‘Digital fentanyl’: Why you should never give your kid a smartphone



Most parents these days are aware that too much screen time is harmful to their children, so they implement, or at least try to implement, a system of guidelines regarding how and when their kids can use digital technology.

But now that smartphones are basically universal, how do parents protect their children from the inherent dangers of the internet, social media, and addiction when the digital world lives in their back pocket?

Clare Morell, director of the Technology and Human Flourishing Project for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, tells “Zero Hour’s” James Poulos that, as countercultural as it is, the only way to protect your children is to say no to smartphones.

“Most parents know that these digital technologies aren’t good for kids, but they’ve been sold this illusion from the tech companies themselves that if you just put on screen-time limits and our parental controls, then you can mitigate these harms, but fundamentally, these strategies are just harm-reduction measures,” she says.

Even under the strictest screen-time parameters, some harm is inevitable.

It’s a “lose, lose” situation for parents, says Morell. “The screen-time limits don't work; the kids always want more because these technologies are addictive by design ... and the kids aren’t sufficiently protected” because they “continue to encounter dangerous content or find ways around the screen-time limits.”

Morell argues that it’s the tech companies who we should blame. They are the ones who are lying to parents by suggesting that they can “stand between a child and this drug-dispensing machine” that was intentionally designed to be “inherently addictive.”

But is it really possible to cut out smart technology from your child’s life completely?

It’s certainly not the easy path, but it’s the best path, Morell says.

“I ended up interviewing dozens for my book and found that not only was it possible to opt out completely from these addictive digital technologies, but these families were flourishing. Their grown children in college were grateful that they had not been given smartphones; they saw the differences even among their peers on the college campus,” she tells James.

Morell’s book, “The Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing Kids and Teens from Smartphones,” drops in June this year.

“What kind of harm are we talking about here? How severe is the problem?” James asks.

Smartphone usage is “causing this mental health epidemic among kids,” says Morell. “Anxiety, rates of depression, suicide, self harm have skyrocketed, and it lines up exactly with the release of social media” and the “ubiquity of smartphones among teens.”

Big tech companies are keenly aware of the damage their products are causing to children, but actual change would require them to transform their highly lucrative business model, which is predicated on addiction. Thus, change isn't likely.

“They want to maximize user attention, time, and data to sell it to advertisers,” so they are not motivated to change, Morell explains.

The parental controls, which again don’t really work, are something they can sell to create the illusion of concern for children while keeping their business model intact.

“It's like putting a Band-Aid on this kind of gaping wound,” says Morell, calling the Big Tech industry “inherently predatory.”

Parents, she says, would do well to ditch the faulty metaphor that smartphones should be treated like sugar — something to enjoy in moderation.

The amount of dopamine released in the brain when a child engages with social media is equivalent to “highly addictive drugs,” she explains.

“Sugar is really not the right metaphor. It's more like digital fentanyl."

To hear more about Morell’s research, watch the episode above.

Want more from James Poulos?

To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Technology's war against the human hand



In the grand arc of human history, there has been an unmistakable shift away from the direct use of our hands.

I don’t think that’s an accident.

The artistry of the written word, once an act of both intellect and muscle memory, has been flattened into an effortless, thoughtless process.

I think it’s the product of a long-standing agenda, one that has unfolded gradually, spanning centuries. The satanic transhumanist movement, led by our technocratic overlords, seeks to sever humanity’s most fundamental connection to the world: the human hand.

A world made by hand

There was a time when human beings relied on their hands for everything. The connection between the mind and the hand was supreme.

We built, farmed, carved, wove, and forged the world around us through direct physical engagement. Our hands weren’t just tools. They were extensions of our intellect, will, and creative spirit.

A sacred cycle

Leonardo da Vinci understood this better than most.

To him, painting was not just an art. It was a science, a direct manifestation of human intellect and soul.

He saw the painter’s process as a sacred cycle: through the eyes, the world enters the mind, and through the hands, the mind translates that knowledge onto canvas. This, for da Vinci, was the highest form of mental discourse, a discipline that fused experience, perspective, and universal knowledge into a tangible reality.

