The Dynamist

This week, we're crossposting this episode where our own Evan Swarztrauber joined American Moment CEO Nick Solheim on the Moment of Truth podcast to discuss the evolving politics of Big Tech on both left and right.Evan draws on his FCC experience during the net neutrality debates to explore how conservative thinking on tech regulation has shifted. He and Nick discuss key moments like the Parler de-platforming and examine whether recent conservative support for antitrust enforcement represents a genuine policy evolution or short-term political expediency.From Google's search dominance to content moderation battles, they unpack the tension between free market principles and concerns about corporate power over speech. The discussion offers insights into how tech policy debates are reshaping both ideology and regulatory approaches. 

When Stanford students Elsa Johnson and Garret Molloy began investigating Chinese intelligence operations on their campus for the Stanford Review, they uncovered something far more extensive than expected: a systematic intelligence network that has transformed thousands of Chinese students into assets for Beijing's technology collection efforts. Their investigation revealed that between 20,000 and 50,000 Chinese students studying in America receive funding from Beijing's China Scholarship Council, with many maintaining contact with "handlers" who expect regular intelligence reports.This discovery exposes a fundamental asymmetry in how China and America approach academic exchange. Beijing leverages our relatively open research environment through "nontraditional collection"—crowdsourced intelligence gathering through students and researchers—while maintaining strict control over their own institutions. China wants access to our openness while preserving their own secrecy.But America's response threatens to undermine the very qualities that make our universities innovative. The trade-off seems impossible: remain vulnerable to systematic exploitation or adopt surveillance methods that mirror authoritarian systems. Can universities maintain their innovative edge while protecting sensitive research? Johnson and Molloy's investigation reveals how these questions will shape the future of American higher education in an age of great power competition.Note: The Stanford Review was erroneously referred to as the "Stanford Economic Review" once in this episode.

While Silicon Valley builds advanced AI models and Beijing integrates them into state power, Washington faces an uncomfortable reality: America's innovation machine might not be enough to win the AI race on its own. The problem isn't our technology—it's our government's ability to deploy it.The White House recently released “America’s AI Action Plan,” which aims to change this dynamic, calling for everything from "Manhattan Project-style" coordination to federal AI sandboxes. But with the Trump Administration now moving to implement these initiatives, the question becomes: can American democracy move fast enough to compete with authoritarian efficiency? And should it?Charles Clancy, Chief Technology Officer of MITRE, knows the challenges well. His organization serves as a bridge between government needs and technical solutions, and he’s seen firsthand how regulatory fragmentation, procurement bottlenecks, and institutional silos turn America's AI advantages into operational disadvantages. His team also finds that Chinese open-weight models outperform American ones on key benchmarks—a potential warning sign as the U.S. and China compete to proliferate their technology across the globe.Clancy argues the solution is not for the U.S. to become China, but rather to take a uniquely American approach—establish federal frontier labs, moonshot challenges, and market incentives that harness private innovation for public missions. He and FAI’s Josh Levine join Evan to explore whether democratic institutions can compete with authoritarian efficiency without sacrificing democratic values. View Mitre’s proposals for the White House’s plan here, and more of Charle’s research here. 

Quantum computing has been "five years away" for decades, but when NVIDIA's Jensen Huang says we've hit an inflection point, Congress listens and stocks soar. The reality? We're still building very expensive proof-of-concepts. Today's quantum computers run on 100 qubits—impressive to physicists, useless to you. Commercial viability needs a million qubits, a 10,000x leap that's not incremental progress but a complete reinvention.Unlike the familiar tech story where room-sized computers became pocket devices, quantum is binary: it either works at massive scale or it's an elaborate academic exercise. There's no quantum equivalent of early PCs that could at least balance your checkbook—no useful middle ground between 100 qubits and a million.China wants quantum for cryptography: the master key to any lock. America's lead exists mostly on paper—in research publications and VC rounds, not deployed systems. Dr. Peter Shadbolt from PsiQuantum, fresh from congressional testimony, argues America must commit now or risk losing a race that could redefine pharmaceutical research and financial security. The real question: can a democracy sustain long-term investment in technologies that offer zero immediate gratification?

