An upcoming Section 230 bill has reignited the debate over the tech industry's favorite law, Ashley and Maria report.

Why it matters: Lawmakers have been trying to kill Section 230 for years. It hasn't worked.

• Those who want to keep the effort alive are hoping the new administration and bipartisan support could inject some momentum.

Sens. Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin plan to reintroduce a bill soon that would sunset Section 230 in two years if tech companies don't come to the table to negotiate an alternative approach to liability protections.

• "I'm under no illusion that it will be easy to pass legislation to protect kids online and finally make the tech industry legally accountable for the harms they cause, like every other industry in America," Durbin said in a statement.

Flashback: The bipartisan leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee floated a similar idea last year.

• In the Senate, Graham first pushed the sunsetting idea back in 2020.

President Trump wanted to eliminate Section 230 during his first term.

• Former President Biden wasn't a fan of it, either. During Biden's presidency, there were multiple Supreme Court cases that teed up the law to be severely weakened.
• None ending up doing so, with the justices holding up a strong interpretation of it in two thorny cases involving X (then Twitter) and Google around terrorism and content hosted on each platform.
• The Supreme Court last summer put Texas and Florida laws aiming to limit Section 230 protections on hold.

What they're saying: Peter Chandler, executive director of Internet Works, which has smaller tech platforms like Reddit and Vimeo as members, told Axios his group has been meeting with lawmakers and the White House to press how important Section 230 is to the existence of those online companies.

• Chandler said there was a recognition at the White House meeting that Trump's campaign message about restoring free speech online "doesn't have to be contrary to protecting Section 230."

It's not yet clear how exactly Trump wants to tackle Section 230 this time around, or how far he wants to go. The White House declined to comment on whether they supported Graham and Durbin's plans.

• Back in 2020, Trump signed an EO looking to limit Section 230, and vetoed the annual defense policy bill partly because Congress failed to repeal it.
• But now, both Elon Musk's X and Trump's own Truth Social rely on Section 230 protections to host and moderate content as they see fit.

What we're watching: FCC chair Brendan Carr may be able to shake up how Section 230 is interpreted more quickly than congressional efforts, although it's debatable whether the FCC has the power to do so.

• "When it comes to fundamental reform, when it comes to doing away with Section 230 — if that's what Congress wants to do, that's for them to do. But I do think there's a role for the FCC on the interpretive side," Carr said during a press conference today.

Democrats wrote to President Trump today urging that he abandon the effort to get rid of the two Democratic members of the FTC, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, Ashley reports.

Why it matters: The congressional support comes as the two fired commissioners kick off their legal fight to reclaim their jobs.

• Bedoya and Slaughter filed suit against the Trump administration in D.C. District Court today, calling their firings illegal per a 1935 Supreme Court case, Humphrey's Executor.

What they're saying: 17 Democrats, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, wrote to Trump that firing the two Dems "appears to be yet another decision that you have made to help Elon Musk and other billionaire supporters — and leaves middle class families stuck with the cost."

• "These purported firings threaten the FTC's existence as an independent agency and pave the way for you to use the FTC as a tool for partisan retribution or favor," the lawmakers write in the letter seen first by Axios.

The letter lays out recent FTC work the lawmakers say is at risk with the firings, including:

• Ending noncompete agreements
• Banning hidden junk fees
• Getting privacy promises from Big Tech companies and data brokers
• Protecting kids' privacy

The big picture: Democrats have been railing against the firings and saying it threatens the entire concept of independent agencies.

• Republicans on the Hill have either largely supported Trump in removing whomever he wants from office or stayed silent on the FTC firings.

✍️ FCC rebuke: Five former FCC commissioners are pressing chair Brendan Carr to close the "60 Minutes" CBS proceeding, saying they're concerned the agency "may be seeking to censor the news media in a manner antithetical to the First Amendment."

• The bipartisan group that submitted the comments to the FCC docket today include former FCC chairs Alfred Sikes and Tom Wheeler and former commissioners Rachelle Chong, Ervin Duggan, and Gloria Tristani.

🤖 AI in the states: "Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin on Monday vetoed a bill that would have offered consumers protections from discrimination created by artificial intelligence systems," per StateScoop.

📱 TikTok talk: President Trump yesterday suggested that he'd lower tariffs on Chinese goods if Beijing agrees to a TikTok sale, per our Axios colleague Dan Primack.

• "Maybe I'll give them a little reduction in tariffs or something to get it done," Trump told reporters from the Oval Office.
• "Because every point in tariffs is worth more money than TikTok."

⚖️ SCOTUS watch: The Supreme Court appeared reluctant to find the Universal Service Fund's funding mechanism unconstitutional at oral arguments yesterday, Broadband Breakfast reports.