RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

Startups often struggle to balance financial constraints with the pursuit of innovation, raising questions about how they can effectively advocate for themselves within the tech industry. In Washington, D.C. and abroad, various organizations promote the growth of smaller innovators, yet many "little tech" firms still face challenges meeting regulatory requirements. How do regulatory frameworks affect smaller innovators and their ability to compete? What balance should be struck between oversight and innovation? How can policymakers incentivize little tech companies without creating a disadvantage for Big Tech firms or consumers?Join the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and host Prof. Kevin Frazier for an in-depth discussion of the “Little Tech Agenda” with special guest Kate Tummarello at Engine | Advocacy & Foundation.

Over the past 30 years, the United States has experienced rapid technological change. Yet in recent years, innovation appears to have plateaued. The iPhone of four years ago is nearly identical to today’s model, and the internet has changed little over the same period. Little tech companies play a significant role in generating new ideas and technological development. In this episode, experts discuss the financial gains and risks of incentivising little tech innovation and offer policy recommendations that encourage investment in the "littlest tech" firms to drive future breakthroughs.Join the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and host Prof. Kevin Frazier for an in-depth discussion of the “Little Tech Agenda” with special guest Dave Karpf, Associate Professor at the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs.

“Starting small, but aspiring to grow” defines the little tech agenda. Big Tech companies often depend on smaller innovators for key components of manufacturing and new technologies. With this dependence on little tech, what are the “gaps” in its agenda? The U.S. has technological capital waiting to be unlocked by small innovators. What steps can be taken to address this gap and channel little tech's efforts towards our national interests? Can we strike a balance between Big Tech and little tech to further the goals of the United States’ technological development? Join the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and host Prof. Kevin Frazier for an in-depth discussion of the “Little Tech Agenda” with special guest Sam Hammond, Foundation of American Innovation.

What priorities should shape U.S. innovation policy at the national level? Historically, the federal government has adopted a "light touch" approach, with legislation often focused on reducing barriers so that smaller entrepreneurs can prioritize innovation over regulatory compliance. Big tech companies often hold a competitive advantage including resources, capital, and political influence that small-scale entrepreneurs lack. How can policymakers design legislation that ensures fair competition between Big Tech and little tech? Do acquisitions of little tech companies by Big tech promote innovation or constrain the development of emerging ideas? How can policymakers foster innovation for smaller scale initiatives through legislation, competition regulation, and support for emerging firms? Join the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and host Prof. Kevin Frazier for an in-depth discussion of the “Little Tech Agenda” with special guest Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow in Technology Policy at the Cato Institute.

Over the past 25 years, the rapid growth of Big Tech has raised questions about competition, innovation, and the ability of smaller startups to thrive. At the same time, regulatory approaches can create uncertainty that affects entrepreneurs in different ways. With Congress hesitant to act decisively, the debate continues: how can policymakers strike a balance that encourages innovation, ensures fair competition, and protects consumers? And when it comes to regulation should the path forward involve more, or less? Join the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project for the 2nd episode of Law for Little Tech series, featuring special guest Samuel Levine, Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice and led by host Professor Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation & Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law.

Smaller, advanced technology entrepreneurs are increasingly shaping the U.S. innovation landscape through what some have called the “Little Tech Agenda.” But what exactly is this agenda, and how might it influence policy debates moving forward?America has long celebrated small-scale innovators, yet questions remain about how regulatory frameworks can support entrepreneurship without stifling growth. Some policymakers argue that new parameters are needed to govern emerging technologies, while others caution that overregulation could hinder the nation’s competitive edge in the global power struggle. If “Little Tech” is critical to America’s future, how far should the United States go to defend and promote its development?Join the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and host Prof. Kevin Frazier for an in-depth discussion of the “Little Tech Agenda” with special guest Collin McCune, Head of Government Affairs at Andreessen Horowitz.

On July 1st, 2025, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) released three proposed regulatory changes, two of which would have significant implications for federal contractor’s legal obligations surrounding affirmative action and disability inclusion. In this episode, experts discuss the history of both the OFCCP and the now revoked Executive order 11246, the scope of the recently proposed regulatory changes, and the potential implications of these changes. Featuring:Brett Swearingen, Senior Counsel, Miller Johnson(Moderator) Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity

America’s new AI Action Plan — announced by the White House in July and framed by three pillars of accelerating innovation, building national AI infrastructure, and projecting U.S. leadership abroad — promises more than 90 separate federal actions, from fast-tracking approvals for medical-AI tools to revising international export controls on advanced chips. Supporters hail its light-touch approach, swift development of domestic and foreign deployment of AI, and explicit warnings against “ideological bias” in AI systems. In contrast, some critics say the plan removes guardrails, favors big tech, and is overshadowed by other actions disinvesting in research. How will the Plan impact AI in America? Join us for a candid discussion that will unpack the Plan’s major levers and ask whether the “innovation-first” framing clarifies or obscures deeper constitutional and economic questions. Featuring: Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy, Abundance Institute Mario Loyola, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Policy and Regulation, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation Asad Ramzanali, Director of Artificial Intelligence & Technology Policy, Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator, Vanderbilt University (Moderator) Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation and Law Fellow, University of Texas School of Law

On June 27th, the Supreme Court ruled in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that Texas’s age-verification law did not violate the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Justice Thomas wrote the Court’s opinion, holding that States had a right to protect children from obscenity, even if that meant incidentally burdening adults’ own access to that content. Many are celebrating the 6-3 decision as a victory for the protection of children, as it will cement similar laws in the 21 other states that have implemented them. Yet, as in Justice Kagan's dissent, others worry about Paxton’s implications for Freedom of Speech in the digital age. When does an incidental burden become a substantial violation of adults' First Amendment Rights? What kind of precedent does Paxton set for speech cases going forward? Featuring: Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Legal Fellow, The Future of Free Speech, Vanderbilt University Clare Morell, Fellow, Ethics & Public Policy Center Bailey Sanchez, Deputy Director of U.S. Legislation, FUture of Privacy Forum [Moderator] Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato Institute

On January 17, the Biden-Harris Administration added 15 new drugs, including Ozempic, to the list of drugs covered by the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Now there are a total of 25 drugs that are covered by the IRA’s requirement that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) pays only a “fair price” for selected drugs covered by Medicare Part D. The new prices are set to take effect on January 1, 2027. What implications does this have for patients and for drug research and development? Join the discussion on the 'fair price' mandate and its impact on pharmaceutical innovation. Featuring: Lisa Ouellette, Deane F. Johnson Professor of Law at Stanford Law School Dan Troy, Managing Director at the Berkeley Research Group Brad Watts, Senior Vice President at the Global Innovation Policy Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce [Moderator] Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University