Originally published on National Review.

In an era frequently defined by legislative overreach, the App Store Freedom Act (HR 3209) stands out as a prime example of the misguided, neo-Brandeisian antitrust thinking that has gained traction across the political spectrum with fans of big government on both left and right. Introduced by Representative Kat Cammack (R., Fla.), the bill shows how even Republicans are drifting toward a more interventionist mindset — and many Democrats are happy to join them in expanding federal control over the tech economy.

While the legislation claims to “promote competition,” it would instead represent a significant government intrusion into private enterprise — undermining the very principles of free markets and innovation that conservatives have long defended.

At its core, the bill seeks to dictate how private companies operate their platforms. A “covered company” — defined as one controlling an operating system and app store with more than 100 million users — would be required to allow third-party app stores as defaults, permit users to install apps outside the “official” store, and enable deletion of preinstalled apps. Developers must be given, “without cost . . . on terms equivalent,” the same interfaces and documentation used by the platform itself. It also bans “pricing parity” requirements, prevents companies from mandating their own in-app payment systems, and forbids platforms from using internal data to compete with developers.
This approach fundamentally misunderstands how innovation and competition actually work.

Companies such as Apple and Google have invested billions in building secure, efficient, and user-friendly ecosystems. These app stores are not mere conduits; they are integrated environments that balance safety, performance, and consumer trust. By forcing open their systems, Congress would effectively punish the very success that benefits users.

The claim that these firms are “monopolies” deserving heavy-handed regulation ignores the dynamic, constantly evolving nature of tech markets. Dominance in one product line today — whether in mobile operating systems, AI models, or hardware — rarely guarantees permanence. Disruption is the rule, not the exception. Meanwhile, these platforms have created global marketplaces enabling millions of developers to reach audiences they could never access otherwise.
The App Store Freedom Act reflects a troubling trend: government picking winners and losers instead of letting competition work.

The measure attempts to “fix” what isn’t broken — an area where the market already rewards innovation and consumer choice. When the government imposes rigid “equivalent terms” mandates, it discourages the next breakthrough. Why should a company invest in new infrastructure if Washington can simply force it to open its system to competitors?

The most problematic provision is its use of the Federal Trade Commission’s “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” (UDAP) authority. UDAP laws were designed to protect consumers from predatory or misleading behavior — not to referee business-to-business contracts between sophisticated developers and billion-dollar tech firms. Treating app developers as vulnerable consumers misapplies the intent of the law and risks turning ordinary commercial disagreements into new rounds of federal litigation. As the American Action Forum correctly warns, this expansion of UDAP would “open the door to endless regulatory interference.”

​​The bill’s restrictions on “non-public business information” also raise fundamental property-rights concerns. In a free economy, companies should be able to use their proprietary data to improve products — so long as they comply with existing privacy standards. Mandating how firms manage their assets assumes bureaucrats know better than innovators.

Ultimately, the App Store Freedom Act is a solution in search of a problem, driven not by consumer harm but by ideological suspicion of successful firms. It would replace competition with compliance, entrepreneurship with entitlement, and discovery with regulation.

A genuinely conservative approach would do the opposite — limit government power, protect voluntary exchange, and let market discipline reward those who innovate. If Washington truly wants more competition, it should get out of the way.

Originally published on Substack. 

Dozens of business groups have just called on President Trump to stay the course on antitrust enforcement, urging the administration not to cave to insider pressure or cut deals with “Big Tech.” Their plea comes as Washington’s partial shutdown freezes federal antitrust cases in their tracks—an irony that exposes how politicized the process has become.

For years, the federal government has confused size with power and success with monopoly. Instead of targeting actual harm to consumers, bureaucrats have treated growth, profits, and innovation as signs of wrongdoing. The Biden administration’s expansive interpretation of antitrust law left investors, innovators, and entrepreneurs uncertain about what success even meant.

Now, amid stalled enforcement and swelling internal debate, the question is clear: will the Trump administration fix what’s broken—or repeat the same mistakes under a different label?

