How far can the federal government go to dismantle private power?
That’s no longer a hypothetical question. This month, the Biden-era legal framework collided head-on with a Trump-era enforcement engine, as Google, Meta, Apple, and Amazon all face serious antitrust trials—some of which could end in corporate breakups. What was once a slow burn of regulatory scrutiny has become a full-blown constitutional power struggle between private sector titans and a newly aggressive government determined to reassert its authority over the digital economy.
For decades, America’s largest tech companies have operated with astonishing reach, unrivaled resources, and minimal restraint. That era may be coming to an end—and the legal battleground now runs straight through the Commerce Clause, the First Amendment, and the very structure of federal administrative power.
The wave of lawsuits: what’s happening right now
At the heart of this moment is a coordinated legal offensive.
- Google’s antitrust trial resumed in Washington, D.C. this week, with federal prosecutors arguing that the company illegally used its dominance in digital advertising to crush smaller competitors and cement a near-total monopoly.
- Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is now in pretrial litigation over its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram—deals that some regulators argue should be reversed retroactively.
- Apple is facing scrutiny over its App Store dominance and the preferential treatment of its own products.
- Amazon stands accused of using its market power to disadvantage third-party sellers and push competitors out of key retail segments.
Each case targets a different corner of the tech world, but they share a common through-line: a belief that tech platforms have grown too big, too powerful, and too immune from the rules that govern every other industry in the country.
Antitrust and the Constitution: the battle for economic power
Antitrust law is primarily statutory—but the underlying question is deeply constitutional. Can the federal government compel breakups or structural changes to companies that dominate entire sectors?
Under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8), Congress has broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. That’s the legal backbone for antitrust law going back to the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914. These laws give the federal government power to prevent monopolies, restrict anti-competitive mergers, and maintain market fairness.
But courts must now decide whether applying these statutes to 21st-century digital markets—with their global scale and network effects—oversteps constitutional boundaries or revives them.
Some critics argue that the government is engaging in selective enforcement, targeting politically disfavored companies while letting others slide. Others say these lawsuits are long overdue and reflect the government finally fulfilling its constitutional duty to regulate commerce for the public good.
Free speech, platforms, and the First Amendment
The most explosive constitutional clash may not be economic—but expressive.
As the government pressures platforms like Meta and Google to change content moderation practices or advertising models, questions arise about the First Amendment. Can the government pressure platforms to “open up” their algorithms or remove bias without infringing on free speech?
While tech companies are private actors and not subject to the First Amendment directly, government efforts to shape or coerce content policies could amount to what courts have called “jawboning”—indirect censorship through regulatory pressure.
Any court rulings that limit the federal government’s ability to push platforms toward neutrality or transparency could dramatically narrow the future scope of digital regulation—and reshape the free speech landscape for users, companies, and political campaigns alike.
Executive power and the administrative state
These lawsuits also test the limits of executive enforcement authority. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ), both under new Trump-appointed leadership, are pursuing legal theories that challenge decades of corporate precedent.
But under what constitutional authority do agencies pursue such sweeping remedies?
Critics argue that the modern administrative state—built on agency rulemaking, independent commissions, and enforcement discretion—lacks sufficient constitutional oversight. Some even question whether agencies like the FTC, which combine investigatory, rulemaking, and quasi-judicial powers, violate the separation of powers doctrine.
If courts side with that view, they may limit not just tech prosecutions, but the very scope of federal regulatory power moving forward.
The stakes
This isn’t just a fight between Big Tech and Big Government. It’s a referendum on how power—economic, legal, and constitutional—should function in the 21st century.
- Can the government break up companies that millions of Americans use every day?
- Can platforms be forced to change how they handle speech without violating the First Amendment?
- Can administrative agencies reshape entire sectors without new legislation from Congress?
The answers to these questions will define the future of digital capitalism—and the boundaries of government oversight.
For now, the legal process continues. But behind every filing, subpoena, and courtroom argument lies a deeper constitutional question: Who gets to decide what power looks like in a modern democracy—and what limits still matter when the stakes are global?