J.G. Vibert's "The Science of Painting" outlines da Vinci's five principles of painting:

  1. La macchina della visione (the mechanics of vision)
  2. Figurare il corpo umano (representing the human body)
  3. Ombre, lumi e colori (shadows, light, and colors)
  4. La prospettiva aerea (aerial perspective)
  5. La mente universale del pittore (the universal mind of the painter)

These principles highlight how deeply the mind-hand connection is embedded in our capacity for creation.

A broken bridge

For da Vinci, the hand was not merely an instrument but an extension of our divine faculties, a bridge between thought and material reality.

But as time has passed, we’ve seen that bridge get dismantled.

The Enlightenment, while expanding intellectual horizons, emphasized the abstract over the tangible. Knowledge became something to be studied rather than experienced.

Then the Industrial Revolution introduced automation, stripping individuals of the necessity to cultivate their hands as tools of creation. The once-intimate bond between thought and touch was diluted. Machines took over the role of shaping the physical world, and the human hand was relegated to monotonous, mechanical tasks.

Despite this, we still maintained some level of engagement with our hands. Writing, for instance, required the physical act of holding a pen, dipping a quill in ink, and forming letters with intention. This preserved a fragment of the mind-hand link.

Digitless digital

But in our present digital era, even this has been taken from us. Now we just tap glass screens with our thumbs. The artistry of the written word, once an act of both intellect and muscle memory, has been flattened into an effortless, thoughtless process.

And now, we stand on the precipice of the final transformation. The rise of brain-computer interfaces — such as Neuralink or Apple Vision — threatens to sever the mind from the hand entirely. Soon, we won’t even type. We will think and the machine will produce the words for us, bypassing our physical selves completely.

This is the ultimate goal of the transhumanist movement: the destruction of the sacred link between mind, body, and soul. Its proponents seek to remove the hand’s divine role in creation, mediation, and interaction with the material world.

A gift from God

The human hand is a gift from God, an instrument of His glory. It allows us to shape reality, our spirits to interface with the physical world. In many ways, our hands are what allow us to exercise our mediation between God and flesh.

Leonardo da Vinci’s vision of art as the ultimate mental discourse stands in direct opposition to this dystopian trajectory. His philosophy teaches us that creation is not merely an intellectual act — it is an embodied one. The hands must engage with the world for the mind to fully realize its potential. Without them, thought remains inert, unfulfilled, trapped in abstraction.

To take away the use of the hand is to take away one of our last connections to the divine. It is to turn us into passive consumers of experience rather than active participants in creation. It is to weaken our ability to interact with the world in the way God intended.

If we are to resist this transformation, we must reclaim the use of our hands. We must build, write, craft, and create. We must reject the fully automated life and embrace the physical world as something meant to be engaged with, not merely observed.

To keep our connection to God intact, we must keep our hands in motion, not just for the sake of productivity, but for the sake of our humanity itself.

Propaganda Press Upset Trump Could Shut Down CISA’s Election Censorship

The Trump administration has launched a review of every Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) role related to election security and so-called mis- and disinformation after CISA began censoring speech. CISA, originally established in 2018 to address cybersecurity threats, quickly transformed into a government-run censorship operation, particularly during the 2020 election. In response, the propaganda press […]

EXCLUSIVE: Federal Trade Commission Launches Probe Into Big Tech Censorship

'We do not intend to take our foot off the gas'

Boredom: A spiritual weapon to fight the machine



Charles Dickens popularized the term in his 1853 novel “Bleak House”; 17th-century French mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal argued that much of human activity is an effort to avoid it; and long before that, medieval monks called it the noonday demon.

Of what abomination do I speak?

I speak of boredom — though labeling it an abomination is a gross misunderstanding of it. This year, as part of my “2025 resolutions,” I’ve allowed myself to be riddled with boredom more often, white-knuckling myself into stillness when my brain itches for stimulation.

And no, this is not some kind of psychological masochism, although admittedly it can feel that way. On the contrary, my hope of becoming reacquainted with the boredom I lost touch with in adolescence is a response to this bustling, exhausting third millennium we’re inhabiting — a place where the doldrums, once a hallmark of the human experience, have been exiled by the monarch of the 21st century: technology, the strange paradox that gave us back so much of our time and then savagely stole it all back (plus some).

