Congress has the power to crush Big Tech’s app monopoly



Global policymakers and consumers are weary of Big Tech monopolies. While excessive consolidation of power leads to privacy violations, price gouging, and stifling innovation, it poses a unique threat to free speech.

Trump administration antitrust enforcers understood that threat. As Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater observed, when a handful of companies control the flow of information, “someone can be disappeared from the internet quite easily.”

Digital free speech shouldn’t depend on the shifting preferences of Apple executives or Google policy teams.

Conservatives increasingly see Big Tech’s ability to distort and manipulate public discourse as a downstream effect of its market dominance. In the case of the mobile internet, it takes only two companies — Apple and Google — to control the smartphone experience of nearly every American.

Congress is beginning to respond. Two recently introduced bills would take on Apple and Google’s app store choke points directly. The Open App Markets Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and the App Store Freedom Act, sponsored by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), aim to empower users by giving them the option to download apps from sources outside of Apple and Google’s proprietary platforms, including alternative marketplaces.

Why do these technical details matter for speech? Because Apple and Google’s gatekeeper power has already been abused to silence dissent.

In 2021, Parler — a social media app popular on the right — was removed from Apple and Google’s app stores for allegedly having “inadequate” content moderation policies. The timing followed reports that the platform was used to coordinate the January 6 Capitol riot. Virtually overnight, Parler went from one of the fastest growing apps in the world to a ghost town. Internet consumers move quickly, and the app’s months in Big Tech’s doghouse became a death sentence. Parler never recovered.

Parler wasn’t an isolated case. Years earlier, Google banned Gab, another free speech-oriented platform, while Apple never allowed it to launch in the first place. Google also initially refused to approve President Trump’s Truth Social due to concerns over its moderation policies. And abroad, Apple has bowed to authoritarian regimes — removing apps used by dissidents in China and Russia at the request of those governments.

RELATED: Upgrade to a dumbphone

http://www.fotogestoeber.de via iStock/Getty Images

The problem runs deeper than censorship. Apple and Google have used their dominance to dictate the design and speech choices of developers. App makers are often forbidden from communicating key information to users — such as the availability of cheaper subscription pricing outside of Apple and Google’s walled gardens.

The scope of their power is staggering. Roughly 91% of Americans own a smartphone. More than 99% of those devices run on Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android operating systems. And 88% of the time spent on those phones is inside apps — not on web browsers.

Without real guardrails, that bottleneck becomes a single point of failure. It’s a choke point ready to be exploited by governments, activist groups, or corporations that want to control speech.

Some openly defend the current system precisely because it allows Apple and Google to keep disfavored apps off the market. Even before Elon Musk acquired Twitter (now X), Apple and Google pressured the company to increase moderation. After Musk’s takeover, activist organizations lobbied Apple and Google to ban X altogether if Musk didn’t reinstate stricter content rules.

An open app ecosystem benefits everyone. Conservatives celebrating Big Tech’s apparent political shifts should remember how easily those loyalties change. Liberals worried about “tech bro” influence should support guardrails that limit partisan manipulation — regardless of who holds power.

Digital free speech shouldn’t depend on the shifting preferences of Apple executives or Google policy teams. Congress must act to restore balance and ensure pluralism. The Open App Markets Act and the App Store Freedom Act offer real, durable solutions. They deserve bipartisan support.

Trump White House just made a crucial move to ensure it's FINALLY in control of the executive branch



The White House is taking a critical step to ensure that obstructionist deep-staters spread throughout the federal government at senior levels cannot choke essential information flows and altogether hinder agencies' execution of the president's agenda.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management sent a memo Tuesday to the heads and acting heads of all federal departments and agencies, recommending that every agency revoke the "career reserved" status for their chief information officers. By doing so and by also opening the roles to "general" employees, the establishmentarians presently occupying the increasingly politicized roles can be easily canned and replaced by individuals actually willing to carry out the president's agenda.

The stated purpose of this move is to satisfy the Trump administration's desire to "improve the government's digital policy to make government more responsive, transparent, efficient, and accessible to the public, and to make using and understanding government programs easier."

'No longer the station of impartial and apolitical technocrats, the modern agency CIO role demands policy-making and policy-determining capabilities.'

Christopher Bedford, senior editor for politics and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media, noted, "This is a major move for OMB. The chief information officer holds the keys to the kingdom: He controls the flow of information to the secretary or director and his deputies."

