Behind the resistance to the president, a revolution against the power of tech oligarchs is taking shape. The Constitution has held, and with it our system of checks and balances. Donald Trump has undoubtedly sought to claim autocratic power and has succeeded in strengthening the executive's influence. However, almost every time he has tried to cross the line, he has hit a wall. On the economic front, the Federal Reserve held firm. On the political front, the Supreme Court invalidated his tariffs and prevented him from removing a Federal Reserve governor. Federal courts, at the trial and appellate levels, have inflicted setback after setback on Trump. Trump is today, in many ways, a much weakened president than feared the day after his inauguration. He remains unpredictable and very dangerous, and the battle continues. But the essential fact remains: the Constitution has held. The great flaw of our system is an extremely powerful executive on the external front. The United States has an imperial-level power. A single man can thus have a significant influence on the affairs of hundreds of countries and billions of people. It is a power that nothing justifies and that nothing truly governs, and which is no longer held by ethical, legal, or rational rules that allowed previous presidents to know that cooperation founds common security and prosperity more solidly than domination. Everything suggests today that the Trump administration will suffer a heavy defeat. By January, the Democrats will therefore be able to control the president's actions much more closely on the domestic and international fronts. However, many Democrats and independents have used this campaign to sketch out a nearly revolutionary transformation plan for the country. The anger against Trump plays an essential role, but it goes far beyond his person. It targets the oligarchs, the mechanisms of oligarchy, and the unlimited autocratic power of large corporations. It addresses an extreme concentration of control and wealth. A platform against the oligarchs is emerging. It goes well beyond anti-Trumpism and even attracts some Trump voters. A new movement for freedom is thus beginning to prove its strength. We attribute this phrase to Judge Louis Brandeis: "We can have democracy, or a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, but not both." Correcting this imbalance can spark a contagious revival. And the United States has powerful levers for this. We have a remarkable legal arsenal, precisely designed to keep oligarchs in check and protect individual freedom. We had forgotten it. At the dawn of the neoliberal era, under Ronald Reagan, these laws were purely and simply buried. But we are now digging them up and putting them back into use. In recent years, these laws have been unearthed and historic lawsuits have been initiated. Google has been condemned twice for abuse of dominant position, first on online search and then on advertising. Meta won at the trial level, but the case continues in the appellate court. These trials have also revealed the limits of our laws, as judges have refused twice to break up Google. However, the essential point is that Americans are reconnecting with the founding principles of their antitrust tradition, that they are relearning to live democracy, guarantee individual freedom, and consolidate the Republic. We are learning to mobilize all other regulatory tools at our disposal to achieve the same results through other legal avenues. We are living a moment of extraordinary significance. It is, in many ways, the fundamental threat, for the United States, for Europe, and for all democracies. Since the birth of our Republic, we have regulated our means of communication, from the post to the telegraph, from the telephone to the press, from radio and television to the beginnings of the Internet. It was to prevent anyone from using them to manipulate how citizens exchange information and ideas, and to guarantee to each person the freedom of thought, expression, and communication with whomever they want. But for Internet applications, we have not imposed the same rules. Result: companies like Google, Meta, or X can strongly influence, sometimes even determine, what you read, where you go, and with whom you speak. They also influence the debates you hear, what you buy, and the price you pay. This is true in the United States, Europe, Brazil, South Africa, in all democracies. No one will come to the rescue of Google, and no one will take to the streets to defend Amazon, X or OpenAI. If you no longer control what you read, with whom you speak, and with whom you debate, you lose all ability to change things. In our country, power belongs to the oligarchs who control these platforms. They do not only use them to accumulate more and more power, but also to destabilize our democracies. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg use these levers to promote radical right, sometimes radical left. They use them also to undermine the legitimacy of moderates and all those who seek constructive compromises. They radicalize public debate and thus prevent us from regulating them. For us, it is the number one problem. If you no longer control what you read, with whom you speak, and with whom you debate, you lose all ability to change things. We have made major progress. Now we must finish the job. To achieve this, you propose to extend the fight against monopolies well beyond the tech sector, even to agriculture. Yes, because farmers and ranchers are experiencing the same dispossession as platform users. A handful of suppliers and buyers dictate their prices. This fight transcends the divisions. Democrats and Republicans fear what these companies could do to our country, our lives, and our children. Our strength lies in a public opinion that shares the same diagnosis and demands a profound change with one voice. The will to tackle monopolies transcends partisan divisions. Democrats and Republicans fear what these companies could do to our country, our lives, and our children. It is an immense opportunity. We can move forward knowing that Americans will support us, however radical the reforms may be. No one will come to the rescue of Google, and no one will take to the streets to defend Amazon, X or OpenAI. A large majority will support any leader who has the courage to confront these companies, the most powerful in history, as long as it is to defend freedom. No democracy has ever been able to flourish alone. During our Revolution, Frenchmen who were sympathetic to our ideals helped us. During the Civil War, while their governments hesitated, British workers, French liberals, and volunteers from all over Europe supported our fight against slaveholders. We then repaid this debt, in 1917 with Wilson, then with Roosevelt and Truman, convinced that saving democracy in Europe also served America. This link between our civil societies remains our best asset, beyond the eras and governments. France has always been among the most ardent defenders of freedom and the right of peoples to dispose of themselves. It is now time to work together, in Europe and in the United States, to face the threat represented by the tech giants and Donald Trump, who aligns with them. That is why we have just organized in Paris, with civil society organizations, representatives of regulatory authorities, academics, the first conference on the risks of the concentration of economic power for democracy. I do not believe so. I am optimistic. If we keep hope and know precisely what we want, we can win this fight for a new freedom, the freedom to lead our lives, think for ourselves, and build our own communities. And perhaps, in doing so, make the world better. After more than ten years of struggle, we know much better the weaknesses of our adversaries, and our own strengths. The final victory remains to be won, but we have already won many battles. We have all the tools at our disposal to go all the way. The same applies to France, to Europe, and to the United States. Despite the level of the threat, if the supporters of democracy in Europe and in the United States have hope and a clear vision of what they want, they will prevail.