Is free speech in global decline? A new survey suggests public support for free expression is dropping worldwide, with citizens in authoritarian countries like Venezuela and Hungary showing stronger commitment to free speech than many living in democracies.From the unfulfilled digital promises of the Arab Spring to Europe's controversial Digital Services Act, the Internet hasn't necessarily delivered the free speech revolution many predicted. Americans under 30 are less committed to free speech principles than previous generations, while both of the U.S.’s major political parties face accusations of using government power to control information.As AI reshapes how we communicate and governments worldwide rethink speech regulations, what does this mean for the future of human expression? Are we witnessing a fundamental shift in how societies value free speech, or simply recycling ancient debates in digital form?Evan is joined by Jacob Mchangama, Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt, and author of Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media, and Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Legal Fellow at The Future of Free Speech. Previously, she was the lead for North and Latin America on the content regulation team at Meta.

Gail Slater is the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust at the Department of Justice (DOJ). She was nominated in December of last year and confirmed by the Senate in March on a bipartisan 78-19 vote. She inherited some major antitrust cases brought by prior administrations—including against Google, Apple, Visa, and LiveNation. And in her short time, she has launched probes, brought and settled cases, and offered the DoJ’s opinion in private litigation. But beyond her role as a law enforcer, Slater is a manifestation of the realignment of not just politics generally, but antitrust policy specifically. Her first speech in her new role was titled “The Conservative Roots of America First Antitrust Enforcement.” And in recent interviews, she has shed light on how she sees her approach to antitrust contrasting with the laissez-faire approach of the Chicago school and the aggressive posture of her predecessors in the Biden Administration.When it comes to technology, Slater has taken a strong view that antitrust and US competitiveness are not at odds, but rather that antitrust makes the US more competitive vis-a-vis China. And just recently, she announced action the DoJ has taken at the intersection of antitrust and free speech, another key area of focus. Evan and Slater discuss what “America First Antitrust” means, how the approach is similar and different from her predecessor in the Biden Administration, and the relationship between antitrust and national security.

The One Big Beautiful Bill is now President Trump's signature legislative achievement, including sweeping changes to taxes, immigration, and spending priorities. But buried in the budget reconciliation process, an AI regulation fight became one of the most contentious debates in the entire package.Senator Ted Cruz championed a 10-year moratorium on most state and local AI regulation, arguing that a patchwork of conflicting laws would hamstring American companies in their competition with China. His solution was clever: tie the moratorium to rural broadband funding through budget reconciliation, allowing it to pass with simple Republican majorities.The Senate parliamentarian approved the measure under the Byrd rule, giving Cruz's proposal the green light. But the coalition that formed against it was unexpected. Instead of typical partisan lines, opponents included not just Democrats and left-leaning groups, but also MAGA influencers like Steve Bannon, conservative senators like Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, child safety advocates, and Republican governors.The drama peaked when Blackburn—after negotiating a compromise with Cruz to reduce the time frame to five years and add exemptions to allow state laws on child safety and rights of publicity—walked away from the deal at the last moment. When the dust settled, the Senate voted 99-1 to strip the AI moratorium entirely—a decisive defeat for the tech industry.The fight exposed deeper tensions over federalism, corporate power, and whether conservatives are willing to override state authority to boost American tech competitiveness. The resounding rejection suggests many weren't. So where does the fight for a national AI standard go from here, and what does this defeat mean for the shaky alliance between “tech bros” and the Trump Administration? Evan is joined by James Wallner, Vice President for Policy at FAI, and Luke Hogg, Director of Technology Policy at FAI.

