Donald Trump will be the 47th president of the United States, having already been the 45th. What impact will his administration have on the tech world, both at home and in terms of foreign policy?
Let’s start with a striking similarity between Trump and President Biden, who is both his successor and predecessor. While the Democrat’s policies differ enormously from his political opponent on many fronts, perhaps the most obvious similarity is their common position toward China. Both Trump and Biden have waged a trade war against the country. This has an impact on Europe, too.
China, ASML and TikTok
ASML, the crown jewel of the European chip industry, gets over half of its revenue from Chinese customers but is not allowed to sell its most advanced EUV machines to such clients. On top of that, there is the possibility that ties could be cut completely, even for maintenance of the older DUV machines. As such policies were already enacted under Trump, Biden’s continuation of them should tell us we can count on the same story for the next four years.
But where are some key differences here? For that, we need to look toward TikTok. Its owner ByteDance, based in Beijing, has increasingly had to worry about it being curtailed in the US. The Senate decided in April that TikTok had to let go of all of its Chinese investments or face an outright ban. As of Wednesday night, however, the U.S. Senate is back in the hands of Republicans, but not only that: Trump himself favors a soft hand around TikTok and will likely let off the gas in this area. Ironically, the whole TikTok saga began precisely in the final year of Trump’s first term, whose administration saw ByteDance’s influence as a threat to national security. In its wake, several US states individually decided to restrict use of the app. At that statewide level, the U.S. government isn’t going to change matters, but an end to the nationwide hunt for TikTok is at least likely.
Antitrust pressure subsides
Major tech companies have faced fiery criticism from the FTC, led in recent years by Democrat Lina Khan. Both Amazon and Nvidia have been prominent targets of the antitrust watchdog under her leadership. The main prize, however, seems to be Google, which is at risk of a breakup of its services. How likely is this move under Trump?
Despite his ardent criticism of Google’s power, the president-elect’s position is ambiguous. In September, he accused the company of illegal behavior for allegedly manipulating search results. Nevertheless, it is up to the Justice Department to take action in this area which means Trump’s immediate views are at the very least filtered by this governmental arm. Either way, the main danger for Google is the aforementioned breakup threat that hangs like a dark cloud over the tech giant.
“China is afraid of Google,” Trump stated in October. A breakup, he said, would possibly mean the end of the company, which would no longer act as a counterweight to China. Therefore, a breakup is less likely under Trump than it would have been under Kamala Harris.
Curtailing the power of Big Tech does remain on the agenda, according to statements made by Trump’s running mate JD Vance. He is known as one of the “Khanservatives,” Republicans who support the weighty antitrust policies of FTC chair Lina Khan. “She recognized there has to be a broader understanding of how we think about competition in the marketplace,” Vance said in February. The official body, according to Khan and thus Vance, must do more than just control prices for consumers, but take an activist stance against the power of large corporations. Actions against app stores or curbing Google’s search dominance may just appear from Washington’s quiver over the next four years.
Test case: Qualcomm-Intel
It may look like we can put China and antitrust issues to one side at this point, but in one area the two converge. This concerns the worrisome situation surrounding Intel. The chip company is struggling with a massively deteriorated stock market value, disappointing sales and an enormous AI race deficit against AMD and Nvidia. To top it all off, CEO Pat Gelsinger recently appeared to have significantly inflated forecasts for sales of AI chip Gaudi 3. It has led Qualcomm to consider an unlikely-looking takeover for cheap. But that was suddenly halted in October.
This was because Qualcomm wanted to wait out the election results first. Specifically, the chip designer is seeking clarity around antitrust policies and the role between China and the US. The former obviously determines whether an acquisition deal gets past the regulatory watchdog FTC. The second determines how lucrative Intel is: after all, China counts as a huge market. Yet that country is gradually moving away from American-designed x86 chips. So there are more factors at play here than just the government in Washington. How workable the Qualcomm-Intel deal is, is a highly questionable topic anyway. But for Trump, a combination of the two parties would potentially be very attractive; it saves Intel from collapse and keeps it in American hands. Still, other antitrust watchdogs will also have their say on the matter.
However, much depends on what President Trump intends to do with the US CHIPS Act, about which he is highly skeptical. In any case, according to him, TSMC should not have received any money for its “gigafab” in U.S. Arizona.
Still much unclear
The U.S. government’s trade policy has a huge impact on the world stage. Trump’s vision in this area is far too broad a topic for this overview focused on the tech world, but it obviously has a huge impact. Above all, we should note that under him the U.S. is making autonomous decisions faster than before.
Tech policy is inextricably linked to this: through the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, Americans and Europeans are trying to harmonize their regulations. President Trump is unlikely to follow through on this Biden-backed initiative. How much that really matters is very much in doubt. We have long since seen European policies diverge greatly from what has been cooked up in Washington, with European AI legislation and data processing requirements being prime examples. So the end result is still a divergence between the two entities, meaning tech companies have to serve two markets with varying needs and demands.
In short, then, we can say that the intentions behind U.S. tech policy are changing significantly. How that plays out over the next four years is unpredictable. First, this is because details are lacking on things like tariff laws or attitudes toward China. Second, many goals, such as regulating or even breaking up Big Tech, take more time to implement than one presidential term allows or simply don’t materialize despite one’s best efforts. As a result, tech policy is in an ever-shifting position, never truly defined at any one point and surprisingly nonpartisan in many areas. One need only look at the smooth transition from anti-Chinese actions conducted under Trump in 2017-2020 and Biden’s similar moves throughout 2021-2024. Thus, the real impact of Donald Trump’s second term as U.S. president will not be fully apparent until years after he leaves office.
Also read: ASML pressured by political game, stock price takes plunge