Anyone who has stared at the spinning wheel of death while Microsoft Word crashes, or watched in horror as a crucial PowerPoint presentation freezes during a meeting, knows a frustrating truth: Microsoft’s software quality has deteriorated even as their market dominance has grown. This isn’t coincidental—it’s a direct consequence of monopolistic practices that shield the tech company from genuine competition.
Substandard government software creates serious problems. Downtime leads to wasted, unproductive hours and inefficiency. In the DOGE era, we cannot tolerate bloat and waste in government, wherever it exists.
But the problem of bad software with spotty security demands action, even beyond the tools we use to make slides and write memos. The larger concern is that this software serves functions across government—functions much more sensitive than office bureaucracy. At installations like Hill Air Force Base, men and women work around the clock to keep us safe. Ensuring their tech tools work properly and remain secure isn’t merely about convenience; it directly impacts national security.
In recent years, I’ve heard firsthand from people who work on base about how buggy, outdated software threatens their mission. Yet these issues never jeopardize Microsoft’s government contracts because the company’s licensing practices make alternatives prohibitively expensive.
The connection between poor software quality and anti-competitive practices appears clear. Microsoft charges up to five times more for customers to use their software on competing cloud platforms versus their own Azure service. This pricing structure doesn’t reflect actual costs—it seems designed specifically to lock customers into Microsoft’s ecosystem and eliminate competitive pressure that would otherwise force them to improve their products.
When companies face real competition, they must continuously enhance their offerings to retain customers. Microsoft has largely insulated itself from this market discipline. Why invest in fixing persistent bugs or improving security when customers have nowhere else to go? The federal government now uses Microsoft products for approximately 85% of its operations, creating a dangerous monoculture where a single vulnerability can compromise vast networks of sensitive systems.
The security implications grow particularly alarming when considering Microsoft’s extensive operations in China. With over 9,000 employees based there—80% of whom are software engineers—Microsoft develops core products in a country where the government legally requires access to source code and early notification of security vulnerabilities. We witnessed the consequences last year when Chinese state-backed hackers exploited Microsoft Exchange, accessing thousands of government emails including those of our Commerce Secretary.
A Department of Homeland Security investigation described Microsoft’s security as “shoddy” and criticized the company’s “lax corporate culture.” These failures don’t happen despite Microsoft’s market dominance—they happen because of it. Without meaningful competition, Microsoft has little incentive to prioritize either quality or security.
Global regulators have recognized these dangers. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority recently published findings calling out Microsoft for abusing its market dominance in the cloud sector, artificially suppressing its competitors. The European Union forced Microsoft to unbundle Teams from Office after determining their bundling practices violated antitrust laws. The Federal Trade Commission has launched its own investigation into Microsoft’s anti-competitive cloud practices.
The costs of this monopoly fall directly on Utah taxpayers. Government agencies pay premium prices for substandard software because Microsoft’s licensing terms make alternatives financially impossible. Even when better, more secure, and more efficient solutions exist, Microsoft’s deliberately restrictive pricing structure places them out of reach.
If we took a more businesslike approach to government, we would recognize that genuine competition drives innovation and improves quality. When companies must earn your business every day, they create better products. Microsoft’s strategy of building walls around customers through restrictive licensing prevents exactly this kind of market discipline.
It’s time for both our state and the federal government to rethink how we procure tech services by prohibiting pricing structures that artificially lock government agencies into Microsoft’s ecosystem. The DOGE initiative has shown us that government can and should operate with greater efficiency and accountability. Following this example, states should implement procurement practices that evaluate the total cost of technology choices, including security risks and lost productivity from poorly performing software.
Senator Mike Lee has long championed targeted, smart enforcement of antitrust laws, especially in Big Tech. Senator Lee understands that too much power concentrated in any one actor creates problems, especially when that actor controls the flow of information. For free market competition to thrive and for consumers to benefit from American ingenuity, we need non-political enforcement of the law. We need his voice on this issue.
Utah families and businesses deserve better than paying premium prices for substandard software. Our government agencies need the freedom to choose the best tools for their missions, not just the ones Microsoft allows them to afford. By restoring genuine competition to government technology procurement, we can improve quality, enhance security, and reduce costs for taxpayers. The connection remains clear: better competition means better software.
Trevor Lee is the Representative for House District 16 in the Utah State Legislature. He lives in Layton with his wife, Kaitlin, and their family.
