Big Tech hawk Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., is helping Congress take what he calls a "great first step" in the bipartisan battle against Silicon Valley and growing Chinese encroachment.
But some in the Republican House leadership are not only shying away from taking on Big Tech companies like Facebook and Google, but taking active steps to protect their market controls and dominance.
Buck, the lead Republican on antitrust issues for the House Judiciary Committee, is set to bring a package of three antitrust bills to the House floor on Thursday.
The legislation is aimed at strengthening antitrust law enforcement and beefing up protections against Chinese influence.
Congress has been waging a war against tech titans for several years, and while Buck's proposal won't break up Google's monopoly or drastically reduce Big Tech's stranglehold on their competition, he called the legislation a "gateway to conversations we need to have in the future" about curbing the industry's dominance.
"We are finally getting to the floor legislation that matters," he said. "This is a first step. This is a great first step."
While he expects the bill to pass once it comes to a vote, he said there will certainly be "healthy debate" surrounding his proposal, which consists of the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, and the Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act.
"The Big Tech companies have been spending a lot of time and money lobbying and have made certain arguments," he said. "Whenever there is legislation that changes the landscape, there's going to be healthy debate over the role of antitrust laws and creating competition in the marketplace."
If there are concerns from members within the GOP that the package doesn't go far enough, Buck said he wasn't aware of any infighting.
But the fact that the package does little to address some Republican leaders' chief concerns about conservative bias could raise questions regarding their support.
Last year, Republicans were divided over a package of five House bills aimed at reining in the largest tech companies.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has joined with Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter — all of whom strongly oppose the antitrust bills — and has railed against the bipartisan proposals.
Jordan, a vocal critic of Big Tech, has also been soft on pushing antitrust efforts that would breakup their monopolistic power and influence, limiting their ability to exploit their dominant positions in the digital marketplace to nudge out competitors.
Each of the three bills focused on a separate part of the tech companies' business models, ultimately making it easier for the government to penalize the Silicon Valley giants.
Instead of embracing the overall goal of busting up big tech, Jordan was quick to label the legislation as "Democrat bills" because they were sponsored by "four impeachment managers."
Even so, the bills received support from a number of Republicans who see the value of limiting the power of Google and other Big Tech giants.
One of Jordan's main complaints was the bills did little to address the growing concern of Big Tech's perceived bias against conservatives.
But conservatives who back the antitrust bills note that the very act of moving against Big Tech's control over the content and search gateways will be a massive blow to these giants, opening up new venues for right-leaning free speech.
"I am promoting competition in the marketplace to address bias and censorship," Buck said.
Under the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, which Buck called the most important bill of the trio, state governments would receive the same court-venue advantage that the federal government currently enjoys during litigation.
That means companies facing state antitrust litigation can't shop for a friendlier venue and state attorneys general would have the ability to protect consumers in their home states.
Big Tech firms often seek to have cases redirected to the Northern District of California where many of their businesses are headquartered.
The second bill, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, would update the filing fees for merger transactions.
Under the proposal, large, complex mergers, which could garner antitrust concerns, pay more for their filing fees while fees are reduced for small and medium-sized companies. None of the funds raised can go to the Federal Trade Commission without a congressional appropriation.
Finally, the Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act would require any company undergoing a merger with a company operating in the U.S. to disclose information to antitrust regulators about any financial support or subsidies provided by a foreign government.
The bill is geared at curbing the influence hostile powers, like China, may have over the U.S. free market when they use state-owned enterprises to acquire key U.S. assets.
If this bill passes, Buck said China's ability to buy up U.S.-based tech companies could be thwarted before Beijing can further "gobble up innovation in this country."
Marisa Herman ✉
Marisa Herman, a Newsmax senior reporter, focuses on major and investigative stories. A University of Florida graduate, she has more than a decade of experience as a reporter for newspapers, magazines, and websites.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.