Attempts to clamp down on the influence of Big Tech may hinge on the fate of one woman

Donald Trump does Kamala Harris a great favour by being a narcissistic, rambling, touchy old man who soaks up media attention because thus far, her campaign has been all about the vibes, and studiously avoided policy detail. Harris has been evasive on many issues, from whether she supports any restrictions at all on abortion, to how she will reconcile simultaneously supporting both Israel and the rights of Palestinians.
One other evasion that has received insufficient attention concerns the fate of Lina Khan, the Biden-appointed chair of the Federal Trade Commission, a passionate advocate for breaking not just the power of Big Tech but Big Business in general. Ronald Reagan decided in the 1980s to move away from rigorous antitrust, anti-monopolistic policies. It was the end of a policy begun by Teddy Roosevelt at the beginning of the 20th century, who broke the power of a huge railway conglomerate and subsequently of 43 other major corporations. In the late 1930s, Franklin D Roosevelt fought Big Oil and protected small businesses and retailers who were being threatened by the same kind of bullying tactics against suppliers and competitors that Walmart and Amazon are accused of using today. Khan is reviving that antitrust spirit but with an even wider aim – to end the undemocratic dominance of big corporations globally.
Two billionaire donors to Harris’s campaign have stated that Khan needs to go. Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and Microsoft board member, and Barry Diller, a media and internet mogul who has been involved in everything from launching Fox Broadcasting to Ticketmaster clarified that their support for Harris is not conditional on Khan being fired. However, it is telling that Harris did not rush to Khan’s defence.
One of the reasons Trump, despite his appalling character flaws, has so much support is because so many Americans feel that their lives are more precarious on every level. Upward mobility is part of the American dream; many feel it is now a myth. In the first quarter of 2024, 67 per cent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 per cent of earners. The lowest 50 per cent of earners only owned 2.5 per cent of the total wealth. In a US YouGov/Economist poll, 60 per cent expressed the view that the US is heading in the wrong direction, while the economy, particularly inflation, remains the single most significant issue for both Trump and Harris supporters. Some economists are scratching their heads about this, because the economy is stronger than voters think. While rates of job openings slowed in August, unemployment rates dropped from 4.3 per cent in July to 4.2 per cent in August. Unemployment was at 6.4 per cent when Biden took office. But as US economist James K Galbraith pointed out in March, the kind of jobs matter and many are in services and are much more precarious than previous generations experienced. Pandemic payments provided a cushion, but that has run out. Meanwhile, in many areas of the US, first-time home buyers are finding themselves squeezed out of the market, while grocery and utility bills are still much higher than they used to be. Voters are not as dumb as some economists seem to think. They know the system is stacked in favour of unaccountable corporations maximising profits.
Khan has both supporters and detractors right across the political spectrum. Senator Elizabeth Warren was a primary influence on Joe Biden’s decision to hire her, but she has also been praised by JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential candidate. Her haters, of whom there are many, complain that she is harming businesses by preventing mergers – by which they mostly mean big companies acquiring smaller ones. The same people are not too fond of Jonathan Canter at the Department of Justice, who is equally zealous about trying to break up monopolies. He has spearheaded two antitrust cases against Google.
[ Ireland’s top 1,000 companies: One hugely profitable firm out in front as Big Tech dominatesOpens in new window ]
Karen Dunn, a high-powered Washington lawyer, was the primary person who coached Harris for her debate with Trump this week. As lead lawyer with Google, she delivered the opening statements defending the tech giant last Monday in a case taken by the US Justice Department. The case centres on the allegation that Google has an illegal dominance in the technology that delivers online advertising and has used its size to crush competitors. While no impropriety is suggested, it seems ironic that Dunn, who has prepared every Democratic candidate since 2008 for television debates, should simultaneously be involved in defending Google in a case taken by the Biden-Harris administration. Dunn also prepped Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, for his testimony before the bipartisan House antitrust committee. She has successfully represented Apple and Uber against allegations of monopoly. Her enmeshment with both Big Tech and Harris is not that unusual in US politics.
[ Data privacy watchdog launches investigation into Google Ireland over AI modelOpens in new window ]
Ultimately, Trump is just as likely to fire Khan, whatever Vance thinks. His flaws provide a shield for Harris being asked searching questions about her position on Khan’s future. A straightforward answer to that question would reveal a great deal about her true priorities.