Last week on the Dynamist, we spoke with several of the architects behind the Techno-Industrial Policy Playbook (TIPP). Part I covered key questions over regulation, trade policy, workforce development, investing in frontier science and technology, and how manufacturing can safeguard national security.In Part II, we dive into one of the pillars of TIPP: Industrial Power. Austin Bishop and Julius Krein, co-founders of the New American Industrial Alliance, join Evan to tackle the tough questions underlying America's industrial revival. How should we balance factories that employ large numbers of workers versus highly automated, hyper-efficient plants? Should manufacturing focus more on military capabilities or products aimed at global markets? And given the gap between investor expectations and the reality of manufacturing returns, how can we realistically finance this industrial renewal?COVID laid bare just how vulnerable we've become through dependence on foreign supply chains—particularly those controlled by geopolitical rivals. Krein and Bishop argue that it's time to rebuild the industrial foundations America traded away for cheap consumer goods and service-sector jobs. The proposed solution involves innovative financial structures inspired by sovereign wealth funds and a reshaped private equity model designed for the long haul. But can these strategies compete when tech giants like Amazon, Apple, and Google are already constructing their own supply chains and new industrial policies languish in Washington conference rooms?Evan explores with Bishop and Krein whether America still has time—and political will—to regain control over its industrial destiny, or if decades of decline have already pushed us too far behind.

The U.S. production base has slipped: China passed America in manufacturing output in 2011 and last year ran a surplus roughly equal to Britain’s entire GDP; at current capacity, it would take the United States about eight years to replace key munitions at wartime production rates.The urgency has propelled an alliance of think tanks — the Foundation for American Innovation, American Compass, Institute for Progress, and  New American Industrial Alliance — to publish the Techno-Industrial Policy Playbook. Their proposals span three critical pillars: Industrial Power, Frontier Science and Technology, and National Security. They range from ambitious initiatives like "Project Paperclip 2.0" to fast-track foreign-born STEM PhDs, to establishing twenty “X-Labs” at $50 million each for transformative science funding. They also advocate for "Special Compute Zones" that would waive certain environmental requirements to rapidly scale up AI computing infrastructure, treating computational capacity with the same urgency America once reserved for World War II shipyards.As the United States finds itself at a techno-industrial crossroads, is America capable of marshaling the political will and institutional capacity needed to reverse decades of industrial decline? Can these ambitious proposals navigate the complex realities of American governance while delivering meaningful results? Or is this comprehensive vision destined to join countless other policy recommendations in Washington's archive of unfulfilled potential?Evan is joined by the architects behind this effort: Kelvin Yu, lead author and a non-resident fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation; Chris Griswold, Policy Director at American Compass; Santi Ruiz, Senior Editor at the Institute for Progress; and Robert Bellafiore, Managing Director for Policy at FAI.

President Trump’s tariffs on China have highlighted how much American companies, and consumers, depend on products made in China. And arguably no company has been more exposed than Apple. The conventional wisdom in the West is that Apple and other corporations simply flocked to China for cheap, unskilled labor. While that is true, it masks the depth of Apple’s relationship with the Middle Kingdom. Yes, Apple products are made in China. But Apple also made China—at least the advanced technological China confronting the U.S. today. From training tens of millions of workers, to investing hundreds of billions in the country, our guest today argues that Apple has done more than anyone, or anything, to make China a manufacturing powerhouse. As one tech analyst observed, “It’s hard to reconcile the fact that the greatest American company, the most capitalist thing in the world, survives on the basis of a country that has Communist in its title.”So how did America’s most iconic tech company become so invested in, and dependent on, the U.S.’s chief global adversary? What did Apple CEO Tim Cook know about what was happening, and when did he know it? How might the world look but for these investments? And as the U.S. government urges companies to de-risk and decouple from China, what position does that put Apple in?Evan is joined by Patrick McGee. He was the Financial Times’s Apple reporter from 2019 to 2023 and is now the author of Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company.