"When you're trying to make the executive branch work for you, that is absolutely crucial," added Bedford.

The U.S. Chief Information Officers Council noted in its rundown of federal CIOs' responsibilities that the senior bureaucrats have significant pull and influence within their agencies.

They are, for instance, responsible for:

  • "providing advice and other assistance to the head of the executive agency and other senior management personnel of the executive agency to ensure that information technology is acquired and information resources are managed for the executive agency in a manner that implements the priorities established by the head of the executive agency";
  • "developing, maintaining, and facilitating the implementation of a sound, secure, and integrated information technology architecture for the executive agency"; and
  • "promoting the effective and efficient design and operation of all major information resources management processes for the executive agency, including improvements to work processes of the executive agency."

A former OPM official who asked not to be named told NBC News, "The CIOs have a lot of latitude and a lot of budgetary control, because the largest spend is generally on IT and on cybersecurity."

Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell noted in the memo Tuesday that the omnipresence of the digital, especially in American's interactions with their government, means that an agency CIO "now plays a critical role in developing policies (particularly in the digital realm) that have pervasive and significant effects on the American public."

With the expectation that they will be "on the front lines of articulating and implementing" controversial and impactful policies based on the administration's priorities, the White House figures that CIOs should face accountability and forgo any pretense of the supposed impartiality that previously excused the career reserved designation for the position.

"The role of agency CIOs has changed dramatically in recent years. No longer the station of impartial and apolitical technocrats, the modern agency CIO role demands policy-making and policy-determining capabilities across a range of controversial political topics," wrote Ezell.

"In light of this new reality, OPM recommends that each agency with a CIO role classified as [senior executive service] and designated as career reserved, send a request that OPM redesignate the position to 'general' no later than Friday, February 14, 2025," continued the acting director.

The OPM notes on its website that whereas a career reserved position can be filled only by career appointees, general positions in the federal government may alternatively be filled by any type of senior executive service appointee, including career, noncareer, limited term, or limited emergency appointees.

Speculating in December, Mark Forman, the administrator of the White House Office of E-Government and IT under former President George W. Bush, told Fedscoop that the second Trump administration, like the first, would likely push a federal data strategy in order to assess the quality of government operations and its efficiency.

"The jury-rigged flow of data from how we're accounting for expenditures and what we're actually spending on creates all kinds of inaccuracies that makes it hard to do simple things," said Forman. "I think that the DOGE is trying to ... find out where there's efficiencies that can be cut without much pain. So there's a data quality issue."

With cooperative tech leaders onboard, the Trump administration could potentially make good on his desire to improve government efficiency and transparency.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Tucker Carlson: ‘Lack Of Information’ Changes American Lives For The Worse

Carlson said keeping Americans clueless ‘challenges the idea of democracy, which rests on the notion of an informed voting public.’

'Stop hiding, Liz': Mark Levin CHALLENGES Liz Cheney to debate him in a heated Twitter battle



Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) got triggered by a history lesson conservative news host Mark Levin delivered on his Fox News show. Cheney lashed out on Twitter, spouting accusations that former President Trump "likely violated two criminal statutes" because "White House lawyers said so."

Cheney sits on the committee tasked with investigating the events that unfolded on January 6, 2021. The committee is aiming sharply at former President Donald Trump for what the committee says was a "fake elector scheme."

History matters, especially when interpreting the United States Constitution and procedures that are not entirely clear. Levin merely cited historical precedent that established elections are not over until Congress certifies the vote. According to a Smithsonian piece written in 2004, a case might be made that pushing back until the moment of certification is neither unprecedented nor "criminal."


Here is the transcript from the show that got triggered Cheney:

Levin: Before we speak to our guests, as is my wont, I want to give you a little bit of history that you probably haven't heard and were never taught. It's the election of 1800. There are really four candidates for president, as it turned out. There were supposed to be two. John Adams was running as a Federalist, of course, seeking re-election, and his main opponent was Thomas Jefferson, running as a Republican. Jefferson was running with Aaron Burr. That was the ticket. Jefferson, Burr as the vice president.