​What Went Wrong

Under President Biden, agencies like the FTC and DOJ abandoned the long-standing consumer welfare standard—the idea that antitrust should focus on harm to consumers, not to competitors. They launched broad lawsuits against companies such as Google, Amazon, and Apple, arguing that dominance itself was proof of danger.

But that’s not how markets—or economics—work. Consumers don’t suffer because a company is big; they suffer when government blocks competition and distorts markets.

The impact was immediate: venture capital for early-stage tech startups fell by nearly half between 2021 and 2023 as innovators hesitated to grow in a regulatory minefield. Companies like Microsoft and Meta faced drawn-out challenges to mergers that could have accelerated innovation, while foreign competitors—especially in China—raced ahead.

The Shutdown Effect

Today, Washington’s antitrust machine has stalled. The federal shutdown has paused high-profile cases, delayed discovery, and frozen enforcement budgets. Even ongoing litigation, like the Google Search monopoly case, faces uncertainty as staff and resources are stretched thin.

This makes it more critical than ever that the Trump administration set clear priorities and restore confidence that competition policy is about economics—not politics.

Trump’s Opportunity to Lead

President Trump has already shown a willingness to challenge bureaucratic inertia and rethink Washington’s approach to regulation. The antitrust fight is another chance to do just that.

Here’s what must happen next:

1. Reaffirm the Consumer Welfare Standard
   Return antitrust law to its original purpose: protecting consumers from higher prices and fewer choices, not punishing firms for success.
   
   
2. Reject Political Settlements
   The administration should not settle ongoing cases to appease interest groups or bureaucrats. Backing down now would signal weakness and confusion at the worst possible time.
   
   
3. Clarify Remedies and Enforcement Priorities
   The Google case shows why vague “breakups” or forced divestitures can do more harm than good. Remedies must address real violations—not serve as punishment for scale.
   
   
4. End Corporate Favoritism and Regulatory Capture
   The same Washington that rails against “monopolies” also doles out subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts to politically connected firms. Real competition can’t thrive in a rigged market.
   
   
5. Encourage Permissionless Innovation
   From AI to biotechnology to cloud infrastructure, America’s lead depends on freedom to innovate. Washington’s role is to remove barriers—not build them.
   
   
6. Keep Enforcement Alive During Shutdowns
   Core antitrust functions must be shielded from political shutdowns. Otherwise, every fiscal standoff becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card for the biggest cases.

What’s at Stake

This isn’t just about “Big Tech.” It’s about whether America remains the world’s most dynamic economy—or drifts into managed decline. If regulators continue treating growth as a threat and markets as a problem to fix, the result will be fewer entrepreneurs, higher prices, and slower innovation.

Antitrust should never become a tool for political punishment. The market—not Washington—should determine which companies succeed or fail.

Trump’s challenge is to balance fairness with freedom: to enforce laws narrowly, clearly, and consistently, without smothering competition under bureaucracy.

The best way to restore competition is not through more lawsuits, but through less government distortion—no more regulatory capture, no more subsidies, no more industrial policy masquerading as fairness.

When government steps aside, entrepreneurs step up. That’s how we let people prosper.

​What happens when innovation runs headfirst into big government?

On this week’s Let People Prosper Show, I’m joined by Jake Morabito, Senior Director at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where he leads both the Communications and Technology Task Force and the Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force. Jake is working directly with state lawmakers to make sure freedom—not federal micromanagement—drives the future of innovation.

From AI and broadband expansion to smart cities and age verification, Jake has been at the center of some of the most pressing debates in technology policy. His background—from Capitol Hill with Rep. Darrell Issa to his work with Software.org—gives him a unique perspective on how lawmakers handle innovation and how often they get it wrong. Together, we explore how states can lead in AI without replicating California’s regulatory overreach, how to bridge the digital divide without fostering dependency, and how free-market principles can guide a more prosperous digital future.

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com. You can also get even greater value by subscribing to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. Please share with your friends, family, and broader social media network. 

