Politics

Trump’s Victory: What It Means for Big Tech

Published

1 year ago

November 9, 2024

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election has significant implications for the tech industry, particularly in terms of regulation and the relationship between Big Tech and the government. This could signal potential shifts for major technology companies as his administration re-enters the White House. Known for his critical stance toward the influence of big tech firms, Trump’s policies may target social media regulation, privacy rights, and cryptocurrency oversight. This article examines what these changes could mean for tech giants, as well as how industry leaders like Elon Musk may navigate the administration’s policy direction.

Trump’s Stance on Big Tech – A New Wave of Scrutiny?

During his previous tenure, Trump’s administration raised concerns over the growing power of major tech firms, often accusing them of bias and unfair practices. His win could mean increased scrutiny for companies like Meta, Alphabet (Google), and X (formerly Twitter). With a history of advocating for transparency and accountability, Trump may push for regulations requiring tech firms to disclose their algorithms and data practices more openly. This stance may introduce significant challenges, forcing companies to rethink their operational transparency, while also appealing to conservative voices concerned with tech influence over political discourse.

A significant focus for Trump’s new term is likely to be the regulation of social media platforms, especially regarding content moderation practices. During his last administration, Trump criticized platforms like Facebook and Twitter for alleged censorship. Now, the debate around free speech versus misinformation has only intensified, and his administration might seek to implement laws ensuring “viewpoint neutrality.” Trump could push for reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently shields platforms from liability for user-generated content. Potential reforms could restrict tech companies’ ability to moderate content without consequence, fundamentally reshaping how platforms handle controversial content.

Privacy Rights – Balancing Data Use and Individual Freedoms

Trump’s election could also impact the ongoing conversation around data privacy, with likely implications for companies reliant on user data collection. His administration may support data privacy reforms, pushing for clearer user consent requirements and limiting companies’ use of personal information. Recent years have seen growing public concern over digital privacy, and Trump’s stance could introduce legislation closer to Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). These changes would mean more robust data security measures, transparency on data collection practices, and possibly heavy penalties for privacy violations.

Cryptocurrency Oversight – Toward Greater Regulation?

The cryptocurrency landscape has rapidly evolved since Trump’s last term, with digital currencies now occupying a more significant role in financial markets. Trump’s views on cryptocurrency have historically been cautious, even skeptical, as he once deemed Bitcoin a “scam.” This administration might seek tighter regulations on digital assets, especially as concerns over fraud and financial stability grow. Regulatory action could include enforcing anti-money laundering (AML) compliance and requiring more transparency from decentralized exchanges. For tech giants invested in blockchain or digital assets, like Meta’s Libra project, this could mean adjusting their strategies to meet compliance standards.

Dynamics with Tech Leaders – Collaboration or Conflict?

The Trump administration’s relationship with tech industry figures could be crucial in shaping regulatory approaches. Elon Musk, for instance, has had a complex, often vocal stance on political matters, supporting free speech but also advocating for limited government interference in tech. Trump’s policies around social media and free speech could resonate with Musk, yet there could be friction on regulatory grounds, especially if federal guidelines challenge the open nature of X (formerly Twitter). The administration’s stance toward leaders like Musk and Zuckerberg may range from collaborative to confrontational, depending on how they align with Trump’s regulatory goals.

Conclusion

Trump’s victory could bring a renewed focus on tech regulation, affecting social media, privacy rights, and cryptocurrency oversight. With increasing bipartisan scrutiny on Big Tech, Trump’s administration is expected to drive policies that push tech companies toward greater accountability, transparency, and user protection. How tech leaders respond will shape the future of these industries in a potentially more regulated landscape, where balancing innovation with oversight becomes essential.

Bolanle Media is excited to announce our partnership with The Newbie Film Academy to offer comprehensive courses designed specifically for aspiring screenwriters. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to enhance your skills, our resources will provide you with the tools and knowledge needed to succeed in the competitive world of screenwriting. Join us today to unlock your creative potential and take your first steps toward crafting compelling stories that resonate with audiences. Let’s turn your ideas into impactful scripts together!

