Forbes also covered the fallout and quoted Trump’s “certain talents” line, noting the anger among right-wing influencers and commentators. citeturn3search2
The policy substance around skilled immigration is always more complicated than the slogans, but politically it reveals something important: when the administration frames AI as a national priority, Silicon Valley’s workforce arguments become harder for populists to override.
Big Tech’s influence playbook: not secret, just effective
Big Tech didn’t need to invent a new strategy for Trump 2.0. It simply needed to deploy the usual one at the right intensity: a mix of legal settlements, donations, access, and policy arguments that paint corporate priorities as national priorities.
1) Transactional relationship-building
In her Verge column, Nguyen describes how the CEOs moved from “supplicants” to actors who successfully “broke the populists’ chokehold” on Trump — a process she links to actions like donations to Trump’s ballroom project. citeturn1view0
The Guardian similarly described a year of Big Tech leaders “bending the knee” and reaping rewards from alignment with Trump, including policy wins like the executive order aimed at limiting state AI regulation. citeturn2view0turn3search3
2) Litigation and delay as governance
For large platforms, litigation isn’t a crisis response — it’s a normal operating environment. The NetChoice cases show how quickly a state-level push can get stuck in procedural and constitutional complexity. citeturn4search5turn4search3
Meanwhile, antitrust appeals and multi-year cases become background noise, especially when markets — and the public — move faster than the courts.
3) Policy reframing: “competition” becomes “competitiveness”
A striking feature of the current cycle is how frequently “competitiveness” is used as a reason to avoid “competition policy.” If the US is in an AI race, then the story goes, you can’t tie your champions’ shoelaces together with regulation.
Axios captured this shift in its reporting: the administration prefers deregulation and is less receptive to populist antitrust urgency, especially as AI drives investment and stock performance. citeturn1view1
So did Big Tech “win”? It depends on the scoreboard
There are at least three different scoreboards in play:
- Populist cultural scoreboard: “Are platforms friendly to conservatives?” Here, outcomes are mixed and often performative.
- Regulatory scoreboard: “Are there new constraints on platform power?” The answer looks weaker than many expected, especially at the federal level on AI.
- Business scoreboard: “Are deals happening and profits protected?” Silicon Valley appears to be doing fine.
Even the M&A climate reflects this. Google’s planned acquisition of Wiz for $32 billion was announced in March 2025, and later reports indicated the deal cleared a key US DOJ antitrust review hurdle (early termination of the DOJ review) in October 2025, with reporting surfacing publicly in November 2025. citeturn3news12turn3search5turn3search0
That doesn’t mean regulators everywhere are done looking at it — EU review timelines can be different — but the US signal matters. citeturn3news13
Why the “break up Big Tech” push keeps stalling
Let’s be mildly rude to everyone involved (equal opportunity journalism): breaking up Big Tech is hard. Not emotionally hard. Institutionally hard.
Antitrust is law, not a vibe
The AMERICA Act is a good example of how lawmakers have tried to target a specific, legible problem: conflicts of interest in digital advertising. It would limit large digital ad companies from owning multiple pieces of the adtech stack and impose duties on big ad brokerages. citeturn4search0turn4search6
But even focused proposals move slowly. And they require sustained political will through hearings, markups, compromises, and inevitable legal challenges. Populist movements often treat the mere introduction of a bill as victory; corporations treat it as the start of the calendar.
Courts require definitions the public doesn’t care about
Cases often hinge on market definition, consumer harm frameworks, and evidentiary standards — topics that do not trend on social media unless someone turns them into a meme first.
The Meta case is illustrative: a judge dismissed the FTC’s claims in November (prompting an appeal announced in January 2026). That kind of procedural defeat is common in complex antitrust actions. citeturn4news14turn4news13
AI rearranges priorities
Even critics who dislike Big Tech’s power can get spooked by the idea of weakening “America’s AI champions.” That framing reduces appetite for structural remedies, at least in the near term.