Nuclear power is experiencing a notable revival in policy circles. The Trump administration has moved quickly on this front, drafting executive orders to accelerate plant construction, directing the Pentagon to explore reactor installations on military bases, and reshaping the regulatory landscape. A recent $900 million solicitation for small modular reactors (SMRs) has been modified to emphasize technical merit and streamline deployment.But can America's nuclear renaissance actually deliver? Traditional nuclear plants remain staggeringly expensive—the recent Vogtle reactors in Georgia arrived seven years late and $35 billion over budget (the kind of numbers that make even venture capitalists nervous). A dozen startups are betting smaller, modular designs can slash costs and deployment times, but they face the triple threat of regulatory uncertainty, NIMBY resistance, and an energy market still obsessed with quarterly returns. Yet the alignment of energy security needs, climate goals, and now AI's voracious power requirements creates a potential inflection point for nuclear technology.Joining us to explore these questions are Ed Petit de Mange, Director of Fuel Recycling at Oklo, whose next-generation microreactors can operate on recycled nuclear fuel; Patrick O'Brien, Director of Government Affairs at Holtec International, bringing decades of industry experience to the SMR revolution, Kathleen Nelson Romans, Head of Commercial Development at Aalo Atomics, whose compact reactors aim to serve rapidly deployable off-grid and microgrid applications, and Emmet Penney, energy writer and Senior Fellow at FAI, who provides critical context on nuclear's role in our energy transition.

Most American parents say technology makes it harder to raise kids than in the pre-social media era. And while social scientists debate the exact impact of ubiquitous Internet access on children, policymakers are increasingly responding to parents’ concerns. The Kids Online Safety Act, which aims to address the addictive features of social media that hook kids, was recently reintroduced by Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). The legislation would also require tech platforms to take steps to prevent and mitigate specific dangers to minors, including the promotion of suicide, eating disorders, drug abuse, and sexploitation. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. John James (R-MI) are promoting the App Store Accountability Act, which would require Google and Apple to verify users’ ages before downloading apps. And Senators Cruz (R-TX) and Schatz (D-HI) propose banning kids from using social media altogether.There is clearly a lot of interest from parents and policymakers in addressing these concerns over the impact of technology on children. But there is also a robust and ongoing debate about the actual harm to kids, and whether concerns are well founded or overblown. Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Anxious Generation made quite a splash, but many social psychologists have pushed back on his findings. And while the surgeon general under President Biden advocated a warning label for social media, a recent study by researchers at the University of South Florida found that kids with smartphones were better off than those without smartphones, while acknowledging harms from cyber bullying and otherwise.The fundamental question seems to be: Is this just another moral panic, or are we letting Big Tech conduct a massive unregulated experiment on our children's brains?Evan is joined by Clare Morell, Director of the Technology and Human Flourishing Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. She is the author of The Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing Kids and Teens from Smartphones, and her work has appeared in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News.

America's infrastructure future isn't being decided in Washington—it's being fought permit by permit in state capitals across the country. While politicians talk about building more, the real bottlenecks are happening where rubber meets bureaucratic road.From Donald Trump to Pete Buttigieg, everyone agrees: America has forgotten how to build things. But even if Washington cleared every federal rule tomorrow, states would still hold the keys to actually breaking ground. Whether it's Clean Air Act permits, water discharge approvals, or the maze of mini-NEPAs and local reviews, states issue most of the paperwork that determines if your project lives or dies.This isn't just red tape—it can be competitive advantage. States that master the art of streamlined permitting without sacrificing environmental standards can capture billions in reshoring investment. Digital dashboards, consolidated reviews, shot-clocks with automatic approvals—these bureaucratic innovations are becoming economic development superpowers.Federal dollars from infrastructure, CHIPS, and climate bills are queued up, but shovels aren't hitting the ground. From geothermal in California to advanced nuclear in Montana, nearly every clean technology faces its first real test at the state level. Joining us are Emmet Penney, Senior Fellow at FAI focusing on Infrastructure and Energy, and Thomas Hochman, Director of Infrastructure Policy at FAI. For more on what's working and what's not, check out their State Permitting Playbook and the new State Permitting Scorecard.

