Trump and tech: After 100 days

Continuity, institutions, and political cycles

Participants generally agreed that despite shifts in leadership or political rhetoric, key institutions in the digital governance space exhibit a strong degree of continuity. Core regulatory agencies, legal frameworks, and international standards-setting bodies maintain a level of inertia that limits abrupt shifts. Changes introduced by executive orders or new initiatives are often layered onto pre-existing structures, rather than replacing them outright.

This continuity, however, does not imply stasis. The long-term trajectory of digital governance—especially in areas like cybersecurity norms, data governance, and AI regulation—is still being shaped by incremental decisions and institutional reforms. These evolutions are often more influenced by multistakeholder negotiations and geopolitical competition than by electoral cycles alone.

One point of concern was the widening gap between rapid technological change and the slower pace of institutional adaptation. While some countries expand their regulatory reach in AI and data management, others struggle to keep up with evolving risks and opportunities. In this context, continuity can serve both as a source of stability and a barrier to necessary reform.

Geopolitics, governance models, and institutional fragmentation

Several speakers explored how geopolitical rivalries are influencing institutional behaviour and regulatory choices. Rather than moving toward a unified model of global digital governance, the current period is marked by divergence in national and regional approaches. This is especially visible in how countries treat issues such as digital sovereignty, cross-border data flows, and the strategic role of digital infrastructure.

Multilateral institutions, while still central, are facing increasing pressure from outside and within. Many states express dissatisfaction with inefficiencies or power imbalances in existing frameworks, yet hesitate to abandon them fully. This ambivalence contributes to a fragmented landscape where parallel initiatives, regional pacts, and informal alliances are emerging as alternatives to formal multilateral processes.

This fragmentation is particularly evident in the governance of artificial intelligence. Countries differ sharply in their approaches to AI ethics, transparency, and data access. These variations reflect not only political preferences but also different economic interests, legal traditions, and societal values. The resulting patchwork creates challenges for interoperability and trust-building across jurisdictions.

Data politics, infrastructure, and economic interests

The discussion turned to the political and economic dynamics of data flows. AI’s reliance on large, high-quality datasets has brought new urgency to debates over data governance. While the United States appears unlikely to introduce major changes in its approach to data regulation under the current administration, other countries, particularly in Europe and parts of Asia, are moving toward more protective or retaliatory data regimes.

Participants noted that data policy is increasingly shaped by broader concerns over competitiveness, national security, and digital sovereignty. Countries with strong regulatory traditions, such as France, are expected to intensify their efforts to secure greater control over domestic and transborder data flows. At the same time, others continue to advocate for open data environments, especially where innovation ecosystems depend on cross-border collaboration.

In the development context, the role of digital infrastructure remains critical. Investments in connectivity and last-mile access continue to influence how regions integrate into the global digital economy. The case of satellite-based internet services was cited as an example of both opportunity and risk. In some African countries, such technologies were welcomed as a way to circumvent limited terrestrial infrastructure and state control. However, questions remain about the sustainability of such services if their operators face financial or political headwinds.

Economic decisions at the global level, such as grant withdrawals or corporate shifts, can significantly impact connectivity strategies in lower-income regions. This reinforces the importance of regional self-reliance and coherent policy frameworks that reflect local conditions, rather than replicating foreign models that may not align with local needs or realities.

Education, capacity development, and positive momentum

Despite concerns over competition and fragmentation, the discussion also highlighted areas of constructive development. Recent initiatives in education and capacity building—both in the USA and China—were welcomed as positive contributions to the global digital landscape.

In the USA, a new executive order promoting AI apprenticeships and digital education in schools was identified as a substantive step toward building domestic capacity. The initiative reflects growing recognition of the need for long-term workforce development and inclusive technological literacy. China’s parallel efforts in AI education, particularly through intelligent augmentation tools for teachers, signal a similar strategic direction.

Such initiatives were seen as potential bridges across geopolitical divides. By focusing on shared challenges—such as preparing youth for a digital future and ensuring ethical use of AI—countries may find avenues for dialogue less politically charged than those centred on security or market access.

Moreover, capacity-building efforts were linked to broader ambitions for trust-building. Participants emphasised that much of the current fragmentation in digital governance stems from a lack of mutual trust. Regulatory divergence, data localisation, and technical bifurcation often emerge as countermeasures to perceived risks or unfairness. Re-establishing trust—through transparency, shared norms, and inclusive dialogue—was described as a prerequisite for meaningful cooperation.

Regional perspectives: Africa and Asia

The discussion featured important regional insights, particularly from Africa and China. From the African perspective, it was observed that the continent remains largely underrepresented in global digital dialogues. This marginalisation reinforces the importance of regional integration through mechanisms like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), as well as the need for coherent, locally informed data policies.

African stakeholders are increasingly prioritising data capture, openness, and utility, rather than focusing narrowly on privacy—a reflection of the region’s distinct economic and developmental challenges. Calls were made to reclaim African data, which is currently stored and processed outside the continent. Investments in infrastructure, whether public or private, must be sustainable and inclusive to avoid reinforcing digital inequality.

From Beijing, the conversation emphasised the importance of intelligent augmentation over AI per se. China’s approach centres on using AI tools to support rather than replace human decision-making, particularly in education and professional development. The emphasis was placed on mutual trust as the cornerstone of any global digital framework. In this view, regulation often functions as a response to mistrust rather than as a proactive enabler of cooperation.

Looking ahead: Change, continuity, and the long view

As the session closed, speakers returned to the dual theme of continuity and change. Short-term shifts—such as executive orders or diplomatic messaging—may provide the appearance of change, but the core missions of governance institutions remain relatively constant. In democratic systems, serving the electorate and maintaining public trust are enduring mandates, regardless of administrative turnover.

At the same time, longer-term shifts are already reshaping the global digital order. The fragmentation of governance models, data politicisation, and AI’s evolution require ongoing attention. Stakeholders must navigate these changes while preserving the openness and collaborative spirit that characterised earlier phases of internet development.

Reflecting on past milestones, such as the commercial opening of the US National Science Foundation network 30 years ago, participants were reminded of how policy decisions made in specific contexts can have a lasting global impact. Whether today’s efforts will be remembered for advancing cooperation or deepening divides remains an open question, but the stakes are increasingly clear.

Watch the full event recording below or browse the event report and transcript.