Policy Deep Dive: Revisiting Antitrust
Policy Deep Dive: Revisiting Antitrust.
In this special policy series, the Caveat team is taking a deep dive into key topic areas that are likely to generate notable conversations and political actions throughout the next administration. This limited monthly series focuses on different policy topic areas to provide you with our analysis of how this issue is currently being addressed, how existing policies may change, and to provide thought-provoking insights.
For this month's conversation, we’re focusing on President Trump’s antitrust policy. We’ve seen an aggressive antitrust policy being pursued since President Trump took office, which has the potential to impact numerous digital marketplaces.
To listen to the full conversation, head over to the Caveat Podcast for additional compelling insights.
Key insights.
- Trump’s aggressive antitrust policies. Since taking over, President Trump has pursued an aggressive antitrust policy.
- Google’s losses. Google currently faces two significant antitrust cases, both of which have found the company guilty of being a monopoly.
- Targeting big tech. Outside of Google, the Trump administration has targeted numerous other big tech companies, seeking to curb their influence.
An aggressive antitrust administration.
Since taking office, President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has pursued an aggressive antitrust policy.
In the first Policy Deep Dive, a looming question remained regarding how the then-incoming Trump administration would handle antitrust policy and the many ongoing antitrust cases. At the time, there were some ambiguities regarding the administration’s stance on antitrust policy and whether or not it would be as aggressive as the former Biden administration had been.
This ambiguity arose due to both past actions undertaken by Trump’s first administration and comments made by his incoming cabinet. For example, Vice President JD Vance lauded Lina Khan, the former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under former President Biden, stating that he thinks “Lina Khan [was] one of the few people in the Biden administration that [was] doing a pretty good job.” While this may not seem significant, it is important to note that Lina Khan's FTC was one of the most aggressive iterations of this commission implementing aggressive policies and pursuing numerous cases.
Despite these indications, many expected Trump's second administration to take a more relaxed approach to antitrust enforcement. During his presidential campaign, President Trump commented on a prominent antitrust case against Google, expressing skepticism about pursuing a breakup. President Trump asked, “if you do that, are you going to destroy the company?” Furthermore, President Trump continued emphasizing an alternative solution, stating that “what you can do without breaking it up is make sure it’s more fair.” However, any reservations that President Trump may have had have evaporated as his administration is currently pursuing one of the most aggressive antitrust policies in decades.
Thinking Ahead:
How could President Trump’s aggressive policy impact markets over the next four years?
Google's first case.
After being declared a monopoly, President Trump aims to break up Google.
In August 2024, District Judge Amit Mehta issued a landmark ruling finding Google guilty of being a monopoly in the search engine market. Judge Mehta found that Google had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, writing that Google “is a monopolist and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” This ruling was seen as arguably one of the greatest wins for antitrust enforcement in over two decades. Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a legal professor at Vanderbilt Law School, commented on the verdict, stating that it was “a sign that the tide is changing in antitrust law generally away from the laissez-faire system that we’ve had for the last forty years.”
Building on this ruling, the former Biden administration sought to break up Google, forcing the company to divest from Chrome. Alongside divesting from Chrome, the Biden administration also sought to force Google to either sell Android or bar it from making its service mandatory on phones that use Android to operate. While seen as aggressive, the Biden administration argued:
“The playing field is not level because of Google’s conduct, and Google’s quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired. The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages.”
Since taking office, the Trump administration has continued to pursue these outcomes. In March 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reiterated its request to break up Google. In their March filing, the DOJ wrote:
"Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that - no matter what occurs - Google always wins. The American people thus are forced to accept the unbridled demands and shifting, ideological preferences of an economic leviathan in return for a search engine the public may enjoy.”
During this trial, a key driver behind Judge Mehta’s ruling was a series of contracts that Google had established with device manufacturers. These contracts involved Google paying device manufacturers, like Apple, large sums of money to guarantee that their search engine was the default option on devices. Additionally, the DOJ argued that these contracts help remove rival search engines by cutting off key distribution channels.
Judge Mehta explicitly named these contracts as key contributors to this monopoly writing that “the prospect of losing tens of billions in guaranteed revenue from Google - which presently comes at little to no cost to Apple - disincentives Apple from launching its own search engine when it otherwise has built the capacity to do so.”
President Trump has remained adamant about breaking up Google as the DOJ continued to reaffirm its desire to force a divestiture during the closing arguments of the trial. While Judge Mehta is not expected to release his ruling til August and Google has already announced its intention to appeal the ruling, this case reflects the overall antitrust strategy the Trump administration is pursuing.