(0:00) – Introduction and Overview
(1:57) – Jake Morabito’s Background and Story
(4:52) – ALEC’s Role in Tech Policy
(7:35) – Why States Must Lead on Innovation
(10:45) – Free-Market Thinkers and Influences
(13:45) – AI: Challenges and Opportunities
(16:37) – The Patchwork of AI Laws Across States
(19:35) – Washington’s Role (and Overreach) in AI
(22:37) – Addressing Bias and Risk in AI Tools
(25:40) – The Future of AI and Jobs
(28:16) – Balancing AI Ethics and Responsibility
(30:57) – Age Verification and Parental Responsibility
(32:51) – AI and Child Safety Concerns
(36:23) – Bridging the Digital Divide the Right Way
(43:34) – Smart Cities and Privacy Protections
(46:14) – Preparing for Job Displacement in the AI Era

Originally published on Substack. 

The good news first: the administration’s new AI executive orders and America’s AI Action Plan move in the right direction—streamline rules, reject Europe’s micromanagement, and let engineers build. That’s how you unleash innovation.

But in nearly the same breath, the White House is negotiating a 10% government stake in Intel and exploring broader equity grabs in other chipmakers that took CHIPS money—industrial policy in a red hat (Reuters, Financial Times).

Where’s the outrage? If the right won’t push back against corporate socialism when it wears their jersey, they’ll get four years of Biden-style economics with different branding.

Let’s start with what’s working. The AI plan’s deregulatory thrust is the right instinct. It explicitly aims to remove red tape and rescinds the prior administration’s attempt to hard-code centralized controls into AI governance—clear the runway and let the private sector fly.

The contrast with the EU’s AI Act—a dense rulebook that front-loads compliance and slows deployment—couldn’t be sharper.

If we want to win the compute, model, and application races, we cannot copy Brussels-style preclearance and call it safety.

But then comes the self-inflicted wound: turning CHIPS handouts into equity. The administration is in talks to take a 10% stake in Intel and is eyeing stakes in other firms that received subsidies, effectively converting grants into government ownership.

That’s not market discipline; that’s creeping nationalization. It also validates the worst critique of the CHIPS and Science Act: once Washington opens the subsidy spigot, it starts steering corporate strategy. Intel itself already secured up to $7.86 billion under CHIPS during Biden to build projects in Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oregon (Intel press kit).

If Intel can’t compete without Uncle Sam, the market is saying “fix the business, not the taxpayer.”

Some argue an equity stake “secures” supply chains. That’s seductive—and wrong.

Government owners pursue political timelines, not product roadmaps. They tilt procurement, muffle competitive pressure, and invite lobbying arms races. If “national security” justifies a permanent bail-in of private balance sheets, where does it stop—GPUs, data centers, cloud providers, AI labs?

The durable answer is broad, neutral conditions for investment: faster permits, reliable energy, predictable taxes, and strong property rights. That attracts every player and lets the best ideas win—without Washington picking favorites.

The same drift shows up in fiscal policy. The One Big Beautiful Bill is marketed as a growth machine, but the numbers tell a different story. Nonpartisan scorekeepers estimate it adds over $3 trillion to deficits over a decade, more once interest is counted, and much more if “temporary” provisions become permanent. Meanwhile, the bill is stuffed with targeted carve-outs and design tweaks that privilege friends and favored sectors—precisely the cronyism conservatives blasted in Biden-era industrial policy.

Don’t take my word for it; read the House section-by-section summary and see how the tax code is micromanaged, provision by provision. And yes, the branding is cute—but baselines, sunsets, and scoring games don’t change the fiscal reality.

If Republicans normalize debt-financed favoritism, they torch their own case for restraint, if they haven’t already.

Here’s the bigger picture: industrial policy with Republican decals is still industrial policy. Can you credibly oppose Biden’s subsidies while cheering GOP equity stakes? Can you rail against regulatory overreach and then hard-wire procurement preferences and tax favoritism for your allies? And can you claim to be the growth party while pushing an omni-bill that expands deficits and entrenches complexity?

That’s not conservative economics; it’s political project finance.

