Big Tech is one industry that sees a possible positive among American companies generally worrying out over President Donald Trump’s impending tariff intentions.
For years, Silicon Valley behemoths have grumbled about international rules on their platforms—taxes, penalties, and limitations the U.S. doesn’t apply but other major nations do.
Tech lobbyists are already tentatively wishing President Donald Trump would apply his tariff policy as a blunt-force weapon to drive it back.
Matthew Schruers, president and CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, stated, “If our trade partners aren’t treating our exporters fairly in markets overseas, we must hold them responsible. One instrument in the toolkit is tariffs. He said that “tech lobbyists are encouraged there’s a conversation underway here.”
But they are also up against the unpredictability of any company relying on Trump’s trade policy: It all depends if he truly enjoys tariffs or whether he views this as a bargaining strategy.
Schruers and other lobbyists have been denouncing these policies as unjust to American companies, which are the world’s largest tech players, as the EU, Canada, and other allies have enacted severe tech rules over the last few years—including privacy laws, antitrust penalties, and digital taxes.
Trump has indicated he views the world this way as well; in January he told a Davos audience that EU penalties on Apple, Google, and Meta are “a form of taxation” and that their rules are unjustly stacked against American businesses.
That has increased expectations that Trump’s tariff maneuver will be included in a complex plan to get Europe and others to the bargaining table.
The tech lobby, so far, has had little evidence that he would manage it that way. In reality, they find it difficult to obtain any data from the White House.
Ed Brzytwa, vice president of foreign commerce at the Consumer Technology Association, whose members include Apple, Google, and Meta, said, “We’re trying to keep our head on straight.” Generally speaking, it’s been somewhat challenging to grasp where the government is heading with its trade strategy.
New noises that the president will forego reciprocal tariffs in favor of a blanket 20 percent charge on all imports worry Brzytwa. Trump’s constant assertion that tariffs are the ideal income producer increasingly points to his unwillingness to quickly turn them back, thereby providing little negotiating power on digital policy.
“At first, everything seems to suggest that the tariffs will be high, sweeping, and will generate a great deal of income,” Brzytwa remarked. He cautioned that the longer tariffs stayed in force, the more quickly income would decline; the effect on the technology industry would be catastrophic.
Brzytwa stated, “What we’re worried about is the tariffs causing sales to disappear.” “That U.S. consumers will stop spending, that things will become too expensive, that they’re just going to keep their money in their pockets, as opposed to purchasing the newest — and, frankly, the most productive and innovative devices — that our member companies have to offer.”
Schruers acknowledged that Trump’s love of tariffs “carries some risk” for the IT industry.
“But you know, risk creates no chance,” he said. “And I think there’s certainly an opportunity for a major, valuable deal that works in the favor of the global economy here.”
Already published by the Trump administration are many letters declaring a desire to challenge digital taxes, foreign laws, and other so-called obstacles to digital commerce. Schruers and Brzytwa praised a report from the U.S. Trade Representative published on Monday that expressed worry about many foreign technology regulations.
Even if Trump isn’t directly presenting it that way, there is already some evidence the tariff threat is benefiting Big Tech.
U.K. officials are promising to cut back a proposed digital service tax if it would help to avoid Trump-related tariffs. Late last week, India abolished its own 6 percent digital tax, a decision Megan Funkhouser, senior director of policy, tax and trade at the Information Technology Industry Council, linked to worry the 2016 levy would draw U.S. tariffs.
On the other hand, the sector also has a negative scenario: Rather than giving in on tech enforcement, evidence suggests the European Union is ready to crack down in reaction to U.S. tariffs. Though there has been some discussion of soft-pedaling its intended penalties on Apple and Meta, Brussels seems to be getting ready for a full-on trade war aimed particularly at the U.S. tech sector.
Tobias Gehrke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, warned AWN’s Camille Gijs, “Push too far, and Brussels could tighten the screws.” Gehrke highlighted fresh “digital levies on Silicon Valley” as one means for the EU to respond to Trump’s tariffs.
Lobbyists are concerned as well that the Trump administration is not internally rowing in the same direction on tariffs. Brzytwa said Trump and his White House have been more haphazard even while lauding certain elements of the new administration’s efforts on digital commerce.
The disparity has lobbyists speculating about Trump’s tariff drive’s genuine purpose. Does the president truly think tariffs are wise policy or is it more about negotiating improved trade agreements with other countries?
For tech, the scariest situation is if Trump implements large tariffs with no clear intention to roll them back in reaction to concessions in an effort to generate money.
Brzytwa stated that an additional layer of sectoral tariffs—particularly those intended for semiconductors—would exacerbate the suffering of blanket levies on most items. He claimed, “Every item we deal with in the technology sector contains a semiconductor.”
With little success thus far, tech lobbyists have sought to bring these alerts to the White House. But even with growing opposing data, they still want any tariffs would be modest in scope and meant to reverse policies they have long despised.
“Good for the United States, in our interest if you want to use these tariffs as a negotiating tool to reduce trade barriers and to get rid of tariffs,” Brzytwa remarked. Imposing universal tariffs without an endgame “undermines the whole concept of a rules-based multilateral trading system.”
Brzytwa remarked, “Our sector and, in my opinion, every other one values that very much.” We cherish rules; we don’t value a Law of the Jungle-type system.
