Trump’s Former National Security Advisor Criticizes DOJ’s Google Breakup Proposal as Threat to National Security

Trump’s Former National Security Advisor Criticizes DOJ’s Google Breakup Proposal as Threat to National Security

EXCLUSIVE INSIGHT – Robert O’Brien, who served as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, has raised significant concerns regarding the Justice Department’s recent proposal to dismantle what it deems an illegal monopoly held by Google in the online search arena. In a letter directed to White House officials, O’Brien describes the DOJ’s approach as alarmingly expansive and categorizes it as posing extensive and dangerous national security threats.

In his correspondence with the White House National Security Council, which Fox News Digital has obtained, O’Brien contends that the strategies championed by the Biden administration’s DOJ fundamentally clash with the policy direction established during the Trump administration. He warns that these current approaches may hinder the United States’ competitive edge against China in the crucial technology sector.

O’Brien underscores the importance of its current global technological competition, describing it as a crucial element to the nation’s overall strength, akin to last century’s arms race. He stresses that in order to triumph, the United States must not only maintain but also expand its leadership in key technological domains.

In light of these alarming indicators, O’Brien’s letter was transmitted to national security advisor Mike Waltz shortly before his recent departure from office due to the fallout from the Signal controversy. Additionally, a copy of the letter reached U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, further highlighting the importance of the discussed issues.

The contents of the letter, which first came to light through Fox News Digital, emerge amidst a heated legal conflict between Google’s representation and DOJ lawyers in federal court, as they debate the appropriate course of action following a judge’s determination that Google has, in fact, maintained an illegal monopoly in the online search landscape.

O’Brien articulates that the DOJ’s current framework may significantly undermine Google’s capacity to innovate and compete on a global level. He firmly believes that these actions threaten U.S. technological supremacy in vital sectors, including artificial intelligence and quantum computing, especially in the context of an ongoing race against China for technological advancement. Such a trajectory could lead to heightened economic and national security vulnerabilities, he warns.

O’Brien criticizes the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, claiming it is aggressively pursuing misguided policies that echo a European regulatory framework aimed at crippling America’s most powerful technology companies. He suggests that by failing to appreciate their immense contributions to national strength, the Antitrust Division attempts to impose a restrictive and regulatory approach similar to European practices on the Google search case.

Within his letter, he further urges the DOJ to reassess the proposed structural changes for Google’s search service and to develop modifications that would allow for viable competition while maintaining the strategic advantages that Google currently holds.

O’Brien elaborates on the implications of fragmenting Google into smaller entities, emphasizing that such actions would effectively diminish the United States’ competitiveness against heavily backed Chinese technology firms. He asserts that independent companies would lack the necessary resources to compete on the same level, jeopardizing national interests.

Moreover, he references multiple experts who share this sentiment, reinforcing the warning that imposing restrictive measures on American tech giants threatens U.S. leadership in pivotal technological fields and risks transferring global technological dominance to China.

As the tension in federal court escalates, the DOJ and Google continue to clash over strategies intended to dissolve the monopoly identified by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled last summer that Google’s practices had resulted in anti-competitive behavior within the marketplace.

During these courtroom proceedings, the two sides have presented distinctly different strategies regarding how to effectively address the monopoly. This antitrust lawsuit marks a significant moment as it represents the first successful legal action taken by the U.S. against a leading tech company since the landmark case against Microsoft in 2001.

The Justice Department’s stance asserts that Google should divest its Chrome browser, share years of consumer data with competitors, and even consider selling its Android smartphone operating system. Their proposed measures include mandates that Google discloses its consumer data and search analytics with rival companies worldwide for a decade.

This robust framework aims to prevent Google from monopolizing the burgeoning AI industry, acknowledging that technological evolution necessitates adaptive remedies. In contrast, Google’s suggested approach for resolving the monopolistic concerns is notably narrower, focusing on shorter contracts with browser developers and other operational adjustments intended to foster competition.

Officials from Google argue that the DOJ’s suggestions extend well beyond the relief measures put forth by Judge Mehta in his previous ruling. They caution that the recommended remedies would hinder competition and impair Google’s ability to attract investments or innovate within critical sectors such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

During court sessions, Google CEO Sundar Pichai articulated that if the DOJ’s proposals were implemented, it might result in a de facto breakup of the company’s search engine. He expressed concerns that enabling competitors to reverse-engineer Google’s technologies, developed over decades, could gravely harm the company’s future.

O’Brien, recognized as a co-founder and partner emeritus of Larson LLP—a firm that occasionally represents Google—has distanced himself from those specific legal engagements. Nonetheless, he aims to address critical issues relating to national security and technological competitiveness.

The Justice Department has not yet provided comments on O’Brien’s letter or disclosed intentions regarding potential amendments to its proposed framework in the ongoing proceedings related to Google’s monopoly status.

Future Implications of DOJ’s Actions

As discussions about the regulation of major technology firms intensify, the outcomes of this legal battle may have far-reaching consequences, possibly reshaping the technological landscape and impacting national security in a rapidly evolving digital age. The need for a balanced approach that fosters innovation while ensuring fair competition will be paramount in the weeks and months ahead.