The Lawfare Podcast: Democratic Backsliding and the Role of Technology

Episode Summary Release Date: June 4, 2025
Host: Benjamin Wittes, The Lawfare Institute
Panelists:

• Joseph Cox, Journalist and Co-founder of 404 Media
• Orly Labelle, University of San Diego
• Aziz Huq, University of Chicago Law School
• James Grimmelman, Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School

Introduction

In this episode of The Lawfare Podcast, Senior Editor Quinta Jurecik moderates a panel discussion titled "Democratic Backsliding and the Role of Technology" held at Fordham Law School's Transatlantic AI and Law Institute. The conversation delves into the intricate relationship between technological advancements and the erosion of democratic institutions, exploring both historical parallels and contemporary challenges.

Understanding Democratic Backsliding and Technology

Defining Democratic Backsliding
Democratic backsliding refers to the gradual decline in the quality and robustness of democratic institutions within a polity. Unlike abrupt events like coup attempts, it encompasses sustained erosion over time.

Relationship Between Technology and Democratic Backsliding
The panelists explore how technology intersects with democratic erosion, questioning whether technology acts as a catalyst or merely a peripheral factor in this decline.

Notable Quote:
Aziz Huq explains, “Technology plays a peripheral as opposed to a central role in that decline... [08:36]”

Panelist Perspectives

Orly Labelle
Orly emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the roles of tech companies and the inherent capabilities of technology itself. She suggests that while tech companies and their leaders might influence democratic norms, the underlying technological advancements provide new tools that can be weaponized against democracy.

Joseph Cox
Joseph focuses on the tangible ways smaller tech entities can undermine democratic norms. He cites examples like location data companies sharing mobile data with law enforcement without warrants, highlighting concerns about due process.

Notable Quote:
Joseph Cox states, “Location data companies selling the location of your mobile phone to law enforcement without a warrant... [08:36]”

Aziz Huq
Aziz introduces the concept of the "dual state," drawing parallels with Nazi Germany. He argues that modern administrations might be cultivating systems where the state operates both within the bounds of law and outside them, facilitated by technology that enables mass surveillance and data aggregation.

Notable Quote:
Aziz Huq elaborates on the dual state, “What Frankl had was an official... allowing the state to aggregate information... [12:24]”

James Grimmelman
James discusses the role of the internet and social media in weakening traditional journalism and creating fragmented information ecosystems. He highlights how big tech companies have monopolized information dissemination, thereby undermining the shared consensus essential for healthy democratic discourse.

Notable Quote:
Benjamin Wittes remarks, “The Internet initially seemed to offer access from a much wider variety of voices... [05:29]”

Historical Comparisons

Benjamin Wittes draws parallels between contemporary tech-state collaborations and historical collaborations between technology firms and authoritarian regimes, specifically referencing IBM's role in the Nazi state. He warns that modern tech giants like Palantir are positioning themselves similarly by providing infrastructures that can facilitate human rights abuses.

Notable Quote:
Wittes states, “Palantir is affirmatively volunteering... similar to IBM’s role in the Nazi state... [09:59]”

Effects of Technology on Democratic Institutions

Scale and Internalization
Aziz Huq discusses how technology enables the scaling of governmental actions, such as mass deportations, even when data quality is poor. The ability to perform actions at an unprecedented scale can lead to significant policy impacts regardless of accuracy.

Notable Quote:
Aziz Huq explains, “Scale is simply being able to perform an activity at an exponentially larger rate... [16:13]”

Chaos and Irrationality in Government Technology Use
Wittes criticizes the current administration’s approach to technology, highlighting the dismantling of effective government tech units like 18F and the U.S. Digital Service. He argues that this leads to chaotic and unreliable technological implementations that undermine governmental functions.

Notable Quote:
Wittes asserts, “The Trump administration is... implementing a largely chaotic process... [27:10]”

Silicon Valley and Authoritarian Tendencies

Benjamin Wittes and Aziz Huq explore the complex relationship between Silicon Valley leaders and authoritarian political movements. They discuss how tech billionaires support policies that may undermine democratic norms in pursuit of unregulated growth and personal ideological goals.

Notable Quote:
Aziz Huq notes, “...Peter Thiel’s ideas about accelerating national combustion... [36:15]”
Benjamin Wittes adds, “There is not a singular, unified agenda being pursued here... [41:07]”

Optimism and Potential Solutions

Despite the bleak outlook, panelists express cautious optimism. Orly Labelle highlights the potential for technology to aid in resistance efforts and improve public sector functions. Aziz Huq points to examples like Brazil’s Pix system, which enhances financial inclusion while acknowledging the risks of data misuse.

Notable Quote:
Orly Labelle states, “Technology has to be part of the solution... [70:38]”
Aziz Huq discusses Brazil’s Pix, “Yet, it's also been the platform for the BJP's effort... [85:31]”

Audience Q&A Highlights

Question 1: Impact of Social Media on Democratic Backsliding
Jane, a student, inquires whether the changing landscape of social media—ownership changes, content moderation—contributes significantly to democratic backsliding. Panelists discuss the nuanced role of social media, with Aziz Huq referencing studies suggesting that heavy social media use may not directly correlate with shifts towards authoritarianism.

Notable Quote:
Aziz Huq responds, “...studies do not support the proposition that social media is playing a major role... [82:31]”

Question 2: Privatization and Democracy
Sam Adler asks how to determine which government functions should be privatized without undermining democratic processes. Aziz Huq advocates for examining the nexus between public and private sectors, emphasizing the need for empirical studies to inform these decisions.

Notable Quote:
Aziz Huq explains, “...much more helpful to think about this embrace or entanglement between the public and the private... [86:58]”

Conclusion

The panel concludes with a recognition of the dual-edged nature of technology in democratic societies. While technology can both empower democratic institutions and facilitate authoritarian practices, the path forward requires careful regulation, transparency, and a nuanced understanding of the interplay between public and private sectors. The discussion underscores the importance of legal frameworks and informed policy-making in mitigating the risks posed by technological advancements to democratic health.

Final Thoughts:
This episode provides a comprehensive examination of how emerging technologies intersect with democratic institutions, highlighting both the challenges and opportunities presented by technological advancements. The panelists advocate for a balanced approach that leverages technology for public good while instituting robust safeguards against its potential misuse.