My bones ache for something different, something gentler and more nourishing than the brutality of this digital age. I’m convinced that welcoming boredom home is a map to greener pastures.

Before supercomputers found a home in our pockets, before social media escorted us into a digital dimension, before entertainment was a tap on an app away, ennui was a quiet companion known to all. Not so long ago, he stood with us in long lines at coffee shops, sat silently in our passenger seats, and sighed next to us in lobbies as we waited for our names to be called.

Though we might have greeted him with sighs and furious finger-drumming, boredom’s offer was life-giving, even though, ironically, his company can feel like a slow death.

Too many of us answer boredom’s inquiry without even realizing it.

Often mistaken for depression, apathy, or its evil twin, idleness, boredom is as necessary to human flourishing as sunlight, community, and sleep. That’s not conjecture, either. There are numerous scientific books published on this subject. I’ll refer to one of the most cited among them.

In “Out of My Skull: The Psychology of Boredom,” cognitive neuroscientist Dr. James Danckert and clinical psychologist John D. Eastwood define boredom like this: “A call to action, a signal to become more engaged.”

Boredom, they argue, is what happens when human agency — our desire and capacity for engagement — experiences a temporary lull. Not to be conflated with what German philosopher Martin Heidegger called profound boredom (i.e., a lingering emptiness), acute boredom occurs when humdrum hits and we don’t know what we want, only that we want something. “A desire for desires,” Russian writer Leo Tolstoy called it in his literary masterpiece “Anna Karenina.”

This desire for desires is good, Danckert and Eastwood say — it “protects us from the ruin of stagnation precisely because it motivates action.” In this way, it is a biological necessity.

However advantageous boredom may be, it’s still maddening to experience. When it shows up like an unwanted visitor, our prefrontal cortexes beg us to do something — and pronto.

Although the time it takes for our modern brains to start sending signals for engagement, please! has decreased thanks to our attention span-obliterating screens, boredom has always asked the same question: What’s next?

While it may seem arbitrary, how we answer this question every day will add up exponentially over time.

Regrettably, too many of us answer boredom’s inquiry without even realizing it. Before our brains can process that we’ve encountered a lackluster moment, we’ve already grabbed our phones (or some other device) and banished boredom with a digital dopamine hit.

Long before smartphones became the equivalent of human limbs, Aldous Huxley — a clairvoyant we don’t talk about nearly enough — predicted this would happen. “Brave New World” was a bleak and harrowing warning about “man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.”

Forty-seven years after the publication of "Brave New World," media theorist and critic Neil Postman wrote “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” in which he argued that Las Vegas, “a city entirely devoted to the idea of entertainment,” was the best metaphor to capture the zeitgeist of the age. Everything from education and news to church and commerce was delivered to us via entertaining avenues, causing public discourse to rot into mere drivel.

“We are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death,” he chided. And that was in 1985 — 22 years before the launch of the iPhone. How much more his words ring true today.

In “Out of My Skull,” Danckert and Eastwood reveal that digital stimulation won’t solve our boredom woes anyway. “Such attention-grabbing devices work all too well in the short term; so well, in fact, that they are irresistible when we are desperate to be rid of boredom. In the long run, the more we allow things external to us to solve the problem of boredom, the more our agency atrophies.”

So if external stimulation isn’t the antidote to a bout of boredom, what is?

The answer Danckert and Eastwood ultimately arrive at is that boredom isn’t something to be solved but something to be listened to. If we lend it our ear, we will hear a profound message: “The solution must come from within us.”

If we are successful at wrestling our appetite for external stimuli into submission, mindfulness, presence, and introspection await us on the other side.

In other words, we are the answer to our problem.

But as a Christian, I don’t think we are ever the answer to our problems. I’m not averse to mindfulness, presence, or introspection. These are all beneficial practices. But when I hold this advice up to biblical wisdom, here’s what seems apparent to me: As complex emotional beings, we have a very real need to “engage” with ourselves by processing our thoughts and feelings. Yet we have a supreme need to engage with our Creator. The best way to understand ourselves is to sit before the one who created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.

