The WTO proposals focused on ensuring the free flow of information online and limiting individual countries’ ability to force data to be stored within their borders. They underpin three decades of US policy to support a free, global interoperable Internet.
The decision, leaked late last year, met widespread criticism from industry as well as complaints from Washington lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican. Dissatisfaction even has emerged from within the Biden Administration with reports of an “ongoing meltdown” among the White House National Security Council staff. It conflicts with other Biden Administration efforts, including the Declaration for the Future of the Internet which brought together 60-plus countries to “resist efforts to splinter the global Internet” and “realize the benefits of data free flows with trust.“
US Trade Representative Katherine Tai defends the retreat as a way to allow it to strengthen regulation of big tech companies. Her office told Reuters that it allows Congress “the right to regulate in the public interest and the need to address anticompetitive behavior in the digital economy.”
But Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee, called the move “a win for China, plain and simple,” saying it would strengthen the Chinese model of internet censorship and government surveillance.” He lamented how Washington opposed “policies championed by allies like Australia, Japan, the UK, and Korea.”
The issue dates back to the late 1990s. Confronted with the need to make policy choices as traditional telecommunications networks began to evolve into today’s modern Internet, the US pursued an agenda of global unfettered interconnection. The policy promoted American business and innovation. It supported free expression, human rights, and the proliferation of democratic values.
At international organizations such as the WTO, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Telecommunication Union, the US focused on market liberalization, privatization, and the creation of independent telecommunications regulators. US free trade agreements and countless leaders’ G7 and G20 statements supported digital trade and the free flow of information. They opposed data localization.
Tai’s seemingly unilateral decision to upend such major digital policy tenets is unprecedented and well beyond her remit as the US trade leader. Congressional leaders were not consulted or notified. Neither were US industry and civil society stakeholders. The Congressionally established interagency trade policy coordination mechanism was not used, meaning Tai did not follow established law.
Her decision has opened the door for China and others to fill the global policy vacuum. It raises questions about the role of other senior Administration officials. The Commerce Department is focused on allocating funds for domestic broadband deployment and building a US semiconductor manufacturing base while the State Department is focused on building its new cyber bureau. Have these US internally focused priorities left digital policy without an Administration champion?
The immediate impact of the US choice is to postpone digital trade talks under the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. With artificial intelligence seemingly a priority as evidenced by a lengthy Executive Order, what restrictions on data flows could result from the Tai choice? What about the ongoing discussion in the United Nations about digital cooperation? Is the United States still committed to a global interoperable Internet?
Hopefully, the Biden Administration can find a meaningful way to course-correct Tai’s calamitous choice.
Fiona M. Alexander is a Non-resident Senior Fellow with the Digital Innovation Initiative at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). She is both a Distinguished Policy Strategist in Residence in the School of International Service and Distinguished Fellow at the Internet Governance Lab at American University. For close to 20 years, Fiona served at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce. She represented the United States at a variety of fora, including the UN World Summit on the Information Society, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and ICANN.
Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions expressed on Bandwidth are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
