As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The consequences are underscored in the recent U.S. Presidential election and the potential impact on the Internet, infrastructure and cybersecurity.

In the context of the CircleID global community, it seems worth asking where things are headed? It does beg for an analysis of what is actually proposed in Presidential Transition Project 2025 related to things internet and cybersecurity. See Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise” - DocumentCloud.

The 2025 document declares itself an instrumentality of “policy agenda, personnel, training, and playbook” to “take back our government”—largely using Executive Orders. It asserts that “if we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration.” Project 2025 plus another transition plan known as Agenda 47 appear to constitute what is to unfold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_47

Focus on the Internet, infrastructure and cybersecurity

The term “internet” appears 51 times in the body of the Project 2025 plan and clearly is an infrastructure of significant focus. “Cybersecurity” appears 30 times. Ancillary telecommunication systems are equally a major focus, as is the ability to shape messaging to the public. “Social media” is found 43 times. Synonyms like “Big Tech” abound. “Censoring” blatant mis-/dis-information denominated as “conservative views” are treated multiple times in the document at the same time as the propagation of “wokism,” “social justice,” “vaccination,” and an array of other perceived “Left” or “Marxist” views are condemned.

One of the most far reaching new government roles is represented in the admonition that “future Intelligence Community leadership must address the widely promoted ‘woke’ culture that has spread throughout the federal government with identity politics and ‘social justice’ advocacy replacing such traditional American values as patriotism, colorblindness, and even workplace competence.”

The Internet gets repeatedly mentioned in ambivalent terms, such as the Administration “should also enforce existing federal law that prohibits mailing abortifacients, rather than harassing pro-life demonstrators; respect the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech, rather than trying to police speech on the Internet….” The policing theme is repeated throughout. For example, “the FCC should work with Congress on legislative changes to ensure that ‘Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections.”

Later, the transition document alleges “continued emergence of evidence documenting collusion—between the Big Tech Internet platforms and the Biden White House and administrative agencies—to censor criticism, scientific fact, and uncomfortable political truths.” Terms like “criticism”, “scientific fact”, and “truth” in the 2025 document have very different meanings from the norm.

Calling for “Big Tech” regulation to prevent alleged content discrimination not only in social media, but also traffic occurs under a section labelled “impose transparency rules on Big Tech.” The transformation of Section 230 into a new content regulatory regime is a major feature of the transition plan, including “empower[ing] consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any.” It goes further urging “Congress require Big Tech companies to start contributing an appropriate amount” to the Universal Service Fund. It is ironically the same measure being advanced by developing country advocates in ITU-T tariff policy meetings.

The venting of ire on treating disinformation extends beyond Big Tech to also include the National Security Agency, FBI, and CISA in identifying foreign election interference and domestic disinformation via the Internet. That activity will be terminated. Indeed, “the entirety of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on Day One.”

As strategic internet infrastructure, one company gets special mention—noting that “a new generation of low-earth orbit satellites like StarLink…which can beam a reliable, high-speed Internet signal to nearly any part of the globe at a fraction of the cost of other technologies.” “The FCC should expedite its work to support this new technology by acting more quickly in its review and approval of applications to launch new satellites.”

Another section opposing environmental or social responsibility decries “the interference of large Internet firms with democratic political discourse” in treating these subjects. It argues that the only role of a company is to “increase its profits.” The potential impact on Internet based businesses is substantial.

An entire section treats “Cancel Culture, Collusion, and Commerce.” This existing business practice “refus[es] to service a lawful activity, i.e., fossil fuel extraction or gun manufacturing.” It is said that “when banks or internet platforms refuse customers based on their political or social views” it “can rise to the level of an unfair trade practice when the business is (1) publicly traded; (2) highly regulated; (3) enjoys legal privileges; (4) enjoys market power; and (5) appears to engage in its own political or social agenda that is unrelated to any conceivable branding concerns.” The plan argues that “the government, as guided by democratically passed laws, already regulates activities such as fossil fuel extraction and gun manufacturing” and that “businesses, particularly those that enjoy certain government privileges or relationships and/or market power, should not replace democratic decision-making with their own judgment on controversial matters.” There is an apparent intent to scrutinize non-compliant companies.

The Big Tech and internet focus is extended to other potential legal measures. “Collusion can be explicit, in the case for example of government working with social media companies to censor politically harmful news, or more implicit—for example, regulatory requirements so burdensome that they deter market entrance by smaller entities without the resources to bear them.” The extensive discussion on this subject is carried over to an entire section that concludes with “these developments may warrant the FTC’s making a careful recalibration of certain aspects of antitrust and consumer protection law and enforcement.”

Implementation

Answering the question of how this can be done, the document provides multiple avenues. Foremost is through the use of multiple Executive Orders already promised on the first day of taking control. These orders include sweeping changes to Federal Civil Service protections coupled with wholesale elimination of all senior positions and even entire agencies to be replaced with new personnel facilitated by a “Presidential Administration Academy”.

The document goes further internationally by calling for a review of all treaties and agreements, together with abrogation of those which fail to meet the 2025 agenda. The effective control of all three branches of U.S. government, further enables the 2025 plan.

Internet Effects

The potential effects on the Internet and service providers based on the proposed actions taken through multiple implementation mechanisms are very significant. LEO based services appear to have a significant boost in both licensing and funding. Exactly what occurs will be determined in agency proceedings, legislative actions, and judicial review. The cessation of CISA activities would likely have a significant adverse impact on cybersecurity, but could be compensated via other agencies such as NSA.

The European Union and Commonwealth of Nations have largely managed to avoid such extreme developments and will continue to assert their internet values and governance models notwithstanding the efforts to undermine them found in the Project 2025 document. The EU is viewed as a “global threat” and “ruling elite” at the beginning of the document in Promise #3 and merits an entire initial section denominating it as a “supranational organization” which asserts “liberal values” such as environmental protection. A principal friction point is likely to be the strong EU and Commonwealth controls on internet disinformation propagation. EU’s many cybersecurity initiatives seem likely to become more significant globally.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by the author are a personal analysis and do not reflect those of any entity with which he is associated.