In his book “The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry," John Mark Comer says it like this: “All those little moments of boredom [are] potential portals to prayer. Little moments throughout our days to wake up to the reality of God all around us. To wake up to our own souls. To draw our minds’ attention (and, with it, devotion) back to God; to come off the hurry drug and come home to awareness.”

Coming home to awareness of an unwavering, perfect God sounds so much better than coming home to awareness of messy, scattered me. One of those presences offers quiet to calm the chaos; the other is the chaos.

I’m not arguing with Danckert and Eastwood, though. I think they’ve arrived at a truth, just not the truth. Self-attunement is an answer to boredom — and a good one at that — just like a walk in the sunshine can be an effective way to lower anxiety levels. But a walk in the sunshine as we attune ourselves to God’s presence all around us? Now that is the premium package.

“Mindfulness is simply silence and solitude for a secular society. It’s the same thing, just missing the best part — Jesus,” Comer says.

It’s like this: Why meditate on what’s causing my angry outbursts when I can lay them before a God who, knowing the innermost workings of my heart, can show me the hidden resentment and pain that are fueling the anger and then heal me of it?

Danckert and Eastwood contend that embracing boredom as an opportunity for “inward attention” allows us “to be the authors of our own lives” and "identify our desires and goals.”

A life void of boredom is a life that doesn’t resemble that of Jesus.

That sounds nice, except I’ve been the author of my life before. It didn’t go well. But living palms raised and open, ready to surrender my will and receive His — there I have found life abundant. Where psychology offers a solution that might fortify the mind, God offers an opportunity that will strengthen the mind. And the soul, too.

I choose option B.

But I’m going to have to choose it every day, probably multiple times a day, like when I hit the seventh red light on my drive home, when a random bout of insomnia has me wide-eyed at 2:00 a.m., or when I step away from my chattery computer to eat lunch and suddenly the silence is like a gnat that won’t go away.

This is not the easy path. I’ve been at it for only a short while, and I can tell you, that glowing rectangle in my pocket is one of the most formidable foes I’ve ever faced. I have to wrestle it into dark drawers or the black hole that is my purse, out of sight (but rarely out of mind), to even give myself a shot at spiritually capitalizing on boredom.

In a recent Substack article titled “The Gulf and the Silence,” English writer Paul Kingsnorth described his ironically illuminating experience losing power for two days at his home in Ireland: “Maybe when the lights go out, even for a while, and the current withdraws, a certain lightness returns. The gears and cogs are forced to retreat. The grid is the portal through which the machine enters our minds and begins to fray the edges of our souls.”

Do you get chills reading that? I do. It reminds me that to fight for mastery over my hunger for digital stimulation, which is just an appendage of the machine, is to assume guardianship over my mind and, by default, my soul. What a worthy cause to devote myself to.

But it’s also a worthy cause because to succeed is to live a life more like that of our Savior.

If I may be so bold, a life void of boredom is a life that doesn’t resemble that of Jesus. I don’t know if Jesus was ever bored or not; I would wager he wasn’t, but he was certainly not apprehensive about stillness. In fact, he regularly sought it out, eager to escape into the quiet of His father’s presence.

Comer spends a good portion of “The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry” talking about Jesus’ relationship with the eremos — a deserted, desolate, or quiet place. “‘Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness’ because it was there, and only there, that Jesus was at the height of his spiritual powers,” he says, citing Matthew 4:1.

If anything is the antithesis of the eremos in our modern world, it’s not a metropolis, a swarming airport, or a packed coffee shop. It is the screen sitting on our desk, the bigger one mounted to the wall, and especially the small but fierce one in our back pocket. These digital wastelands of ceaseless noise and information beckon us to consume, consume, consume — staving off our hunger for what is truly nourishing.

In the soul-piercing words of Kingsnorth, “Maybe prayer and electricity are fighting a war.”

Observing just my own life leads me to believe that they are. The fate of that battle is in my hands, though. Welcoming boredom home as an invitation to abide in God’s presence might just be the sword with which I ensure prayer’s victory.

