A federal judge just killed the best chance to break up Google's advertising monopoly — and the gatekeepers who control what Americans see online remain firmly in charge.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema on Wednesday refused to splinter Google's online advertising business, dealing the Trump administration its biggest setback yet in the fight to dismantle Silicon Valley's power. According to POLITICO, the decision "thwarted the Justice Department's best chance to force a breakup that could overhaul a Silicon Valley giant." Brinkema approved "most of the parties' proposed behavioral remedies" — fines and conduct restrictions — but the structural breakup Americans actually need was rejected.
This is now the third time courts have shielded Big Tech from the only remedy that matters. Last September, D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta refused to force Google to spin off Chrome and Android. Another judge already threw out accusations that Meta illegally monopolized social media. Vanderbilt law professor Rebecca Haw Allensworth put it plainly: "This really takes a lot of wind out of the sails of the anti-monopoly movement, and the likelihood that there will be breakups in the future. This was the strongest case for divestiture, so it doesn't look good for a structural remedy in the other cases."
The pattern is clear. Judges will fine monopolists and restrict certain behaviors, but they will not break up the companies that control the digital public square. And without breakup, the censorship infrastructure stays intact.
Meanwhile, Big Tech's leaders play both sides. POLITICO reports that tech CEOs "have made multiple efforts to curry favor with the administration, contributing funds for Trump's second inauguration and his ballroom project, and frequently visiting the White House." Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally lobbied Trump to have the FTC settle its case regarding Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions, according to The New York Times. The FTC lost that trial and is appealing. Former DOJ attorney Reed Showalter cut to the real game: "Donald Trump, and especially his White House team, definitely view antitrust as just a bargaining chip to go after companies that he doesn't like. But as of right now, Big Tech has been more than willing to do what Trump wants, and so I don't know if there's much need for leverage."
So this is the arrangement: Big Tech pays tribute, makes nice at the White House, and trusts that courts will protect their empires from the one thing that could actually threaten their power over speech. The DOJ put its usual spin on Brinkema's order, claiming it brings "substantial relief." Google was more honest about who won, with Google's Lee-Anne Mulholland saying the company was "very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ's proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow."
And it's not just antitrust where judges are drawing the line against executive action. The same day Brinkema protected Google, Newsweek reported that another federal judge — Biden appointee Deborah Boardman — blocked Trump's latest executive order restricting birthright citizenship, ruling that the Supreme Court had already settled the constitutional question. "The Supreme Court has spoken," Boardman wrote. "The President must follow it." The judiciary, across appointments and across issues, is asserting itself as the real power center in Washington.
The Framers didn't build a First Amendment so a handful of corporations could decide which Americans get to speak. Big Tech's monopoly over digital infrastructure is the new gatekeeping, and behavioral fixes won't end it. Only breakup will. The courts just made that harder, and the coming antitrust trials against Apple and Amazon now look like long shots. The question isn't whether these companies are too powerful. It's whether any institution in America has the will to do anything about it.
