Abigail Hebert

On Tuesday afternoon, students, faculty and community members assembled in Hubbard Hall to hear Stephen Weymouth, professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and director of its Global Business Fellows Program, deliver a lecture titled “Who Controls AI? Private Power and the New Politics of Digital Sovereignty.”

Recalling the nationwide TikTok ban enacted by Congress in 2025, Weymouth illustrated the political relevance of digital technology. In this instance, he described how lawmakers cited concerns that a foreign-owned platform collecting vast amounts of user data posed a threat to national security.

Weymouth discussed social media’s unusually strong influence, particularly among younger audiences who depend on these platforms as primary sources of news and information. As curated algorithms subtly alter users’ perception of current events, critics assert that such influence could benefit an international adversary by shaping narratives and public opinion amidst geopolitical tensions.

The TikTok ban was rescinded almost immediately on the condition that user data was stored on local U.S. servers. Weymouth referenced this outcome as an example of digital sovereignty, which can fragment the global digital economy into competing technological blocs and complicate international relations.

Weymouth then examined how digital globalization has sparked new conflicts over taxation, privacy, data and market power. Artificial intelligence (AI) has compounded political tensions by accelerating industry concentration and increasing competition, particularly between the United States and China. As a result, other nations have become “subordinate actors” victimized by what Weymouth characterized as digital colonization in this data-extracting competition.

However, although the rivalry between China and the U.S. dictates headlines, Weymouth argued that private firms, not governments, are the most influential actors in AI’s development.

Weymouth explained that the American economy relies predominantly on the exchange of services rather than manufactured goods. Digital technologies enable cross-border commerce, but they also allow data—often intimately related to individual users—to move across national boundaries. Digital transfers are silent, difficult to monitor and nearly invisible, posing novel regulatory challenges.

Data’s predictive capabilities exacerbate surveillance and privacy concerns, while data network effects consolidate most users among a handful of dominant platforms.

“It’s not just who wins and who loses monetarily, it’s about how we respond,” Weymouth said. “How do citizens value personal data privacy? How much are they concerned about inequality and the concentration of industries?”

Weymouth introduced what he termed the “privacy paradox.” Survey results indicate that approximately 81 percent of Americans believe the risks of data collection outweigh the benefits, and 79 percent express concern about how their data is being used. But despite the majority consensus on both of these questions, consumer behavior tells a different story: Individuals continue to share personal information and adopt new technologies.

Additionally, Weymouth presented a chart comparing the market capitalization of global technology companies. Rivaling the wealth of many nations, NVIDIA, Alphabet, Microsoft and Apple are valued between $2 trillion and $4 trillion. The global tax system, though, was devised for traditional industries rather than E-commerce. Digital firms can easily transfer profits across borders, evading taxation.

Policy responses, such as digital services taxes based on gross revenue, have been condemned by some as “discriminatory” towards the U.S., where many top firms are based. Weymouth noted that these disputes prompted retaliatory threats from the Trump administration, revealing how digital policy evolves into broader trade conflicts.

Weymouth insisted that as digital globalization progresses, multilateral agreements determining “rules of the game” are crucial. He proposed tax reforms, digital privacy standards and competition laws to ensure politically sustainable market integration.

Yet, Weymouth remains dubious about the ability of existing domestic and international to adapt, referring to what he deemed the World Trade Organization’s recent decades of stagnation and limited results from negotiations between the U.S. and the European Union.

Weymouth stated that global coordination efforts must prioritize controlling firms. As frontier companies innovate without consistent policy constraints, they command ever-growing power over platforms, infrastructure and data.

“That power is increasingly contested, and the United States has shown a propensity, a willingness to invoke a whole new set of laws that have never been imposed on private American companies to [constrain them],” Weymouth said.

According to Weymouth, whether the future of global technology is liberal or illiberal depends on the policies being developed today.

“Paradoxically, for digital globalization to expand in a politically sustainable way, the big tech companies must first be restrained,” Weymouth said.

Attendee Prathit Kurup ’26 reflected on Weymouth’s discussion of the role of globalization.

“It was interesting to hear from [Weymouth] about the widespread impacts of AI through the lens of globalization, which is often missing from conversations about AI,” Kurup wrote in an email to the Orient. “As frontier labs, chip manufacturers and big tech companies race to concentrate their market share, it is really important that we continue to have these kinds of conversations.”