News

US May Completely Cut Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

Published

1 month ago

November 30, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.

What Trump Is Saying

Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.

How Taxes Work Now

Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.

Questions From Experts

Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.

What Congress Must Do

The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.

What It Means Right Now

For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.

News

Candace Owens Says Macrons Funded Plot to Kill Her

Published

1 month ago

November 24, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Conservative commentator Candace Owens has made explosive allegations that French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron orchestrated and financed a plot to assassinate her. Owens alleges that she was alerted by a high-ranking source within the French government who revealed that the assassination was to be carried out by an elite French police unit, the National Gendarmerie Intervention Group (GIGN), along with the involvement of at least one Israeli operative. According to Owens, this “joint state operation” was motivated by her outspoken coverage and conspiratorial claims about Brigitte Macron, including controversial statements questioning the First Lady’s gender identity.

Owens further claims the payments for the assassination were funneled through a secret French elite club called Club des Cent, suggesting a sophisticated and well-financed scheme. She also links this alleged plot to the assassination of her late friend Charlie Kirk in 2025, suggesting that his killer received training from France’s 13th Foreign Legion Brigade and that these events are part of a larger multi-state conspiracy.

Despite these serious accusations, Owens has not publicly shared concrete evidence, and French, Israeli, and American authorities have not confirmed any part of the story. The Macron family has previously filed defamation lawsuits against Owens over her unfounded assertions about them, highlighting a tense and ongoing feud.

Owens has vowed to provide further details, including identities and financial proof, if given the opportunity, and has called on the public and patriotic investigators to examine the matter closely. While her claims have stirred widespread attention and heated debate across social media and conservative circles, they currently remain unsubstantiated allegations amid a highly charged political and media environment.

This controversy adds a new and dramatic layer to Owens’ volatile relationship with the Macrons, marking perhaps the most sensational claim so far in her ongoing public disputes with the French presidential couple.

News

Fugees Rapper Pras Michel Sentenced to 14 Years in Campaign Scandal

Published

2 months ago

November 21, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Pras Michel, Grammy-winning rapper and founding member of the iconic group the Fugees, has been sentenced to 14 years in federal prison for his role in a sprawling illegal campaign finance and foreign influence scheme. The sentencing was handed down on November 20, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., following Michel’s conviction in April 2023 on charges including conspiracy, money laundering, acting as an unregistered foreign agent, and witness tampering.

At the heart of the scandal was Michel’s involvement in funneling over $120 million from fugitive Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho—known as Jho Low—into the 2012 reelection campaign of former President Barack Obama. Prosecutors detailed how Michel helped hide the origin of foreign donations through shell companies and straw donors, violating U.S. campaign finance laws that prohibit foreign contributions. Beyond the Obama campaign, Michel also engaged in illegal lobbying efforts during the Trump administration to obstruct investigations into Low’s role in the notorious 1MDB scandal, a massive Malaysian sovereign wealth fund corruption case.

Prosecutors described Michel as having “betrayed his country for financial gain,” persistently lying and manipulating government entities over nearly a decade. They advocated for a life sentence, emphasizing the severity of his offenses and the threat posed to U.S. national security. Testimonies during the high-profile trial included notable figures such as Hollywood actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Michel’s defense team condemned the harsh sentence as “entirely disproportionate,” arguing that similar cases resulted in lighter penalties, and pointed out that Michel received no espionage charges—a key consideration in foreign agent prosecutions. They announced plans to appeal the verdict and sentence. Following the prison term, Michel faces three years of supervised release and forfeiture of more than $64 million tied to the illegal campaign finance activity.

Michel, who shot to fame in the 1990s as part of the Fugees alongside Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean, now confronts a dramatic fall from grace that underscores the extensive consequences of illicit foreign influence in American politics. Despite this setback, his representatives remain grateful for the support received, stating that this chapter does not mark the end of his journey.

This landmark case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of safeguarding U.S. elections from covert foreign interference and the serious repercussions for those who betray democratic principles for financial gain.bbc+4