In an era where government tech projects often end in billion-dollar failures and privacy nightmares, there's a tiny Baltic nation that's quietly revolutionized what's possible. Estonia—a country of just 1.3 million people—has built what might be the world's most efficient digital government. Every public service is online. Digital signatures save 2% of GDP annually. And in a twist that should intrigue American conservatives, they've done it with smaller government, not bigger.How did a former Soviet republic become a model of lean digital governance? What's their secret for avoiding the "big-bang IT project" disasters that plague Washington? And most importantly—can America's divided political system learn anything from Estonia's success?Joining for this episode are two experts who've studied Estonia's digital miracle up close. Dr. Keegan McBride is senior policy advisor in emerging technology and geopolitics at the Tony Blair Institute. He's also a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation. Joel Burke is the author of Rebooting a Nation: the Incredible Rise of Estonia, E-Government, and the Startup Revolution, and Senior Public Policy Analyst at Mozilla.

Mark Meador is the newest commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, which plays a dual role: enforcing both antitrust and consumer protection laws. It also serves as America's de facto technology regulator, including overseeing digital privacy and cybersecurity issues.Commissioner Meador embodies the political realignment reshaping conservative views on big business, capitalism, and free trade. The Trump Administration's antitrust cases against Big Tech represent arguably the clearest expression of this shift. While the Biden administration aggressively targeted mergers and acquisitions—Wall Street's bread and butter—many financial elites hoped Donald Trump's return would restore a laissez-faire approach to antitrust. They’ve been in for disappointment.A recent speech by Meador laid out a conservative vision for antitrust, challenging long-held Republican Party orthodoxies and sparking backlash from libertarians. He joins Evan to discuss the tensions at the heart of the this realignment: how free-market principles can coexist with robust antitrust enforcement; how skeptics of big government find common cause with critics of big business; and how conservatives are crafting their own distinctive approach to antitrust while embracing the bipartisan consensus that has emerged over the past eight years.

For decades, conservatives treated unions like an economic flu—tolerable in small doses, but best avoided altogether. But starting with Trump's election in 2016, that narrative began to unravel, with prominent Republicans increasingly taking pro-union positions.Perhaps the most striking example was Teamsters President Sean O'Brien speaking at the 2024 Republican National Convention. Despite both parties courting working class voters, union membership has cratered to just 10%, down from over 20% in the early '80s.This puts the Trump administration in an interesting position. The old conservative playbook misses that many workers fueling this movement are now Republican voters. The question isn't just whether conservatives should oppose unions, but whether they can afford to.Joining today is Liya Palagashvili, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center, whose new paper "Do More Powerful Unions Generate Better Pro-Worker Outcomes?" examines these questions and argues for a moderate stance on unions.

The race to harness AI for scientific discovery may be the most consequential technological competition of this time—yet it's happening largely out of public view. While many AI headlines focus on chatbots writing essays and tech giants battling over billion-dollar models, a quiet revolution is brewing in America's laboratories.AI systems like AlphaFold (which recently won a Nobel Prize for protein structure prediction) are solving scientific problems that stumped humans for decades. A bipartisan coalition in Congress is now championing what they call the "American Science Acceleration Project" or ASAP—an audacious plan to make U.S. scientific research "ten times faster by 2030" through strategic deployment of AI. But as federal science funding faces pressure and international competition heats up, can America build the AI-powered scientific infrastructure we need? Will the benefits reach beyond elite coastal institutions to communities nationwide? And how do we ensure that as AI transforms scientific discovery, it creates opportunities instead of new divides?Joining us is Austin Carson, Founder and President of SeedAI, a nonprofit dedicated to expanding AI access and opportunity across America. Before launching SeedAI, Carson led government affairs at NVIDIA and served as Legislative Director for Rep. Michael McCaul. He's been deep in AI policy since 2016—ancient history in this rapidly evolving field—and recently organized the first-ever generative AI red-teaming event at DEF CON, collaborating with the White House to engage hundreds of college students in identifying AI vulnerabilities.

