‍"Abolish," Milton Friedman declared in 1995, his characteristic certainty leaving no room for nuance when asked about the Department of Commerce's future.

The clip, resurrected and viral in the wake of Trump's latest cabinet picks, feels like a transmission from a far simpler era—before Commerce became the unlikely architect of America's $52.7 billion semiconductor gambit and unofficial Ministry of Technology.

While headlines buzz about Trump's headline-grabbing cabinet picks—Linda McMahon for Education, Matt Gaetz for Justice—a more intriguing story unfolds around a department that controls $52.7 billion in semiconductor investments, leads global AI safety initiatives, and might just determine whether your iPhone's successor gets manufactured in Arizona or Shenzhen. The Department of Commerce, long dismissed as a bureaucratic backwater and still targeted for elimination by conservative think tanks, has quietly transformed into America's most crucial weapon in the technological cold war with China.

Enter Howard Lutnick, the Cantor Fitzgerald CEO who rebuilt his firm from the ashes of 9/11 by betting early on electronic trading. His appointment as Commerce Secretary—reportedly a consolation prize after gunning for Treasury—reveals a striking paradox: in the same month Trump's cabinet nominees echo Friedman's call to abolish agencies like Commerce, the department is finalizing rules that will reshape global AI development and determine where the next generation of semiconductors are made.

The Modern Commerce Secretary: A Role in Flux

The irony wouldn't be lost on Milton Friedman, whose dismissive "abolish the Department of Commerce" still echoes through think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.

Yet as Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis campaigned on Commerce's elimination—channeling that same Chicago School skepticism—the department quietly amassed unprecedented influence over America's technological future. This contradiction sits at the heart of Commerce's modern identity: never more powerful, never more questioned.

The Commerce Secretary has become America's de facto minister of technology

The trajectory from Secretary Penny Pritzker under the Obama Administration, through Wilbur Ross (Trump) to Gina Raimondo (Biden) traces more than just a succession of leadership styles—it maps the department's evolution from trade facilitator to technological kingmaker.

Pritzker brought private-sector efficiency to digital transformation initiatives; Ross, despite his traditional industrial focus, inadvertently laid groundwork for Commerce's expanded tech oversight; and Raimondo engineered what amounts to industrial policy in all but name, wielding the CHIPS Act's $52.7 billion as both carrot and semiconductor-silicon sword.

Lutnick enters this arena with a distinctly different pedigree. His transformation of Cantor Fitzgerald follow the attacks of 9/11 demonstrated not just resilience but a prescient understanding of how technology reshapes markets—he pushed electronic trading when Wall Street still clutched their paper tickets. This suggests Commerce Secretary who might bridge the department's traditional role as trade arbiter with its emerging position as America's chief technological strategist.

Yet, Lutnick's appointment also highlights a curious status shift in the Commerce role itself.

Once seen as a sinecure for business leaders seeking government credentials (think Romney's father George), the position now demands mastery of semiconductor supply chains, artificial intelligence governance frameworks, and the intricate dance of technological decoupling from China.

The Commerce Secretary has become, perhaps accidentally, America's de facto minister of technology—a role never envisioned in its 1903 charter.

The Battle Over Commerce's Soul

The 1995 Heritage Foundation proposal to dissolve Commerce into Treasury reads today less like a failed policy brief and more like a prophecy interrupted.

Its core argument—that Commerce lacks the gravitational pull to effectively shape trade policy—has found fresh resonance in an era where economic statecraft increasingly demands the full faith and credit of Treasury's authority.

What its authors couldn't foresee was how technological evolution would transform Commerce from a trade-focused bureaucracy into something far more vital: the regulatory architect of a  digital America.

Today's Commerce Department operates less like a traditional bureaucracy and more like a venture capital firm with regulatory powers

Milton Friedman's characteristically terse "abolish" speaks to a deeper libertarian suspicion of government's role in commerce—a position that, ironically, has gained steam precisely as markets have become more dependent on government-coordinated standards and protocols. When Ramaswamy and DeSantis echoed these abolition calls during their 2024 campaigns, they were tapping into an ideological lineage; missing the department's metamorphosis into a technological necessity.

Today's Commerce operates less like a traditional bureaucracy and more like a venture capital firm with regulatory powers.

The CHIPS Act transformed Raimondo from administrator to kingmaker, wielding $52.7 billion in semiconductor investments with the kind of discretionary authority that would make Milton Friedman blanch. This technological patronage extends beyond silicon—Commerce now stands at the center of a complex web of emerging technological governance frameworks.

Consider the International Network of AI Safety Institutes, a Commerce-led initiative that positions the department as a global orchestrator of artificial intelligence governance. This represents a stunning evolution from its historical role: from regulating widgets to defining the parameters of artificial consciousness. NIST, once focused on weights and measures, now crafts the frameworks that will govern quantum computing and post-quantum cryptography.

Power Amid Precarity

Howard Lutnick arrives at this transformed Commerce Department with unique credentials. His experience rebuilding Cantor Fitzgerald's technological infrastructure after 9/11 demonstrates an intimate understanding of how digital transformation can reshape established institutions. His background in electronic trading platforms—introduced when Wall Street still preferred human runners—suggests an instinctive grasp of technological disruption's possibilities and perils.

Yet Lutnick must navigate a fundamental tension: how to deploy Commerce's expanded technological mandate while satisfying an administration traditionally skeptical of government intervention.

His reported preference for Treasury suggests an understanding that in Washington's power architecture, Commerce remains several rungs below its financial policy counterpart—even as its actual influence over America's technological future expands.

Calls for Commerce's abolition peak precisely as its technological oversight becomes most essential

The Commerce Department's evolution offers a master class in institutional adaptation. What began as a modest agency under Theodore Roosevelt has transformed into a technological powerhouse that would be unrecognizable to its original architects. Its modern mandate spans semiconductor sovereignty to artificial intelligence governance, quantum computing standards to digital trade frameworks.

This transformation presents a profound irony: calls for Commerce's abolition peak precisely as its technological oversight becomes most essential. In an era where economic competition increasingly manifests through technological standards and digital governance, Commerce's role as America's technical regulator may prove more vital than its traditional trade functions ever were.

Assuming he is confirmed by the Senate, Lutnick inherits a paradox: a department simultaneously at its zenith of technological influence while waning in political support. His tenure will test whether Commerce can coherently merge its traditional role as voice of American business with its emerging position as architect of America's technological future.

The department's greatest challenge may be reconciling its expanded technological mandate with a political environment still debating its right to exist.

The path forward? We must reimagining what "commerce" means in an age where digital standards matter—more than tariff rates, more than technological governance, and especially more than traditional trade policies.

This makes the Secretary of Commerce less a consolation prize, and more of an opportunity to reshape an institution for an era where commerce, culture, and technology have become inextricably intertwined.

‍

‍