What would a principled, pro-innovation path look like?

​Double down on the deregulation spine of the AI orders—speed permits for all data centers and fabs, not just the politically connected. Compete with the EU not by out-regulating or out-subsidizing, but by out-freedoming: keep the rulebook light, the courts predictable, and the capital deep. Replace corporate-specific deals with broad-based tax policy that lowers marginal rates and eliminates distortions across the board. And on semiconductors, focus the state on lowering costs and removing trade barriers.

The right also needs a spine. Many conservatives are soft-pedaling criticism because they don’t want to be at odds with the president. I get it. But loyalty without accountability just cements bad policy.

If the movement doesn’t correct course now—on Intel, on CHIPS creep, on the omni-bill—it will spend the next four years normalizing the very ideas it vowed to defeat. That’s not a culture war; it’s a surrender on economics.

America will win the AI race the same way it won every other technological revolution: by trusting markets over ministries.

Keep the smart parts of the AI orders. Scrap the corporate socialism. And stop pretending that deficit-spending and carve-outs don’t matter just because they’re wrapped in the right slogan.

The path to prosperity isn’t complicated: less spending, rule of law, sound money, and permissionless innovation. Everything else is just noise.

Originally published at The Daily Economy. 

We’ve seen this before: fear, overregulation, and political hubris at the dawn of an economic breakthrough. Will we learn from history — or repeat its mistakes?

In every era of transformation, one thing never changes: politicians panic.

When the agricultural revolution spread through Europe and into the early American colonies, it upended social orders. Elites feared farmers with new tools would abandon the land. During the Industrial Revolution, steam power and factory machines were labeled threats to jobs and morality. And in the digital age, the rise of the internet was met with a flurry of federal blue-ribbon panels warning about everything from pornography to “cyberspace addiction.”

Now comes artificial intelligence — the next great leap in human productivity — and the cycle is repeating itself. Only this time, the stakes are global, and the timeline is faster.

Last week, the Trump administration released its AI Action Plan — a significant course correction from the Biden years that scraps top-down federal control and embraces innovation through deregulation, investment, and infrastructure. It’s one of the most pro-market approaches to AI policy we’ve seen from any Western government.

However, while the plan’s vision is mostly correct, it lacks a crucial protection: a federal moratorium on state-level AI regulation. That omission leaves the door wide open for 50 different states to suffocate innovation under 50 different bureaucratic regimes.

This Moment Is America’s to LoseArtificial intelligence isn’t a robot uprising — it’s advanced computing, a continuation of decades of machine learning, data science, and automation. Like past revolutions, it is a general-purpose technology with a massive upside: from medical diagnostics to precision agriculture, logistics, and personalized education.

This is the beginning of a transformation on par with the printing press, the steam engine, and the internet. Yet like every leap forward, it’s greeted with a mix of excitement and fear. And fear tends to invite government overreach.

Entrepreneurs don’t know exactly what AI will look like ten years from now — but they have vastly more insight than politicians ever will, because they live in the feedback loops of real-time trial and error. Markets discover. Governments delay.

Just look at where capital is going: AI startups raised $104 billion in the first half of 2025 alone — more than in any full year prior. Guggenheim analysts expect even larger gains ahead as enterprise adoption continues to soar.

This may not be a bubble but a boom. And America is positioned to lead -- if we don’t regulate ourselves into stagnation.

Can Washington Rein in the States?Some may question whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to stop states from regulating AI. The answer is yes — when interstate commerce is clearly involved, as it is with nearly every AI tool, system, and application. From cloud infrastructure to multi-state model deployment to international data flows, AI is not a local matter. It’s a global one.

The US Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate Commerce… among the several States,” and the courts have long upheld federal preemption in nationally integrated markets. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court made it clear: when a state law interferes with the free flow of interstate commerce, the federal government has both the right and duty to act.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 42, the Commerce Clause was essential to “guard against the many practices… which have hitherto embarrassed the intercourse of the States.” That applies perfectly to today’s AI patchwork.