What MAGA populists did win — and why it still doesn’t translate to tech policy control
Nguyen notes that MAGA populists have claimed territory in other parts of the administration (immigration enforcement and other hardline priorities), but that tech policy influence appears diminished. citeturn1view0
This matters because it suggests populism in Trump 2.0 is not monolithic. It’s a set of factions with different power centers. If Silicon Valley can convince Trump that AI dominance and market momentum are politically valuable — and can offer material support — the populists who want to punish Big Tech may not get the outcomes they expected.
What happens next: three plausible scenarios for 2026
Scenario 1: Federal AI “framework” hardens into de facto preemption
If the administration continues to pressure states via DOJ challenges and funding conditions, some state legislatures will slow down or narrow bills — not because they agree with Washington, but because litigation risk is expensive. citeturn3search1
Scenario 2: The courts become the main AI policy venue
When legislatures stall and executive orders stretch, lawsuits fill the gap. That means AI governance could evolve through a patchwork of court decisions — and that favors the best-funded litigants.
Scenario 3: Energy and infrastructure constraints force a new regulatory bargain
Even the most deregulation-friendly agenda runs into physics. Data centers need power, land, water, and permits — and public patience is finite when electricity prices rise.
The Guardian reported on Trump’s concern that data centers could drive higher electricity bills and described political moves to push companies to “pay their own way,” including announcements involving Microsoft and power grid actions. citeturn2view0
If energy cost backlash becomes acute, we could see a weird new compromise: less AI safety regulation, but more infrastructure and utility regulation aimed at making the AI boom financially tolerable for voters.
Takeaways for readers who don’t live on Capitol Hill
- If you expected a Big Tech crackdown under Trump 2.0, the first year didn’t deliver it. Not because the rhetoric disappeared, but because AI reframed the policy priorities.
- State-level AI laws are entering a high-conflict phase. The federal government is signaling it will challenge or discourage them, and governors are already pushing back. citeturn3search1turn3news14
- Antitrust isn’t dead — it’s just slow. The FTC’s Meta appeal shows the fight continues, even as headline expectations wobble. citeturn4news14
- The tech industry’s core advantage is endurance. Populist politics runs on cycles; Big Tech runs on quarters, legal calendars, and long-term lobbying relationships.
Sources
- The Verge — “One year in, Big Tech has out-maneuvered MAGA populists” by Tina Nguyen (Jan 21, 2026). citeturn1view0
- Axios — “How AI fractured the bipartisan anti-Big Tech alliance” (Nov 7, 2025). citeturn1view1
- The White House — Executive Order: “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” (Dec 11, 2025). citeturn3search1
- The Guardian — Report on Trump executive order aimed at limiting state AI regulation (Dec 11, 2025). citeturn3search3
- Politico — “DeSantis: Trump’s AI order ‘can’t preempt’ states from taking action” (Dec 8, 2025). citeturn3news14
- Axios — “Trump defends H-1B visas: ‘You don’t have certain talents’ in US” (Nov 12, 2025). citeturn3search4
- Forbes — Coverage of backlash to Trump’s H-1B comments (Nov 12, 2025). citeturn3search2
- Associated Press — Google agreement to buy Wiz for $32B (Mar 2025). citeturn3news12
- Reuters via Yahoo Finance — Wiz CEO comments on DOJ review clearance (Nov 5, 2025). citeturn3search5
- Congress.gov — S.1073 AMERICA Act summary (introduced Mar 30, 2023). citeturn4search0
- Cornell LII — Supreme Court opinion text for Moody v. NetChoice (Decided July 1, 2024). citeturn4search3
- SCOTUSblog — Case page and holding summary for NetChoice v. Paxton (Decided July 1, 2024). citeturn4search5
- Associated Press — FTC appeal of Meta antitrust decision (Jan 20, 2026). citeturn4news14
- The Verge — FTC appeal coverage (Jan 20, 2026). citeturn4news13
- The Guardian — TechScape on Big Tech and Trump, data centers, and policy consequences (Jan 20, 2026). citeturn2view0
Bas Dorland, Technology Journalist & Founder of dorland.org