What will happen in tech policy during 2026?

WELCOME BACK TO THE MONTHLY free edition of Digital Politics. I'm Mark Scott, and Happy New Year!

As I plan for the year ahead, I'm looking to arrange more in-person events — mostly because it's great to connect with people in real life. If that sounds something you'd be interested in, please fill out this survey to help my planning.

Just as the last newsletter looked back over what happened in 2025, this first edition of the new year focuses on how global tech policy will evolve over the next 12 months. I've skipped the clichés — 'AI will consume everything,' 'Washington and Brussels won't get along' — to highlight macro trends that, imo, will underpin what will likely be a bumpy road ahead.

Some of my predictions will be wrong. That's OK — no one's perfect.

What follows is my best guess at the topics which will dominate 2026 at a time when geopolitics, technology and economic competitiveness have become intertwined like never before.

Let's get started:

The end of US digital leadership?

AS THE LAST WEEK HAS SHOWN, we're living through a very different reality for the United States' standing in the world compared to any time since the 19th century. Donald Trump's administration has blown hot and cold on digital policy, often preferring the analogue geopolitics of traditional Great Powers over the wonkery associated with artificial intelligence governance and digital public infrastructure.

Yet Washington will assert itself in global digital policymaking circles in three ways during 2026. How the rest of the (democratic) world responds will determine if the US can still hold onto the claim of leading the free world. Or, in a once-in-a–generation shift, will other countries will start to form different, non-US alliances that will increasingly sideline the Trump administration and other US lawmakers/officials?

I'm still not sure how this will play out. But I'm increasingly coming to terms that as much as non-US officials/politicians want to maintain close ties with the world's largest economy, the last 12 months has cemented many people's view that the US no longer holds a leadership position on tech policy (if, frankly, it ever did.)

But I'm skipping steps.

First, Washington will likely take a vocal position in promoting the US "AI Stack" to the rest of the world. That includes connecting future tariff/trade deals with pledges from third-party countries to not pass comprehensive (or any?) AI regulation or legislation. It will also see US industry work hand-in-glove with the Trump administration, via the US Commerce Department, to offer financing support so that other governments can buy the latest wares from Nvidia, Microsoft and OpenAI. Those companies don't exactly need state-backed financing to make such deals.

This combination will stand in stark contrast to what Europe and China are similarly doing to promote their own AI stacks, at home and abroad. It will also likely force countries to pick a side — either accept the current US approach of no regulation and US infrastructure, or be perceived as a potential enemy to American "AI dominance."

Second, expect a more vocal pushback against non-US competition rules (aka: the European Union's Digital Markets Act) and any form of online safety legislation (aka: the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act.)

As I explained in the last newsletter, non-US digital antitrust enforcement is a bigger issue than the "Culture Wars" dog whistling associated with unproven claims that online safety rules are akin to free speech censorship. But as other countries like Brazil and Australia push aggressively ahead with checks on social media's power, as well as the ongoing enforcement of the EU's DMA and the UK's Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, Washington will likely call out these countries in ways that force local officials to choose a side.

Many will not want to be put in that position. But just as we saw with US officials' sabre-rattling when the EU fined X $130 million under its Digital Services Act, upcoming enforcement actions (via online safety and digital competition legislation) will lead to similarly vocal rebuttals from Washington. At that point, non-US policymakers need to make a choice: either implement local laws or kow-tow to Washington's demands.

Third, the US will almost certainly connect the EU's digital rulebook, including the soon to be pared-back AI Act, with the simmering transatlanic trade war. It's hard to see how that makes much sense, given the US' trade surplus, in services, with the 27-country bloc. But Washington has already voiced concerns that the EU's digital legislation equates to so-called non-tariff trade measures. This year will see such talk turn into action, potentially via increased tariffs on Europe's non-digital goods (where the bloc runs a trade surplus with the US).

If/when that happens, EU officials will again be put in a tough spot. They will have to choose to shift gears on digital rulemaking — all in the name of saving French cheese makers or German auto parts manufacturers from hefty tariff hikes — or live with the consequences of bringing the so-called "Brussels Effect" into reality.

The rise of China as the internet governor

I WILL ADMIT I'M NO CHINA EXPERT. But even with my non-China focus, it's hard not to see Beijing taking an ever increasing leadership position on internet governance in 2026.

Even for me, this may sound geeky. Bear with me.

Internet governance (and all the global standards that come with it) is the backbone of how the current digital world works. For decades, it was the US that led, globally, to shape those conversations around an open, interoperable internet which has become the game-changing technology that we all know and love.

Yet over the last decade, China has positioned itself as an increasingly important player. It has reshaped the conversation so that governments — and not other stakeholders like industry and civil society — are the key decisionmakers in how the next stage of internet governance protocols are negotiated.

This year will be when Beijing's steady rise as the go-to internet standards provider comes into its own.

In part, that's down to the significant pullback from Washington and a failure by other democratic countries to fill the breach left by the Trump administration's decision to turn its back on such multistakeholder negotiations. It also has a lot to do with China's clever diplomacy which has seen the world's second largest economy align itself with many Global Majority countries to create a coalition of the willing behind Beijing's authoritarian approach to internet governance.

Much of this year will be about framing China's state-first approach ahead of the upcoming World Radiocommunication Conference next year in Shanghai. This four-year event is about finalizing an international treaty for how global radio airwaves (central to mobile telecommunication) are divvied up between countries. For a much more in-depth understanding of why this matters, read this.