While states have roles to play, they should not be left to erect legal walls around innovation or preempt national policy through fear and overreach. A temporary moratorium, while aggressive, would be both constitutional and necessary to ensure America doesn’t fumble the biggest economic opportunity in a generation.

The Trump Plan Is Pro-Growth, but the States Are a RiskFortunately, Trump’s new Executive Order 14179 repealed Biden’s restrictive EO 14110, which had empowered bureaucrats to embed fairness checks and ideological audits in AI tools. That approach mirrored the EU’s bloated AI Act — and would have ensured US developers got bogged down in red tape while China continued to advance.

The new federal plan rejects that path. It commits to:

• Cutting permitting delays for AI infrastructure and semiconductor fabs
• Encouraging open-weight AI models to foster competition
• Expanding workforce education and employer training with fewer tax penalties
• Prioritizing innovation over precaution

This is the right vision. But without a preemptive strike against state overreach, it may be impossible to implement in practice.
​
The House-passed version of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) included a federal moratorium on new state AI regulations. That language was dropped by the Senate before final passage. The expected result is chaos.

State Capitols Are Legislating BlindIn 2025 alone, more than 1,000 AI-related bills were introduced across all 50 states — up from nearly 700 in 2024, according to the James Madison Institute. The National Conference of State Legislatures confirms that dozens of those have already become law.

Here’s the problem: these aren’t coherent guardrails — they’re preemptive policy panic.

• California wants every AI output evaluated for “equity harms,” whatever that means.
• New York is pushing for AI licensing boards and pre-release approvals.
• Even Texas, which often leads in free-market policy, passed HB 149 (TRAIGA), creating a new bureaucracy to oversee so-called “high-risk” AI applications. It’s better than where it started, but still opens the door to creeping state control.

This is not just regulatory noise — it’s a threat to the scalability of American innovation. It fragments compliance and deters investment, particularly in open-source or startup environments.

Don’t Let History RepeatEvery time a new tool comes along that threatens old structures, lawmakers feel the need to “do something.” But as Milton Friedman taught us, the government solution to a problem is usually worse than the problem.

In truth, the best response to AI fear may be no response at all — at least not yet. We already have laws on the books to address fraud, discrimination, theft, and safety. We don’t need to build new bureaucracies to police speculative harms that may never materialize.

The biggest risk is not that AI goes rogue. It’s that our political class chokes off its development with regulatory hubris.

The EU is already moving in that direction. And while China may look fast on the surface, it’s doing so through central planning and repression, which ultimately stifles the kind of open innovation that gave the world the microchip and the internet.

America can still lead. But it must do so by trusting markets, not mandates.

Let Parents and Entrepreneurs LeadRather than preemptively outlawing AI tools in classrooms or forcing private businesses to submit models for approval, we should let parents, workers, students, and entrepreneurs decide what works best for them.

We don’t need governors and attorneys general positioning themselves as AI overlords to score political points. We need an environment where knowledge creation is decentralized, experimentation is encouraged, and failure is an integral part of the process.

Just as in the past, those who fear the new are demanding power over it. But history tells us: the real danger is not the technology — it’s the legislation that follows fear.

Give Innovation a Fighting ChanceThe Trump administration’s AI Action Plan is a welcome course correction. It prioritizes innovation over regulation, removes ideological roadblocks, and trusts the market to do what it does best — discover, adapt, and grow.

But unless Congress follows through with a moratorium on new state AI laws, this moment of opportunity will collapse under a pile of conflicting mandates and political micromanagement. We can’t lead the world while tripping over our own red tape.

We’ve seen this before. Every great economic revolution — agriculture, industry, technology — was nearly smothered by fear and top-down control. We can’t afford to make the same mistake with artificial intelligence.

Let’s stop pretending politicians know what’s coming next. They don’t. Entrepreneurs have a better shot — not because they’re perfect, but because they’re accountable to reality, not to reelection.

Congress should act now. Delay the deluge of state AI regulation. Let existing laws do their job. And give this generation’s innovators the space to build the future. That’s how America wins the AI race — not with more government, but with more freedom.