Digital technologies transcend borders, and digital regulations extend far beyond the borders of the jurisdictions that enact them. To examine the effects of international tech policy on innovation, dynamism, and the freedom of internet users everywhere, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) will convene a panel of experts to discuss recent developments in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The decisions made by policymakers today have vast consequences for the internet of tomorrow, and the panel will discuss how over-regulation, hyperactive competition policy, digital services taxes, online censorship, and other polices are shaping — and often deforming — the free and open internet that users enjoy today. TPA’s own David McGarry will be moderating the panel of experts that include: James Czerniawski (Consumer Choice Center), Graham Dufault (with ACT | The App Association), Samantha Dagres (Montreal Economic Institute), and Mike Salem (Consumer Choice
Center – UK). Click here ([link removed]) to register.

Fighting European Tech Overreach

Europe has committed itself to a masochistic campaign of regulatory auto-asphyxiation. The proof is in the absence of a robust continental tech sector. Indeed, before encountering the first firm of European extraction on a list of the world’s largest technology firms, one must journey 15 spots. Of the largest 25, just two hail from within borders of the European Union (EU). Regulatory enthusiasm has eaten away the élan vital of the continent’s innovators. Even still, EU officials have yet to surfeit on their regulatory excess, their central planning and micromanagement, and their determination to arrange and rearrange the workings of technology markets just so. The EU, having failed to satisfy its regulatory appetites at home, now casts a hungry eye toward American tech companies. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) both foist on American firms byzantine compliance regimes, sapping their dynamism, endangering users’ cybersecurity, smothering consumer
choice, curbing free speech online, and generally mucking up the operation of free enterprise. In the digital age, technology cannot be confined within borders — nor can its regulation. Besides the injurious effects of shackling America’s most dynamic national champions, the EU’s sheer size and might render many of its commands intercontinental, dragging American users into unwilling compliance with foreign law.

To halt the march of regulatory imperialism, President Donald Trump in February issued a memorandum, pledging “to defend American companies and innovators from overseas extortion” and naming the DMA and DSA in the accompanying fact sheet. “My Administration will not allow American companies and workers and American economic and national security interests to be compromised by one-sided, anti-competitive policies and practices of foreign governments,” Trump stated. His administration has issued similarly strong statements. “Extraterritorial regulations that specifically target and undermine American companies, stifle innovation, and enable censorship will be recognized as barriers to trade and a direct threat to free civil society,” said then–NSC spokesman Brian Hughes. Hughes continued: “End the EU’s regulatory death spiral!” Considering the Biden administration’s aid — ideological and practical — offered to the DMA, Trump’s bellicose posture was salutary. Since February, these ma
tters of digital regulation have receded from the forefront of the presidential mind; they found no resolution in the recent trade agreement made between the U.S. and the EU. These matters ought to be returned to prominence. Citing the DMA, the EU apparat moved in recent months against both Apple and Meta. Relief from the White House is badly needed.

Neither company has done anything that deserves the multi-hundred-billion-dollar fines assigned to them. Apple did not arrange its App Store to the satisfaction of regulators. Meta, in an attempt to comply with the data-collection regulations, offered a subscription version of its services, allowing users to pay in lieu of their data being collected and monetized. Without regard for the competitive reasoning for these firms’ policies, or the consumer benefits resulting therefrom, the EU announced draconian fines of $586.7 million and $234 million on Apple and Meta, respectively. The office of the diplomat requires attention to discriminatory regulation leveled against the companies on which the future of American prosperity depends. President Trump and his administration have intermittently given their attention to European overreach, but in the froth of domestic politics and geopolitical dealmaking, that attention seems to have slipped. International negotiations are often irksome and
consume more time than either party wishes, but American officials should expedite their efforts to resist the DMA and DSA. The EU is a lab, demonstrating what proceeds from regulatory hubris. America is another, demonstrating what proceeds from unfettered innovation. The Old World model of state management must not be permitted to hold back the advance of the freedom-fueled dynamism of the New World. The Trump administration is fond of saying, “Promises made, promises kept.” The keeping of Trump’s promise of last February will be a great day for American businesses and the American people.

Raising deposit insurance limits would cost consumers over $30 billion

It’s no secret that most people in and around Washington, D.C., love the nonsensical idea of a “free lunch.” Everyone comes to Uncle Sam asking for handouts and assuring taxpayers their pet project will not cost them a thing. Just recently, Rep. Maxine Waters — the ranking Democrat on the influential House Financial Services Committee — introduced legislation to modernize federal deposit insurance by raising the upper limit on business transaction accounts. Some members of Congress have floated the idea of increasing the limit to $20 million, up from the current limit of $250,000. While supporters of this idea usually claim taxpayers will bear none of the cost, a recent Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) analysis shows the cost could exceed $30 billion — and will be borne by taxpayers, not banks. We have previously warned about such proposals, which usually emanate from left-wing lawmakers like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). This is curious, as
politicians like Sen. Warren and Rep. Waters have long decried speculation by big banks that would, no doubt, increase if the federal deposit insurance backstop is raised nearly one hundredfold. The truth is that, with that much at stake, leftists in Washington will have the license they have long craved to implement stringent regulations on America’s banking sector. For the sake of millions of taxpayers and consumers, this cannot go forward. But what’s particularly concerning is this proposal has gained traction among at least a few Republicans. In addition to Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he was open to raising the limits for these business accounts.

