April 1-15 Newsletter

Why This Newsletter Exists

Lately, it feels like every tech headline is a foreign policy headline. Tariffs on chips. A billion-dollar fine for disinformation. The DOJ stepping back from crypto. But too often, coverage either oversimplifies or overcomplicates it. It either reduces complex issues to soundbites or buries them in jargon until the average person gives up and scrolls past. It also feels like tech news, not just tech as an industry, is becoming way more politicized. Stories about Elon Musk, Big Tech, and their ties to government dominate the headlines. That media scrutiny matters—but if we only focus there, we risk missing the bigger picture. I believe real change often happens out of sight, in the places that aren't making front-page news yet.

If you’ve ever felt like the signal’s getting lost in the noise, you’re not alone.

This newsletter keeps you ahead of the noise: where policies are being written and shaping power, where access, rights, and opportunities are being decided. We'll start with the headlines, but the emphasis is on what’s changing, why it matters, and what to watch next.

Let’s get into it.

• Trump announces tariffs: In early April, President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariff increases, imposing a baseline 10% tariff on all imports and escalating tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%. While some tech products like smartphones and computers received temporary exemptions, these items still face a 20% tariff under the so-called "fentanyl tariffs".​ 

• The tech industry is experiencing significant impacts: Nvidia reported a $5.5 billion revenue hit due to export restrictions on AI chips to China, and Apple is incurring increased costs as it adjusts its supply chain. The administration has also initiated a Section 232 national security investigation into semiconductor imports, potentially leading to new tariffs on chips from countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. It has wreaked havoc on the stock markets—tech stocks like Nvidia, Tesla, and Apple experienced significant volatility as investors are reacting to the looming tariffs.

• Update (4/13): Tech has been exempted from tariffs... for now. This is a welcome reprieve to Silicon Valley, but it is subject to change as it is only a temporary measure. Commerce Secretary Lutnick said tariffs on smartphones, computers and other electronics products, as well as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals may come in "a month or two".

• Why does it matter? International trade laws, supply chain dynamics, and the geopolitical factors influence technology regulation.​

• South Korea unveils $23B semiconductor support package: In response to potential U.S. tariffs on semiconductor imports, South Korea announced an expanded support package for its chip industry, increasing total aid to 33 trillion won ($23.25 billion) from the previous 26 trillion won.This initiative aims to bolster domestic chipmakers like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix against rising global competition and policy uncertainties. Additionally, South Korea plans to engage in diplomatic discussions with the U.S. to mitigate potential trade impacts. ​

• Why does this matter? The U.S. is pushing tariffs on key allies while demanding secure supply chains—an approach many countries now see as hostile. South Korea isn’t alone. China, Japan, and South Korea have begun coordinating responses to U.S. trade pressure. Allies are banding together against Washington’s go-it-alone strategy. It’s a sign that the U.S. risks isolating itself in the global tech order it once led.

• EU readies $1B fine Against X: According to a NYT report, the European Commission’s probe found X failed to curb disinformation and hate speech, and officials are debating a fine exceeding $1 billion – potentially the first major enforcement of the DSA​. The expected decision (due this summer) may also mandate changes to X’s algorithms and practices.

• Why does this matter? This would be the EU’s strongest action yet under its new platform regulation regime, setting a global precedent for online content governance. It also underscores transatlantic tensions in tech policy, as differing approaches to misinformation and free speech collide.

• FTC opens trial to break up Meta: The Federal Trade Commission launched a high-stakes antitrust case against Meta (Facebook’s parent company) aiming to unwind its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp​. The FTC argues Meta stifled competition by subsuming rivals and thereby violating a century of U.S. antitrust policy. If the FTC prevails, Meta could be forced to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp. 

• Why does this matter? This case will test Big Tech antitrust enforcement. A win for regulators could reset how tech giants grow and acquire competitors, while a loss might curb momentum for reigning in platform monopolies.

• UN backs human rights defenders against tech misuse: The United Nations Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a resolution to better protect human rights defenders (HRDs) in the digital age. Led by Norway and co-sponsored by 50+ states, the resolution urges governments to forgo biometric mass surveillance and stop exporting spyware or AI tools to actors likely to abuse them. It also condemns online harassment and “transnational repression” of activists by authoritarian regimes.

• Why does this matter? This is the first HRC resolution linking emerging tech and the safety of HRDs. It signals growing global agreement that digital surveillance and deepfakes can chill fundamental rights. Readers should note that while non-binding, such UN resolutions can shape national laws and global norms around privacy, surveillance and the duty to protect activists.

• New Jersey outlaws deep fakes: New Jersey’s governor signed a bipartisan law criminalizing malicious AI-generated “deep fakes”–making it a third-degree felony to create or share fake audio or video intended for unlawful purposes​. The law imposes hefty fines (up to $30k) and prison time for offenders. It was reportedly inspired by a local incident where high schoolers circulated non-consensual deepfake pornography of classmates.

• Why does this matter? This is one of the most aggressive state-level responses to AI forgery. I have never been prouder to be a NJ native. This also marks the first time I’ve publicly announced such a thing. It could provide a real-world litmus test of how legislation can protect against media abuse while balancing First Amendment concerns. Readers should watch how enforcement plays out—will it actually deter bad actors, and how will “unlawful purpose” be proven? The law has big potential to become a model for other jurisdictions grappling with AI-manipulated media.