But back then, before the 12th Amendment, whoever got the most electoral votes would be the president. And for reasons I don't need to get into, although it's very exciting, Aaron Burr decided that he had a shot at being president. Given the fact that the Federalists were playing games, they knew that Adams couldn't get the presidency. And having decided that, they then decided to try and stop Thomas Jefferson. They had a problem, though. Even though Hamilton despised both Jefferson and Burr, he despised Burr more. They were both New Yorkers, and he had very, very bad experiences with Burr. Jefferson was furious about all of this. He was furious that the Federalists were playing games. He was furious that Burr had stabbed him in the back. And in the end, as pointed out in the Smithsonian of Peace, written on November 1, 2004, an excellent piece, as a matter of fact, by John Ferling. The Federalists decided to back Burr. Hearing of their decision, Thomas Jefferson told John Adams that any attempt ... "to defeat the presidential election would produce resistance by force and incalculable consequences." ... That's Thomas Jefferson.

Hmm. What else? Burr's was not the only intrigue. Given the high stakes, every conceivable pressure was applied to change votes — every conceivable pressure. Those in the deadlocked delegations recorded daily, but no one was lobbied more aggressively than James Bayard, Delaware's lone congressman, who held in his hands the sole determination of how his state would vote. This was the guy that would make all the difference in the world. He was pressured. He was lobbied. Bribes were even offered. For weeks, warnings had circulated of drastic consequences if Republicans were denied the presidency. Now the danger seemed palpable. A shaken President Adams was certain the two sides had come to the precipice of disaster and that ... "a civil war was expected." ... There was talk that Virginia would secede if Jefferson were not elected. Some Republicans declared they would convene another constitutional convention to restructure the federal government so that it reflected, ... "[the] democratical spirit of America." It was rumored ... "that a mob had stormed the arsenal in Philadelphia and was preparing to march on Washington to drive the defeated Federalists from power." Jefferson said he could not restrain those of his supporters who threatened ... "a dissolution" ... of the union. He told Adams that many Republicans were prepared to use force to prevent the Federalists' ... "legislative usurpation" ... of the executive branch. Wow.

I think Jefferson would be serving fifty years by about now. In all likelihood, it was these threats that ultimately broke the deadlock. The shift occurred sometime after Saturday's final ballot. It was Delaware's Bayard who blinked. And he abstained. So the state didn't go for either side. And that's how Jefferson won. The final mystery of the election of 1800 is whether Jefferson and his backers would have sanctioned violence had he been denied the presidency. Soon after taking office, Jefferson claimed that ... "there was no idea of using force." ... His remark proves little. Yet, during the ongoing battle in the House, he alternately spoke of a ceding to the Federalist misconduct in the hope that their behavior would ruin them or of calling a second constitutional convention. He probably would have chosen one or both of these courses before risking bloodshed and the end of the union.

Why do I tell you this? Because Jefferson made statements, affirmative statements that Donald Trump never made. The committee's trying to find ways to put those words in Jefferson's – Trump's — mouth. He didn't talk about a civil war. He didn't talk about any of that stuff. He didn't talk about violence that he wouldn't be able to stop. No, they're whining about 187 minutes where he put out a video and told people to stop.

So this is a big deal. We have a piece in the Washington Post a couple of weeks back and they're very excited. And it's titled, "What Crimes Might the Jan 6 Committee Say Trump Committed" by Amber Phillips – obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress is one of them. And in part, they talk about stopping lawmakers from certifying Biden's win. They aim to show that the attack on the Capitol was not a spontaneous outburst, but that Trump and his allies specifically planned to disrupt the congressional counting. They have no evidence that Trump did that. None whatsoever.

But what if the counting didn't go forward? And what if there were legitimate concerns raised by senators or House members? See, here's the problem: We have prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington. We have an attorney general. We have a media. We have politicians in Congress who don't understand how the Electoral College works. All these electors' votes from the different states are sent to the archivist of the United States, certified by the state. The archivist sends them to a joint meeting of Congress on January 6 by federal statute. Why does he do that? If the election is over, if the election is done, if the president has been chosen, why does he do that? Because it's not done until Congress says it's done. Congress is the last check. Not the courts, not the ballot boxes. Congress, which is why Jamie Raskin, one of the members of the January 6 Committee, objected ... to a Republican president at one time. Why? Why? Because he wanted to prevent a Republican from being president, which is why the chairman of this committee, Bennie Thompson, objected – objected once because he wanted to prevent a Republican from being a member ... of the presidency.