JD Vance vows to implement an 'America First' approach to AI



In his first overseas speech at the AI Action Summit in Paris, France, Vice President JD Vance vowed to maintain American dominance in the artificial intelligence industry by tackling overregulation.

Vance said that the Trump administration is focused on developing AI as a tool for American workers but that this development is being stifled by excessive red tape and regulations.

'Our laws will keep Big Tech, little tech, and all other developers on a level playing field.'

"This administration will always focus on workers as we develop artificial intelligence technologies," Vance said. "American workers deserve a seat at the table as we develop new policies that will lead to higher wages, safer communities, and more prosperity across our country."

Vance also warned our European allies that the overregulation of artificial intelligence will not be tolerated by the Trump administration, pushing for a policy platform that "fosters the creation of AI technology rather than strangles it."

"We need our European friends in particular to look at this new frontier with optimism rather than trepidation," Vance said. "The development of cutting-edge AI in the U.S. is no accident. By preserving an open regulatory environment, we've encouraged American innovators to experiment and to make unparalleled R&D investments."

"This administration will not be one to snuff out the startups and the grad students producing some of the most groundbreaking applications of artificial intelligence," Vance added. "Instead, our laws will keep Big Tech, little tech, and all other developers on a level playing field."

Vance argued that the importance of American dominance in AI is to curb the overregulation already taking place in other countries.

"Hostile foreign adversaries have weaponized AI software to rewrite history, surveil users, and censor speech," Vance said.

"I want to be clear — this administration will block such efforts, full stop," Vance added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

AI in the Crosshairs

Perhaps the best that can be said for Gary Marcus’s new book sounding the alarm about the dangers of artificial intelligence is that it comes from a good place. A decorated AI developer, a renowned neuroscientist and psychologist, and a highly successful entrepreneur, Marcus notes at the outset of Taming Silicon Valley, his polemic against […]

The post AI in the Crosshairs appeared first on .

Trump’s promised ‘golden age’ collides with a tech revolution



President Donald Trump opened his second inaugural address by declaring, “The golden age of America begins right now.” His new term promises a transformational four years. While foreign policy, economic concerns, and political divisiveness will dominate headlines, a quieter yet far-reaching revolution is underway. Massive technological innovation coincides with Trump’s presidency, setting the stage for societal changes that will shape the coming decades. These advancements offer progress but also demand vigilance as the nation navigates their ethical and societal challenges.

By the time Trump leaves office in January 2029, artificial intelligence, automation, self-driving cars, quantum computing, and other emerging technologies will have reached unprecedented levels. Their evolution and impact on society will likely shape the future more profoundly than the political battles of today.

The next few years will hinge on how society embraces innovation while protecting freedoms, privacy, and stability.

OpenAI, Tesla, and IBM are driving technological advancements, investing billions in research and development to turn science fiction into reality. The AI startup sector alone secured more than $100 billion in global investments last year. Companies pursuing quantum computing, including Google and IBM, are racing toward quantum supremacy, aiming for breakthroughs that could transform entire industries. Tesla and Waymo are investing billions in self-driving cars, positioning themselves to revolutionize transportation.

This surge in investment and innovation highlights the transformative power of these technologies. At the same time, it raises concerns about how society will navigate their rapid evolution. As these breakthroughs accelerate during Trump’s presidency, the stakes remain high — not only for harnessing their potential but also for mitigating their risks

The rise of a new decision-maker

Artificial intelligence has advanced rapidly in recent years, evolving from narrow, task-specific algorithms to sophisticated systems capable of natural language understanding, image recognition, and even creative tasks like generating art and music. OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s DeepMind have become household names, demonstrating AI's expanding role in everyday life and business.

By 2029, industry experts expect AI to grow more advanced and deeply integrated into society, influencing everything from health care to legal systems. Breakthroughs in generative AI could enable machines to produce realistic virtual experiences, transforming education, entertainment, and training. AI-driven research is also poised to accelerate discoveries in medicine and climate science, with algorithms identifying solutions beyond human capabilities.

These advancements promise significant benefits. AI could revolutionize medicine by personalizing treatments, reducing errors, and improving access to care. Businesses may see substantial productivity gains, driving economic growth and innovation. Everyday conveniences, from personal assistants to smart infrastructure, could enhance quality of life, relieving people from mundane tasks and fostering greater creativity and leisure.