That set-piece event will be preceded, in 2026, with a full-court press from Beijing — especially within United Nations agencies where tech policy has taken on increased importance — to cement a state-first approach to internet governance. Without Washington to hold the line (and other democratic countries stepping into that position), Beijing will have much of the chessboard to itself.

This closed-doors diplomacy will define how much of the internet over the next decade will be created. Mostly in China's image.

The AI slop cometh for elections

TWO YEARS AGO, I WROTE A SERIES OF STORIES that asked everyone to calm down about the impact of artificial intelligence on the election-palazoo that was 2024.

Now I come with a different rallying cry: it's time to freak out.

I still find it hard to suggest AI will unfairly skew the outcome of any election this year. That doesn't give people enough credit for the complex decisions that we all go through in deciding who to vote for. Just because you see some form of election-related AI slop on social media doesn't mean, in general, that you'll change the way that you'll vote for a candidate.

Where I am concerned, however, is the level of sophistication that such AI-generated now represents. It's not just the fact people can upload their images to OpenAI's Sora 2 and go crazy. It's also that digital tricksters (or opposing candidates) can bombard social media with such convincing fakery that some voters will start to question everything that they read/see/listen to online.

Here's a stat for you. In 2025, more than 150 YouTube channels accumulated 5.3 million followers and created roughly 56,000 videos, with combined total views of almost 1.2 billion, that attacked British prime minister Keir Starmer with AI-generated fakery, according to a report from Reset Tech, an advocacy group. That, unfortunately, is not a unique event after politicians from Ireland to the Netherlands to the US and Pakistan also were targeted via AI slop to undermine their campaigns.

Fast-forward to later this year, and the 2026 US mid-terms look set to be defined as the AI slop election cycle, mostly due to the lack of legal checks on how such AI fakery can spread across social media within the US (despite a series of voluntary corporate pledges to combat this threat.)

Many of these posts will be so outlandish as to be called out, almost immediately. But it's the slow drip of AI slop into our collective election mindset that worries me. As with all types of disinformation, it's not a singular piece of content that you need to debunk. It's the cavalcade of ongoing and repeated attempts to undermine people's trust in electoral processes — this time, via AI slop — that has me freaking out.

One AI-generated falsehood about a candidate is one thing. But if you do that at scale (and now, almost at zero cost), as well as use AI tools to generate legitimate electoral material, then the dividing line between real and fake becomes so blurry as to not matter anymore.

Unfortunately, this year will be the turning point into such mass election-related AI slop.

The protection of kids online get real

WE'RE LESS THAN A MONTH INTO Australia's effort to keep anyone under 16 years of age off (most) social media. It's still too early to gauge the impact. But from such bans popping up from Virginia to Malaysia to countries enacting separate legislation to determine the age of people accessing some online services, 2026 marks when policymakers' attempts to keep kids safe online become real.

Personally, I would prefer to embed 'safety by design' principles across all of these services so that everyone, and not just children, are protected online.

But officials and lawmakers have decided that kids should receive enhanced protection, and that will have both positive and negative consequences over the next 12 months. Either way, those who have promoted such checks will have to grapple with such policymaking efforts that will inevitably lead to unexpected outcomes.

One thing is clear: the age of anonymity online is over.

Expect to be asked, repeatedly, to prove your age when attempting to sign into popular digital services (if you haven't already done so.) Many of these requests will come via privacy-conscious mechanisms that will involve you providing some form of ID — or allowing your device to take a photo of your image — that will be quickly deleted once it has been verified by a third-party provider.

That, in theory, is how it is supposed to work. But technology has a sneaky way of not working how it is supposed to. And when it comes to people's personal data, such sensitive information is likely to be misused/mishandled in ways that endangers people's privacy online. I don't know exactly how that will play out. But if history has taught us anything, it's that sensitive data has a tendency of leaking out in ways that people don't expect. The quick rush to prove people's age online is unlikely to be any different.

That's the downside. Now the upside.

By narrowing the scope of online safety protections, lawmakers worldwide are about to provide us a live testbed to determine which privacy-by-design principles work — and which ones don't.

Does the banning of teenagers' data from serving up targeted ads make a difference? We're going to find out. Does it make sense to keep teenagers off TikTok until they can drive (in the US, at least)? Countries will give us that answer. Do facial recognition technologies provide accuracy when determining someone's age? We'll know pretty soon.

I still remain massively skeptical that such kid-focused online safety efforts will make the overall internet a better place to be. Nor do I think children will overly benefit from such well-meaning policymaking. But by throwing the kitchen sink at the problem in 2026, at least policymakers will provide some level of quantifiable evidence to hopefully tweak existing, and future, rules aimed at protecting children from the worst abuse online.

What I'm reading

— Several US tech giants altered their terms of service over the holiday period in ways that potentially cemented their power over the digital world, argues Dion Wiggins.

— So-called 'data poisoning', or where large language model's training data is manipulated to affect its behavior, is becoming an increasing risk, based on a report from The Alan Turing Institute.

— After the US administration imposes visa restrictions on 5 European researchers and ex-officials, one of those individuals, Imran Ahmed, sued to stay in the country. This is his legal appeal.

— AI systems ability to accurately fact-check live events remains poor and can lead to harmful outcomes, according to this first-person account from a US official.

— Europe must pursue a dual strategy of promoting local technology providers while also maintaining close ties to non-EU tech companies are part of its digital sovereignty agenda, claim two German national security officials in Atlantik-Brücke