In a striking move that could reshape America’s digital landscape, former President Trump has pledged to terminate the Digital Equity Act—a cornerstone of President Biden’s infrastructure bill designed to bring high-speed internet to millions of underserved Americans. On May 8, 2025, Trump labeled the program “racist” and “totally unconstitutional,” despite its aim to bridge the digital divide for veterans, elderly citizens, rural communities, and economically disadvantaged populations.
As our society becomes increasingly dependent on internet connectivity for everything from education to healthcare to employment, this potential policy reversal raises urgent questions: Is internet access a privilege or a right? And who should bear responsibility for ensuring digital inclusion across America? This post examines the Digital Equity Act’s purpose, Trump’s criticisms, the political motivations behind this confrontation, and why internet access has become as essential as electricity in modern American life.
Understanding the Digital Equity Act
Core components of Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure bill
The Digital Equity Act, part of Biden’s infrastructure bill, establishes two primary funding mechanisms: the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program ($1.5 billion) and the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program ($1.25 billion). These programs are designed to create sustainable digital inclusion rather than temporary solutions.
Target beneficiaries: veterans, elderly, and rural communities
The Act specifically targets underserved populations including veterans, elderly, and rural communities by providing states with planning grants to develop Digital Equity Plans. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration oversees distribution of these funds, aiming to close the digital divide. With this groundwork established, let’s examine Trump’s criticism of these digital access initiatives.
Trump’s Criticism of the Digital Equity Act
Claims of racial bias and unconstitutionality
Former President Trump has labeled the Digital Equity Act as unconstitutional, calling for an immediate halt to its funding. In a Truth Social post, Trump claimed the bipartisan initiative represents unfair racial preferences rather than essential infrastructure development, despite the Act’s broad support across political lines.
Threat to terminate Biden’s internet access initiative
Trump’s proclamation threatens to disrupt programs already in development across 56 states and territories. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance was prepared to launch 13 initiatives serving over 30,000 individuals, now jeopardized by Trump’s characterization of these efforts as “woke handouts” rather than critical services for job seekers, seniors, veterans, and students.
Political Context and Strategy
A. Part of broader efforts to dismantle Biden administration policies
Trump’s plan to end the Digital Equity Act aligns with his broader strategy to reverse Biden-era policies. This follows similar patterns seen with his intention to rescind Biden’s restrictions on AI chip exports, which Senator Ted Cruz supported during a recent Senate committee hearing.
B. Implications for executive power versus legislative action
The move raises questions about executive authority in technology policy. As tech executives from companies like OpenAI and Microsoft emphasize innovation while addressing ethical concerns, the policy shift could affect how the US positions itself against competitors like China in the technology landscape, particularly regarding internet access infrastructure.
Digital Access as a Modern Necessity
The debate over the Digital Equity Act represents more than just partisan politics—it highlights fundamental questions about access to technology in modern America. President Trump’s characterization of the program as “racist” and “unconstitutional” stands in stark contrast to the bill’s stated purpose of addressing digital disparities affecting veterans, elderly Americans, and rural communities. As internet access becomes increasingly essential for education, healthcare, employment, and civic participation, the consequences of this policy dispute will affect millions of Americans.
Conclusion: The ultimate fate of high-speed internet expansion programs will likely depend on the outcome of broader political contests over government spending priorities and approaches to addressing economic inequality. Whatever the resolution, this controversy underscores the growing recognition that in today’s interconnected world, digital access is not merely a convenience but a necessity for full participation in society and the economy.