The rapid integration of AI raises serious concerns. As AI systems collect and analyze vast amounts of data, issues of surveillance, privacy, and consent demand attention. There are automated decision-making risks that could displace workers, worsen economic inequality, and foster new forms of dependency. Misuse — whether through biased algorithms, manipulative propaganda, or authoritarian control — heightens the need for vigilance. Protecting individual liberty and ensuring AI serves society, rather than undermining it, remains crucial.

Redefining the workforce

Advanced robotics and automation are rapidly transforming traditional industries. Robots already handle complex tasks in manufacturing, agriculture, and logistics, but improvements in dexterity and AI-driven decision-making could make them essential across nearly every sector by the decade’s end.

Several companies are racing to develop increasingly advanced robots. Tesla’s Optimus and Agility Robotics’ Digit are humanoid models designed to perform tasks once exclusive to humans. As Agility Robotics strengthens its partnership with Amazon, Elon Musk predicts robots will outnumber people within 20 years.

While automation boosts efficiency and productivity, it also threatens jobs. Millions of workers risk displacement, creating economic and social challenges that demand thoughtful solutions. The Trump administration will likely face mounting pressure to balance innovation with protecting livelihoods.

Who is in the driver’s seat?

Self-driving vehicle technology has long been anticipated, with Elon Musk initially predicting its emergence by 2019. While that timeline proved optimistic, autonomous vehicle technology has advanced significantly in recent years. What began as experimental prototypes has evolved into semi-autonomous systems operating in commercial fleets. By 2029, fully autonomous vehicles could become widespread, transforming transportation, urban planning, and logistics.

Despite these advancements, controversies remain. Questions about safety, liability, and infrastructure lack clear answers. Additionally, concerns about centralized control over transportation systems raise fears of surveillance and government overreach. The Trump administration will play a crucial role in shaping regulations that safeguard freedom while fostering innovation.

A massive computing breakthrough

Quantum computing, once limited to theoretical physics, is rapidly becoming a practical reality. IBM and Google have led advancements in this technology, with Google recently unveiling Willow, a state-of-the-art quantum computer chip. According to Google, Willow completed a complex computation in minutes — one that would have taken the world’s most advanced supercomputers 10 septillion years. That’s more than 700 quintillion times older than the estimated age of our universe.

With the ability to solve problems at speeds unimaginable for classical computers, quantum computing could transform industries like cryptography, drug development, and economic modeling.

This technology also presents serious risks to privacy and security. Quantum computing’s ability to break traditional encryption methods could expose sensitive data worldwide. As the field advances, policymakers must develop strong regulations to protect privacy and ensure fair access to this powerful technology.

Trump’s most enduring legacy?

These technological advancements could drive extraordinary breakthroughs, including drug discoveries, disease cures, and an era of abundance. But they also pose significant risks. Concerns over data collection, job displacement, surveillance, and coercion are not hypothetical — they are real challenges that will require attention during Trump’s term.

The next few years will hinge on how society embraces innovation while protecting freedoms, privacy, and stability. Trump’s role in this technological revolution may not dominate headlines, but it will likely leave the most lasting impact.

The Woke Fever Broke, So Why Is Bezos Still Banning Ryan Anderson’s Book On Transgenderism?

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screenshot-2025-01-29-at-4.34.27 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screenshot-2025-01-29-at-4.34.27%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]When Harry Became Sally is still banned on Amazon, even as the vibes have shifted and Trump successfully campaigned against gender ideology.

Taiwan’s chip monopoly puts US security and economy at risk



America has a Big Tech problem. An oligarchy of powerful, trillion-dollar companies wields tremendous control over the digital ecosystem, affecting the information we see, the products we buy, the candidates we vote for, and how we live our daily lives. Behind closed doors, these brand-name entities use their market dominance and deep pockets to protect their interests, not consumers.

Today, the U.S. faces another monopoly threat that involves the hardware that’s in virtually all modern electronics: semiconductors. Policy meant to generate domestic production of these vital components —that is, the CHIPS Act — inadvertently profited foreign suppliers and further entrenched the world’s largest chipmaker, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which received more than $6 billion in U.S. taxpayer subsidies.

