The midterm elections have changed the balance of power in Washington, giving Democrats control of Congress for the final two years of President Trump’s term. What will this mean for tech policy and specifically for publishers? The results could create new opportunities to advance longstanding policy priorities, but they also introduce familiar political obstacles. 

Democratic leadership should bring renewed attention to competition, copyright, online safety and press freedom. Yet with a Republican president in the White House and the Senate filibuster limiting most legislation, the next Congress is likely to be defined by confrontation with President Trump and his administration. Any meaningful legislative progress will require significant bipartisan cooperation. 

Oversight may be Congress’s most powerful tool 

Democratic control of Congress will bring new committee chairs, investigative priorities and opportunities to scrutinize the Trump administration’s approach to technology and media policy. But congressional oversight may prove more consequential than the passage of new laws. 

Committees can examine whether antitrust remedies against Google are being implemented effectively, how federal agencies are approaching AI and copyright, and whether the FCC and Justice Department have exercised their authority appropriately in matters involving news organizations. For example, several Democratic Members of Congress have already called for hearings on whether FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has abused his authority to threaten broadcasters. 

Congressional oversight can provide transparency into decisions that affect publishers and the broader digital marketplace. 

Democrats feel they have an obligation to exercise Congress’ Constitutional authority to check and balance the Administration. However, those oversight activities could dominate the Congressional agenda to the exclusion of any legislative work. 

Protecting children online 

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) should remain near the top of the congressional agenda. The legislation has attracted unusually broad bipartisan support, and recent jury verdicts have reinforced the need for action. In March, a California jury found Meta and YouTube liable for harm associated with addictive platform design, while a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for misleading consumers about child safety and enabling harm to children. These findings give lawmakers a stronger evidentiary foundation for establishing protections for young users. 

The House and Senate have advanced different versions of KOSA, with the Senate proposal, previously passed by a 91-3 vote, establishing a duty of care for covered platforms that technology companies have strongly opposed. With Democrats in charge, the Senate version could become the favored model and move quickly. 

Restoring competition in digital advertising 

The AMERICA Act presents another opportunity for bipartisan progress. 

For years, publishers have operated in a digital advertising marketplace where Google’s unique control over multiple sides of the advertising supply chain has created conflicts of interest that would be unacceptable in many other industries. 

The federal government’s successful antitrust case against Google established that these concerns are grounded in unlawful conduct. A federal judge found that Google illegally monopolized key advertising technology markets harming publishers, and the court subsequently ordered remedies designed to restore competition and give publishers greater control over their advertising businesses. These findings provide a strong foundation for Congress to establish protections that apply across the digital advertising marketplace. 

Those remedies are important, but they are limited in duration and address the conduct of one company. They are no substitute for legislation. The AMERICA Act would establish broader rules governing digital advertising markets, including obligations requiring certain intermediaries to act in their customers’ best interests. 

We already expect stockbrokers and other financial professionals to operate under rules designed to protect their clients from conflicts of interest. Why should companies handling billions of dollars in digital advertising transactions be permitted to put their own financial interests ahead of the publishers and advertisers they serve? 

Congress should establish durable, market-wide protections rather than relying exclusively on litigation that can take years to resolve. 

Giving publishers a fair opportunity in technology negotiations 

The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) deserves renewed attention as publishers continue to face significant bargaining disadvantages when negotiating with dominant technology platforms where their ability to walk away from a deal with these gatekeepers is non-existent. 

The JCPA would establish a limited framework allowing eligible news and media organizations to negotiate collectively with covered platforms over the use of their content. But the rapid growth of artificial intelligence has introduced another set of dominant intermediaries who are illicitly profiting from publishers’ original content. 

AI companies are using publishers’ content to train their models and power products that deliver answers directly to users, often without sending them to the original reporting. These practices raise important copyright questions, but they also expose the same fundamental imbalance in bargaining power that prompted the JCPA. 

DCN has been working with congressional staff to explore updating the JCPA so publishers can negotiate over the use of their content by traditional platforms and AI companies. 

Copyright litigation will continue to determine important questions about fair use and the rights of content creators. But those cases could take years to resolve, and even favorable rulings may not address the bargaining disadvantages publishers face. 

Congress should consider how copyright protections and competition policy can work together to support a functioning marketplace for licensing original journalism. 

Defending press freedom 

Perhaps the most immediate change in Washington will concern congressional oversight of threats to press freedom. 

Over the past two years, the Trump administration has repeatedly challenged the independence of news organizations through disputes over White House access, broadcast licensing, regulatory investigations and public attacks on journalists. 

A Democratic Congress will have greater authority to investigate these actions, demand documents and question administration officials about whether government power has been used to pressure news organizations over their coverage.  

That oversight is necessary, but press freedom should never become a purely partisan concern. The First Amendment protects journalism regardless of which party controls the White House. Government officials should not threaten broadcast licenses because they dislike particular reporting, use regulatory authority to punish unfavorable coverage or determine which news organizations deserve access based on their editorial decisions. 

Republicans and Democrats alike should recognize the danger of allowing government officials to decide what constitutes acceptable journalism. Indeed, current Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) has expressed concerns about FCC overreach in the past. Powers established today can be used by a different administration tomorrow. 

A new congress, familiar challenges 

The election will bring new committee chairs, different oversight priorities and a more confrontational relationship between Congress and the White House. The legislative challenges remain substantial, and meaningful reform will require bipartisan cooperation. But Congress now has a stronger foundation for action. Recent court decisions have established unlawful conduct in digital advertising markets and documented serious harms to children from social media platforms. Lawmakers have an opportunity to build on those findings with lasting protections that promote fair competition, strengthen publishers’ control over their intellectual property and protect the freedom to report without government interference. 

The midterms have changed who holds power in Washington. The responsibility to address these problems remains the same.