While Judge Mehta has expressed his openness to considering a less severe remediation solution compared to a breakup, it remains unclear how severe his opinion will be for Google. Regardless of this case's outcome, Google remains under pressure, as a second case, started in 2023, has also gone against the major technology company.
Thinking Ahead:
If Google is forced to divest from Chrome, how would this impact markets and consumers?
Google's second case.
Alongside its antitrust search engine case, Google also faces a second battle regarding its advertising services.
In 2023, the former Biden administration filed another antitrust lawsuit against Google. This case alleged that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in the advertising services market. After the main trial beginning in September 2024, District Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act and was acting as a monopoly.
For context, this case revolved around a different line of business for Google. Whereas the previous case centered on Google’s widely used search engine, this case focused on Google’s ad exchange services, specifically publisher ad servers along with ad exchange technologies.
Specifically, Judge Brinkema found that Google had illegally tied its publisher ad servers and ad exchange services together to force advertisers to use both services. Moreover, Google’s critics have argued that the company's acquisitions over the years, such as with DoubleClick in 2007, significantly contributed to this monopoly.
After the guilty ruling in April 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi commented on the momentous nature of the ruling, emphasizing how it was “a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square.”
With the remedies phase of the trial set to begin in September 2025, the DOJ has already announced that it hopes to force a second break up. Google has argued that the DOJ's arguments are not grounded in legal basis and will appeal the ruling.
These two cases are the most notable antitrust cases being actively pursued by President Trump. However, they are not the only cases being litigated but rather are part of a larger agenda to curb big tech's influence over major markets.
Thinking Ahead:
Outside of Google, what other major organizations could the Trump DOJ aim to break up?
Other notable cases.
Though these Google cases have received the most attention, they are part of a broader effort against big tech.
Outside of these two prominent cases against Google, President Trump's administration is also targeting other major technology companies with antitrust lawsuits. One of the most notable cases involves the FTC suing Meta.
The case, which began in April 2025, involves the FTC alleging that Meta violated competition laws by acquiring applications, such as WhatsApp and Instagram. More specifically, the FTC is arguing that Meta's acquisitions over the years were a part of a strategic effort to both eliminate competition and further entrench its monopoly.
While District Judge James Bosaberg has not ruled whether or not Meta is a monopoly, the FTC has already argued that divestiture is the only way to remedy this monopoly. Currently, closing arguments for the case have just begun, and it will take several months for Judge Bosaberg to release his opinion on the matter. Alongside this case, the Trump administration is actively pursuing antitrust cases against Amazon and Apple arguing that both have established an illegal monopoly.
The FTC's case against Amazon alleges that the company currently maintains an illegal monopoly. Moreover, the FTC argues that Amazon has used this monopoly to steadily raise prices for consumers, manipulate search results to favor its own products, and overcharge other third-party sellers.
Regarding the DOJ’s lawsuit against Apple, the DOJ is suing the company for allegedly establishing an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market. More specifically, the DOJ is alleging that Apple intentionally made a system that makes it harder for consumers to switch software and hardware while simultaneously stifling innovation.
While the cases against Google are certainly the furthest along and the most notable, each of these other cases represents a clear and concerted effort by the Trump administration to target big tech companies. Aside from this aggressive policy stance being unexpected, this agenda has the potential to impact existing markets significantly, the ways consumers engage with online platforms, and how the US government is approaching antitrust cases as a whole.
Thinking Ahead:
What are some of the tangible impacts that any of these potential breakups have on existing markets?
The next four years.
With this strong antitrust policy, President Trump will likely look to continue building off these initial successes.
While it is difficult to assess exactly how these cases will turn out, they do provide significant insight into President Trump’s antitrust agenda. Despite initial beliefs that this new administration would take a more relaxed approach when compared to the former administration, this does not seem to be accurate.
As the coming months or years continue to evolve, the ongoing cases will likely take time to be ruled on, appealed, and finally concluded. It is doubtful that all of these cases will force their respective big tech companies to divest from their business lines. If any cases do result in a breakup, they could significantly impact the marketplace, potentially encouraging greater innovation, friendlier consumer practices, or a more competitive market. Even if some of the cases do not result in breakups, they could result in substantial restructuring and removal of certain problematic systems.
Given how significant each case is, it is highly likely that no matter the outcome both consumers and businesses alike will notice tangible changes in how products are delivered and how they engage with existing services.
Thinking Ahead:
Outside of these cases, what other companies or services could President Trump aim to target?