• DOJ disbands crypto enforcement team: The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the immediate disbandment of its National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET), a unit established under the Biden administration to combat cryptocurrency-related fraud and crimes. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the DOJ would cease regulatory enforcement actions against crypto platforms, such as exchanges and mixing services, and instead concentrate on prosecuting individuals who use digital assets for serious crimes like terrorism, drug trafficking, and organized crime.This policy shift aligns with President Donald Trump's broader pro-crypto agenda, which includes reducing oversight on crypto exchanges and services, and promoting the legal use of blockchain technologies. The move has been welcomed by crypto industry advocates who criticized the previous administration's approach as overreaching. ​

• Why does this matter? The DOJ stepping back from crypto enforcement gives the industry more room to test boundaries. Companies can now experiment with new tokens, products, or transactions—even those that push legal limits—without the same fear of federal crackdowns. As one lawyer put it, crypto firms may feel freer to take risks. It’s a clear signal: under the current administration, innovation is prioritized over regulation. But with less oversight, the door also opens wider to abuse.

• The DOJ stepping back from crypto platform enforcement gives companies more freedom to experiment with new tokens and products, even in legally gray areas. It’s a shift toward a more hands-off approach—firms now have more room to take risks without fearing immediate crackdowns. But the DOJ is still drawing a firm line: fraud, terrorism financing, and major criminal use of crypto will still be prosecuted. That balance—less regulation for innovation, but clear limits on abuse—will define how the next phase of U.S. crypto policy plays out.

• DOJ implements data security rules for cross-border transactions: The Department of Justice rolled out new rules restricting the transfer of sensitive U.S. data—like health records or government personnel files—to certain foreign governments (including China and Russia). The policy, based on a 2024 executive order, treats bulk data sharing as a national security issue. Companies must now vet cross-border data deals more strictly or risk enforcement. A 90-day grace period gives businesses time to adjust while the DOJ offers compliance guidance. 

• Why does this matter? Here, the U.S.is treating data transfers like a security risk. By blocking certain countries from accessing americans’ sensitive data, the DOJ is responding to fears that foreign apps and platforms—like tiktok—are quietly collecting information that could be used for surveillance or espionage. It signals that privacy is becoming centerstage in foreign policy. 

• Congress revives ‘NO FAKES Act’ to police AI-Generated impersonations: Bipartisan lawmakers reintroduced the NO FAKES Act (Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe) to fight against unauthorized digital impersonations​. The updated bill, initially floated in 2023, has new support from Hollywood and tech firms amid rising generative AI misuse. The NO FAKES Act would empower victims (e.g. celebrities or anyone whose likeness was cloned) to sue deepfake creators, and even lets rights-holders subpoena platforms for the identities of anonymous uploaders​. It also offers safe harbor to online platforms that proactively implement notice-and-takedown systems and employ “digital fingerprints” to block reposts of known fakes​

• Why does this matter? This proposal addresses the gap between free expression and image rights in the AI revolution. If passed, it could become a cornerstone law for AI and content moderation, so I particularly recommend keeping an eye on its progress. 

• NIST pushes for post-quantum cybersecurity: The U.S. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is seeking public input on how to achieve “crypto agility”—the ability to swiftly swap out encryption algorithms – as the threat of quantum computers loom. In a draft white paper, NIST notes that future quantum attacks could break today’s encryption, and that migrating to post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is an urgent priority​. NIST’s paper (Cybersecurity White Paper 39) surveys technical strategies for flexible, updatable encryption and highlights challenges like interoperability. NIST’s comment period runs through April 30, 2025 for experts to weigh in​, and a two-day workshop is set for mid-April to coordinate efforts. 

• Why does this matter? This is a proactive governance approach to a coming technology upheaval. Governments are finally acknowledging that encrypted data stolen today could be decrypted by quantum computers in the near future (“harvest now, decrypt later” attacks). Law and policy professionals will increasingly need to grapple with mandates for PQC in industries (from banking to healthcare) and ensure a smooth transition—or risk a security crisis when quantum hacking arrives. NIST’s framework will likely inform future regulations and international standards on crypto in the quantum era!

• Former CISA Chief Chris Krebs resigns from SentinelOne: Christopher Krebs, former head of CISA, resigned from cybersecurity firm SentinelOne after the Trump administration revoked the company's security clearances, citing political motivations. Krebs stated his departure aims to allow the company to regain its clearances and continue its cybersecurity mission without political entanglements.

• Why does this matter? Krebs's resignation highlights growing concerns over the politicization of cybersecurity—a field that has been traditionally viewed as nonpartisan. The removal of SentinelOne’s clearances illustrates how political pressures and power play can directly influence private sector cybersecurity capabilities and decision-making.  

• China accuses U.S. of cyberattacks: Chinese authorities accused the U.S. National Security Agency of conducting cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure during the Asian Winter Games in Harbin. The allegations—which include claims of attacks on sectors like energy and telecommunications—have been denied by U.S. officials and add to ongoing cyber tensions between the two nations. ​ 

• Why does this matter? I think this one speaks for itself.