Politics aside, the proposal remains deeply flawed. First, 99 percent of all accounts in the U.S. are already covered under the current $250,000 deposit insurance limit. Small businesses that need more protection have avenues to safeguard their holdings via the private sector. Fears of savings being lost in the wind are unfounded. There’s a reason to assume otherwise. Figuring out the costs of a deposit insurance increase is complicated — so complex, in fact, that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) did not even offer a cost estimate when it suggested raising the level for business accounts back in 2023. There are ways to make educated calculations. TPA recently released data outlining the key assumptions and cost factors associated with such a policy change. In short, the cost of a deposit insurance increase like this will be staggering. Raising the deposit insurance limit would dilute the FDIC’s ratio of federal reserves to insured deposits. By law, the FDIC must maintain a
certain statutory minimum. Thus, any dilution would require a special assessment on the banking industry to bring the ratio into compliance. TPA estimates a roughly $30.1 billion assessment would be required to correct the ratio. However, because the deposit insurance limit would be higher, the FDIC would have to charge higher premiums each year thereafter. This figure will keep compounding over time, leading banks to pay an estimated 64 percent more in premiums overall. That raw cost, in itself, would quickly run to $3 billion per year. Even if Congress were to enact a relatively small deposit insurance increase on business accounts, the costs are not much lower. A special assessment on a $15 million deposit insurance cap would likely be around $26.3 billion, with an additional $2.3 billion in annual costs thereafter, rising over time.

Of course, it will not be the banks that bear those costs. When banks incur higher premiums, they usually pass them onto consumers in the form of higher fees, higher lending rates, and lower rates on deposits. Even if banks were to graciously eat those costs, customers still lose, as banks will have less to lend out. There is a multiplier effect on lending when bank capital takes a hit from higher costs. In simple terms, a $30 billion cost to capital means as much as $300 billion less in lending support for consumers, small businesses, and farms. This impact on customers is what makes the latest push on deposit insurance particularly ill-advised. While the largest banking trade groups have not taken a position on the issue, we understand that some bankers have quietly pushed for Rep. Waters’ proposal. These institutions claim they are willing to pay this cost for more deposit insurance. Anyone with an elementary understanding of economics knows businesses (banks included) don’t stay in
business by incurring higher costs without finding some way to also extract more revenue. Claims that existing and prospective bank patrons won’t be harmed by this proposal are naïve at best. If lawmakers are going to have a substantive discussion about deposit insurance reform, they need to be open and transparent about the potential costs. Ultimately, Americans are not willing to pay $30 billion to subsidize the 1 percent of large accounts that are over the current limit, just to backstop more speculation. The words of economist Milton Friedman echo through time, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”


BLOGS:

Monday: FirstNet Works and Congress Should Leave It Alone ([link removed])

Tuesday: TPA and Allies Send Letter Asking Congress to Reject FDIC Deposit Expansion ([link removed])

Wednesday: TPA Urges Opposition to HB 293: Unconstitutional Device Filter Bill Threatens Free Speech ([link removed])

Thursday: New Report Reveals Abuse Within 340B ([link removed])

Friday: The Good, Bad, and the Ugly: FDA Edition ([link removed])


Media:

September 7, 2025: Manilla Standard mentioned TPA in their story, “Filipino tourists warned against bringing vapes to Singapore.”
September 8, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their story on the approval of a software program contract.
September 8, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned me in their story, “Calls for transparency grow louder over $100k settlement shrouded in secrecy.”
September 9, 2025: Inside Sources (Washington, D.C.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “SpaceX and Satellites Help States Save Millions on Internet Buildout.”
September 9, 2025: WCBM Radio (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA for their story on a Baltimore County lawsuit that led to a $100,000 settlement.
September 9, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Taxpayer advocate slams $100k payout secrecy: Citizens deserve to know the truth.”
September 10, 2025: American Banker mentioned TPA in their story, “Deposit insurance bill faces pushback over price tag.”
September 10, 2025: Lompoc Record (Lompoc, Calif.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “SpaceX and Satellites Help States Save Millions on Internet Buildout.”
September 10, 2025: Hanford Sentinel (Hanford, Calif.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “SpaceX and Satellites Help States Save Millions on Internet Buildout.”
September 10, 2025: Santa Maria Times (Santa Maria, Calif.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “SpaceX and Satellites Help States Save Millions on Internet Buildout.”
September 10, 2025: Inside Sources (Washington, D.C.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Five Years After the PMTA Deadline, the Tobacco Control Act Still Protects Cigarettes Over Smokers.”
September 10, 2025: Daily Union (Junction City, Ks.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “The WHO’s Sin Tax Crusade, A Money Grab Aimed at Consumers.”
September 11, 2025: I appeared on WBOB 600AM radio (Jacksonville, Fl.) to talk about the importance of free speech.


Have a great weekend!

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
1101 14^th Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C.
Office: (202) 930-1716
Mobile: (202) 258-6527
www.protectingtaxpayers.org

============================================================
** ([link removed])
** Like Us On Facebook ([link removed])
** ([link removed])
** Follow Us On Twitter ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
1101 14th Street NW
Suite 1120
Washington, DC xxxxxx

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])