The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed remedies in its antitrust case against Google read less like a serious legal prescription and more like an attempt to sabotage innovation—or perhaps the incoming Trump administration itself. By seeking to dismantle Google and force it to subsidize its competitors, the DOJ risks creating an economic disaster and hobble the development of artificial intelligence. But the case also presents an opportunity for The Trump administration to reaffirm its commitment to liberal markets and genuine competition, ensuring that antitrust enforcement promotes competition without stifling progress.
Judge Mehta’s August decision was deliberate and measured. He found that Google built its success on the unmatched quality of its search engine and has consistently out innovated its competitors. But the length of Google’s contracts with distributors—like Apple and Mozilla—effectively stifled competitors.
Rather than tailoring remedies to this finding, the DOJ has pursued an expansive and government-centric agenda. Its proposals include forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser and potentially its Android operating system and requiring Google to share its proprietary data and search results with rivals like Microsoft. The DOJ also seeks to limit Google’s ability to develop artificial intelligence products—a stunning imposition given that the technology is rapidly changing, had nothing to do with the Google’s past acts, and is key to America’s global competitiveness.
The DOJ’s recommendations are not remedies; they are regulatory overreach. The plan threatens to transform antitrust enforcement into economic micromanagement. As the U.S. telecommunications industry has demonstrated, no industry burdened with this level of government control has remained innovative, and search technology and artificial intelligence would be no exception.
This overreach creates a dilemma for President-elect Trump and his nominee to head the DOJ’s antitrust division, Gail Slater. If Slater, once confirmed, allows the DOJ to stay on the current path, she risks contaminating Trump’s antitrust legacy with President Biden’s, whose administration has championed government control of markets, regardless of the impacts on consumers and the economy. She also risks a court rebuke. Judge Mehta has already signaled that he considered the contracts—not Chrome, Android, or artificial intelligence—to be the illegal competitive barrier. The DOJ’s sweeping demands go far beyond what the court could reasonably endorse.
Alternatively, Slater could reject the DOJ’s overreach and chart a new course that aligns with Trump’s deregulatory agenda. This would mean scaling back the remedies to focus on Google’s distribution contracts, such as prohibiting agreements with distributors for a set period. This approach would address the court’s concerns while preserving incentives for innovation and legitimate competition.
Some Republicans have accused Google of bias against conservatives and might welcome aggressive action. The president-elect has also expressed interest in cracking down on Big Tech. The industry’s media rivals—eager to shift the advertising market in their favor—might seize the opportunity to pile on. But Slater, with Trump’s market orientation, can counter these arguments with sound economic reasoning. As she and Trump know, strong distribution channels are necessary for business success, and no company should be penalized for pursuing effective partnerships unless they violated clear, known rules. Penalizing effective distribution channels without prior guidance sets a dangerous precedent, one that undermines business confidence.
For Trump, this moment offers an opportunity to show leadership and choose a measured approach. As a businessman, he understands that growth depends on fostering, not punishing, success. By urging the DOJ to adopt a business-oriented, more sensible remedy, he would demonstrate a commitment to fair competition without jeopardizing America’s tech leadership or turning antitrust enforcement into a tool for economic central planning.
The stakes are high. The DOJ’s current path risks harming consumers, chilling innovation, and entrenching government control over one of the most vibrant sectors of the economy. It risks making antitrust an instrument of lawfare.
