Musk and big tech urge Trump to punish Australia

US President Donald Trump is being urged to target Australia over its federal laws on social media and the digital economy in a powerful campaign by American tech giants including Elon Musk to block measures that hurt their profits.

The big tech companies have blamed Australia for threatening them with new federal laws and “coercing” them into sacrificing their revenue in schemes such as the News Media Bargaining Incentive, which aims to charge social media platforms to help fund Australian news content.

X owner Elon Musk with US President Donald Trump.Credit: AP

The formal complaint, lodged with Trump’s trade chief on March 11, opens a new front in a growing trade dispute after big US pharmaceutical companies and beef producers also slammed Australia in their plea to Trump to use tariffs and other measures to shield American companies.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) also accused Australia of hurting American streaming media platforms by making them pay for local content such as Australian television productions, putting their revenue at risk.

The peak industry group, whose members include the X platform owned by Musk – one of Trump’s key allies – also objected to Australian measures on artificial intelligence on the grounds they would curb American innovation.

The complaint aims to influence Trump in a looming decision to impose reciprocal tariffs on countries he believes are hurting American exporters. The lengthy submission was backed by CCIA member companies such as Amazon, Apple, Google, X and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.

Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos have emerged as powerful tech industry executives behind the Trump administration amid concerns at the way the “tech bros” are urging the president to protect their interests around the world.

Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones dismissed the CCIA claim about discrimination against US companies.

“We don’t impose discriminatory laws – everything we’ve proposed in the digital space applies irrespective of the country in which the business operates,” he said.

But the big tech companies wield significant influence in the White House and their complaints could encourage Trump to act against Australia when he decides on whether to impose reciprocal tariffs as early as April 2.

Australia is not a major tech exporter to the US but would be exposed to potential tariffs on commodity exports such as beef.

Unlike other industry groups urging Trump to shield American companies, the CCIA did not advocate tariffs on other countries and instead asked the president to use his office to get other nations to dismantle their trade barriers.

“Imposing targeted, reciprocal measures, while on occasion necessary as a negotiating tool, invariably incurs costs and unintended consequences,” the industry group said of reciprocal tariffs.

Illustration by Matt Golding

The News Media Bargaining Incentive is seen as critical to plugging a $200 million funding gap created by Meta’s refusal to pay Australian media outlets, some of which have been shedding jobs. The amount which the proposed levy would charge tech firms has not been decided.

The government developed the scheme to replace the News Media Bargaining Code, which raised an estimated $250 million each year to fund local content. Meta pulled out of the code last year and refused to keep paying for content, while Google has kept paying.

The CCIA called the media policy a “proposed coercive and discriminatory tax” that requires US technology companies to subsidise Australian media companies.

“Currently, the two companies targeted by the law pay $AU250 million annually through deals that were coerced through the threat of this law. However, with the threat of the new ‘incentive’ tax from the Australian government (rate yet to be determined), this cost is likely to significantly increase,” it said.

Fears of retaliation from the US administration, even before Trump was elected, stopped Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and senior cabinet ministers from announcing a harsher scheme for tech firms late last year.

The cabinet was considering a more ambitious “tech tax” that would have collected revenue from the tech companies and transferred it to government coffers. To avoid the proposal being characterised as a punitive tax, Labor instead opted for a scheme it described as an “incentive” to encourage platforms to negotiate voluntary deals with Australian media.

A spokesman for Nine, owner of this masthead, said the news scheme was critical for encouraging deals that helped “support a well-functioning democracy by providing accurate and trusted news”.

News Corp Australia declined to comment.

The CCIA singled out Australia over a proposed requirement for US online video providers to fund the development and production of Australian content.

“Companies could be required to pay anywhere between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of their local expenditure on Australian content, with qualifications that will likely make it very difficult for US companies to qualify,” it said. It valued the revenue at $US2.3 billion ($3.6 billion).

“If the Australian government pursues the 20 per cent expenditure mandate it has floated in the past year, that would put this revenue at risk,” it said.

In another criticism, the CCIA said Australia was following the European Union with tougher competition laws – known in the EU as the Digital Markets Act – that would target US companies with discriminatory obligations and subject them to fines.

“The proposed regulations would empower the government to require digital services providers to abide by restrictions on issues including self-preferencing and data use, with trade concerns probable given the sectors initially identified by the government,” it said.

On artificial intelligence, the peak US group said the “proliferation” of AI laws could hurt investment in new technology and development of cross-border services.

“The Australian government is proposing to classify all general-purpose AI models as high-risk in a new regulatory regime that would add significant compliance burdens to US companies,” it said.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.