TSMC’s global dominance is so massive — and its US presence is growing — that the only way to check its global monopoly is to level the scales for domestic chipmakers.

President Trump called out the flawed logic of giving taxpayer money intended to promote U.S. production to our biggest foreign competitor. “We put up billions of dollars for rich companies to come in and borrow the money and build chip companies here,” he told Joe Rogan last fall. “These chip companies, they stole. They stole 95% of our business. ... [And now] they want protection.”

TSMC dominates the global semiconductor market, and, to borrow a Trumpism, it is eating America’s lunch. TSMC commands over 60% of the total global semiconductor market and makes more than 90% of the world’s most advanced chips. Meanwhile, Intel — once a national icon and our closest answer to TSMC — has fallen sorrowfully behind and is a “shell of its former self,” despite receiving the largest chunk of CHIPS funding.

The lack of a domestic alternative — or any friendly alternative outside of Taiwan — is a huge risk for the world as China ramps up its rhetoric.

Semiconductors power the devices we use, from smartphones to washing machines, as well as major networks, like banking. More than one trillion semiconductors were shipped worldwide in 2021, and that number has likely grown since. TSMC’s choke hold on this vital industry has earned it the moniker, “The most important company in the world.” It would be more fitting to call it the most dominant monopoly in the world.

TSMC’s playbook is obvious: Secure major deals with America’s largest companies, dominate the market with its chips, and push out U.S. competitors that lack the same scale and resources. Just look at its contracts. Apple inked a deal with TSMC in 2023 to buy all of its three nanometer chips. Amazon’s AWS and AI chips are made exclusively by TSMC. And Nvidia is in talks with TSMC to develop its advanced chips.

We can’t build our own semiconductor industry from ground zero, our workers need the experience to do it. However, policymakers should be wary of any company that exerts such unilateral control over a commodity that touches every aspect of daily life. TSMC’s geography and geopolitics make it especially troublesome.

TSMC is headquartered in Taiwan, where as much as 90% of its production capabilities are located. China has long laid claim to Taiwan and refuses to acknowledge the country’s sovereignty. The Chinese government has conducted military exercises to test its “seizure power.” Just this month, a Chinese vessel cut an undersea fiber optic cable in an apparent act of sabotage, and in a New Year’s Eve speech, Chinese leader Xi Jinping said no one can stop China’s “reunification” with Taiwan.

It’s not a matter of if China acts but when. Whether military action, technological warfare and sabotage, or a combination of both, such aggression would inevitably disrupt, if not sever, the U.S. semiconductor supply chain. As two researchers opined in the New York Times recently, the result could be “a global economic crisis far worse than the shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

It’s time policymakers get tough and hold TSMC accountable to the geopolitical situation. Fortunately, President Trump has the chops to do it. He has been vocal about using tariffs to stop the flood of foreign-made chips and support U.S.-based manufactures. “You didn’t have to put up 10 cents,” he said on Joe Rogan's podcast. “You tariff [foreign chips] so high that they will come and build their chip companies for nothing.”

President Trump is right. He should encourage antitrust regulators to keep an eye on TSMC’s practices. TSMC’s global dominance is so massive — and its U.S. presence is growing thanks to the CHIPS Act — that the only way to check its global monopoly is to level the scales for domestic chipmakers. President Trump should ensure that TSMC’s practices in Arizona are in good faith. The company should make commitments to train American workers, honor collective bargaining agreements, and commit long-term to investing in facilities and advanced chip development in the United States — not just in Taiwan.

The federal government must also make a concerted effort over the next decade to ensure American companies are up to the challenge. We must invest in an educated engineering workforce and streamlined facilities and encourage capital investment in domestic manufacturing.

TSMC has steadily tightened its grip on the U.S. semiconductor market for decades. It’s time policymakers get serious and hold TSMC to higher standards and work to support our own struggling industries. Otherwise, America could face a supply-chain crisis and economic recession of China’s (or Taiwan’s) doing — which is hardly the time to be asking how to rebuild our domestic semiconductor industry.