So this happens. The system is built for objections. The system is built not to rubber stamp. Otherwise, why involve ... Congress at all? Why is Congress voting on anything? Why is Congress certifying anything? Because it's not over until Congress says it's over.

So when people say that Trump was trying to reverse an election. It's not over until Congress says it's over. And we've actually had situations like this one with Jefferson where it wasn't over until Congress made the final decision. And we've had other situations like that. So he's not trying to stop lawmakers from certifying Biden's win ... Conspiracy to defraud the United States. There's another nasty-sounding criminal statute. That's an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the government by deceitful or dishonest means. And they point out, pressuring Vice President Pence to reject state's electoral results on January 6. Pressuring Vice President Pence. I just told you that members of Congress have objected to electors in state, entire electors. Right. Number one, the vice president of the United States is the president of the Senate. So senators like Barbara Boxer, and she did in the past, can object. But the president of the Senate, who's also the vice president, he can't object?

Here's the dirty little secret that you're not hearing from the legal analysts. You're not hearing from the media. You're not hearing from anybody. Now you'll hear it. We're not 100% sure what the vice president's role is. Look at the Constitution. Does it tell us? No. Look at the 12th Amendment. Is it clear? It's ambiguous. Look at the federal statute they all rely on from the 1880s. Is that clear? No, it's convoluted, which is precisely why Republican and Democrat senators are now proposing a bill to clarify what the role of the vice president is when he oversees this process. And they want it to be purely ministerial, where he has absolutely no ability to make any independent decisions. So why are they doing that? Because it's not clear if he did. I'll give you a perfect example. What if you learn after the ... "election" that there was all kinds of bribery taking place and bribery scheming in, let's say, a state that turned out to affect the outcome of the election. Now, is the vice president of the United States overseeing the process of the president of the Senate? Can he object? Can he send it back to the states or [must he] rubber-stamp and say, "look, I know, but there's nothing I can do. I got to wait for one of my friends in the Senate to say something. And they're not really of the mind to do it and or the House or whatever." So he can't do anything. Is that what the framers had in mind? I seriously doubt it. Well, what did they have in mind? They didn't tell us.

How do you build a criminal case around that? Oh, he pressured the vice president. But the vice president, he resisted. So what? That's exactly the way the system is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be criminalized.

What other criminal statute do they have in mind? The committee wants to try and tie Trump directly to the leaders of the mob that attacked the Capitol. Seditious conspiracy. Well, ladies and gentlemen, have you seen any of that? Any of the emails, any of the texts, any of the firsthand testimony, anything on a graphic, anything on a video, anything by anybody, anywhere? Despite the fact that this committee has free reign, you haven't seen any. There's been no conspiracy to defraud the United States. There's been no obstruction. There's been no seditious conspiracy.

Oh, well, what about these so-called fake electors? That is to be resolved by the United States Congress. That is not a crime either. You might not like it. You might think it's weird, you might think it's unethical, but it's not a crime. So to criminalize politics, to criminalize many of these things that have gone on in this country through its history, to completely misunderstand what the Electoral College is all about, and when the election is finally over — which is why they meet on January 6 — to make that decision is to take the criminal law process and project it on top of the Constitution to pervert it.

The Democrats are pushing hard. They're pushing hard the attorney general. They're pushing hard the U.S. attorney. The U.S. Attorney, we're told, is now investigating Trump. These are the three crimes they're looking at. They've gone after his lawyers. They want to see the phone calls. They want to see the texts.

They want to see what? That a candidate was fighting hard to win. Challenging what was going on in the States. And of course, many of these states don't have clean hands. There is, you know, Article II of the Constitution, where only the state legislatures – the state legislatures – can make the law through which electors are chosen. Early in our history, the very earliest, the state legislatures selected the electors who didn't vote. They selected the electors. Well, some of them did, but most of them didn't. And so the state legislatures had all the power. Today, it could be a state Supreme Court majority Democrat, It could be a governor who's a Democrat. You see that all occurred in the state of Pennsylvania and so forth and so on. And all these cases, hundreds of them, were brought by a law firm and other law firms in Washington, D.C., trying to change the election laws. They were working their Democrat politicians ... in the courts, working them in the governor's offices, and so forth. And many of them succeeded. Now, like it or not, they're free to do that, too. They're free to do that, too. But the other party is free to respond. And the final say is in the Congress of the United States. It's not in the U.S. Attorney's Office. It's not by the attorney general of the United States. It's not even in the courts. The final say is Congress. That's why it all winds up before a joint meeting of Congress where the vice president oversees the process. That's why a member or members of the House and the Senate can object ... to the election ... and nobody's been arrested. Nobody's been charged with obstruction. Nobody's said that they're turning democracy on its head. None of those things. I'll be right back.