It’s easy to take for granted how much social media pervades our lives. Depending on the survey, upwards of 75-80 percent of Americans are using it daily—not to mention billions of people around the world. And over the past decade, we’ve seen a major backlash over the various failings of Big Tech. Much of the ire of policymakers has been focused on content moderation choices—what content gets left up or taken down. But arguably there hasn’t been much focus on the underlying design of social media platforms.What are the default settings? How are the interfaces set up? How do the recommendation algorithms work? And what about transparency? What should the companies disclose to the public and to researchers? Are they hiding the ball?In recent years, policymakers have started to take these issues head on. In the U.S. more than 75 bills have been introduced at the state and federal level since 2023—these bills target the design and operation of algorithms, and more than a dozen have been passed into law. Last year, New York and California passed laws attempting to keep children away from “addictive feeds.” Other states in 2025 have introduced similar bills. And there’s a lawsuit from 42 attorney generals against Meta over its design choices. While Congress hasn’t done much, if anything, to regulate social media, states are clearly filling that void—or at least trying to.So what would make social media better, or better for you? Recently, a group of academic researchers organized by the Knight Georgetown Institute put out a paper called Better Feeds: Algorithms that Put People First They outline a series of recommendations that they argue would lead to better outcomes. Evan is joined by Alissa Cooper, co-author of the paper and Executive Director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute. She previously spent over a decade at Cisco Systems, including in engineering roles. Her work at KGI has focused on how platforms can design algorithms that prioritize long-term user value rather than short-term engagement metrics.

When it comes to AI policy, and AI governance, Washington is arguably sending mixed signals. Overregulation is a concern—but so is underregulation. Stakeholders across the political spectrum and business world have a lot of conflicting thoughts. More export controls on AI chips, or less. More energy production, but what about the climate? Less liability, or more liability. Safety testing, or not? “Prevent catastrophic risks”, or “don’t focus on unlikely doom scenarios.” While Washington looks unlikely to pass comprehensive AI legislation, states have tried, and failed. In a prior episode, we talked about SB 1047, CA’s ill-fated effort. Colorado recently saw its Democratic governor take the unusual step of delaying implementation of a new AI bill in his signing letter, due to  concerns it would stifle innovation the state wants to attract.But are we even asking the right questions? What problem are we trying to solve? Should we be less focused on whether or not AI will make a bioweapon, or more focused on how to make life easier and better for people in a world that looks very different from the one we inhabit today? Is safety versus innovation a distraction, a false binary? Is there a third option, a different way of thinking about how to govern AI? And if today’s governments aren’t fit to regulate AI, is private governance the way forward?Evan is joined by Andrew Freedman, is the co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer of Fathom, a nonprofit building solutions society needs to thrive in an AI-driven world. Prior to Fathom, Andrew served as Colorado’s first Director of Marijuana Coordination, often referred to as the state’s "Cannabis Czar.” You can read Fathom’s proposal for AI governance here, and former FAI fellow Dean Ball’s writing on the topic here.

In this week’s episode of The Dynamist, guest host Jon Askonas is joined by Katherine Boyle, (General Partner at a16z) and Neil Chilson (Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute), to tackle a critical yet often overlooked question: How is technology reshaping the American family? As tech giants like TikTok and Instagram come under scrutiny for their effects on children’s mental health, and remote work continues to redefine domestic life, the conversation around technology’s role in family dynamics has never been more urgent.Katherine shares insights from her recent keynote at the American Enterprise Institute, highlighting how the core objective of technological innovation, which she calls "American Dynamism," should be empowering the family rather than centralizing state control. Neil provides a fresh perspective on how decentralized systems and emergent technologies can enhance—not hinder—family autonomy and resilience. Amid rising debates about homeschooling, screen time, and the shift toward a remote-first lifestyle, the guests discuss whether tech-driven changes ultimately strengthen or undermine families as society's fundamental institution.Together, they explore the possibility of a new era in which technology revitalizes family autonomy, reshapes education, and reignites productive home economies.