.@MarkLevinshow: The Eastman memos & fake elector scheme are indefensible. On the memos: Eastman took the opposite legal position a month before the election; he knew all 9 Justices would rule against him; & he admitted it was illegal in an Oval Office meeting & afterwards. (1/3)

— Rep. Liz Cheney (@RepLizCheney) August 2, 2022

Cheney tweeted, "The Eastman memos & fake elector scheme are indefensible. On the memos: Eastman took the opposite legal position a month before the election; he knew all 9 Justices would rule against him; & he admitted it was illegal in an Oval Office meeting & afterwards."


White House lawyers said it was illegal too. The fake electoral slates were obviously false, and were transmitted to multiple federal officials for purposes of obstructing the electoral count. None of this is ambiguous. (2/3)

— Rep. Liz Cheney (@RepLizCheney) August 2, 2022

Watch the hearings, and read the opinion of the federal judge who concluded that Eastman and Trump likely violated two criminal statutes. (3/3)

— Rep. Liz Cheney (@RepLizCheney) August 2, 2022

Stop hiding, Liz. Come on my radio show where we can debate this and numerous other issues. You’ve been invited before and I’m inviting you again.https://t.co/Ht8PHWvY8K

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) August 3, 2022

Mark challenged Cheney to a debate on his show, but Cheney weaseled out with the following reply:

"When you return to being a principled conservative, I’ll return to your show. In the meantime, read what Judge Luttig has written about 1/6 & read “Lost, Not Stolen,” by a group of conservatives, and watch all the conservative Republicans in our hearings. Maybe that will help. "- Liz Cheney.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Debunking Media Reactions to David Perdue's Criticism of Stacey Abrams
play icon

Debunking Media Reactions to David Perdue's Criticism of Stacey Abrams

Ancient Discoveries Reveal Some New Information
play icon

Ancient Discoveries Reveal Some New Information

Reporters Need Information to Report | 7/26/21
play icon

Reporters Need Information to Report | 7/26/21

Biden claims Trump appointees withholding information needed by his transition team: 'We've encountered roadblocks'



President-elect Joe Biden on Monday accused officials appointed by President Donald Trump of withholding critical national security information from Biden's transition team, claiming political appointees have put up "roadblocks" that might leave the U.S. more vulnerable during the transfer of power.

What are the details?

"Right now, as our nation is in a period of transition, we need to make sure that nothing is lost in the hand-off between administrations," Biden said following a meeting with his national security advisers. "My team needs a clear picture of our force posture around the world and our operations to deter our enemies."

He said, "We need full visibility into the budget planning underway at the Defense Department and other agencies in order to avoid any window of confusion or catch-up that our adversaries may try to exploit."

Without naming names, Biden claimed, "We've encountered roadblocks from the political leadership at the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget. Right now we just aren't getting all of the information that we need from the outgoing administration in key national security areas. It's nothing short, in my view, of irresponsibility."

The Washington Post reported that Biden "was careful to distinguish between political appointees in the agencies and the career professionals who he said had cooperated fully."

"They never stopped doing their job and continued to serve our country, day in and day out, to keep their fellow Americans safe," Biden said of the career federal bureaucrats. "These agencies are filled with patriots who've earned our respect, and who should never be treated as political footballs."

Biden Criticizes Trump Administration For 'Roadblocks' On National Security Issues | MSNBC www.youtube.com

Reuters noted that this is the second time this month that Biden's team has complained that some Pentagon officials have refused to supply all of the information requested, but the Pentagon denied the claims.

The outlet reported:

The Pentagon pushed back. In a statement, acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller said the Pentagon had conducted 164 interviews with over 400 officials and provided more than 5,000 pages of documents.

According to The Hill, during his news conference on Monday, "Biden did not expand further on what he described as 'obstruction' by outgoing Pentagon leadership, nor did he take questions following his brief remarks."