Google Tells DOJ Move to Split Off Chrome Could Pose A National Security Risk

As Google braces for the next phase of its high-stakes antitrust battle, the tech giant is reportedly engaging in last-minute negotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to avoid a forced breakup.

The company’s legal team has argued that such a move could pose a national security risk, with concerns that splitting off its Chrome browser and limiting investments, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI), could weaken America’s technological edge.

Google’s legal troubles escalated in August 2024 when the company lost a pivotal antitrust case targeting its search business. The ruling cemented Google’s status as a monopolist, prompting the DOJ to push for severe penalties. These include demands that U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta compel Google to divest from its popular Chrome browser and halt payments to secure its search engine’s placement on other platforms.

The government’s proposed remedies were seen as some of the harshest measures in the Biden administration’s broader crackdown on Big Tech. The DOJ aims to diminish the company’s dominance in search and related markets by proposing the breakup of core components of Google’s ecosystem. At the heart of the case is Google’s practice of paying billions annually to companies like Apple to maintain its position as the default search engine on key platforms.

The National Security Card

Faced with these potentially existential threats, Google has adopted a new defense strategy. During a recent meeting with DOJ representatives, the company argued that breaking it up could harm both national and user-level security. Google’s spokesperson, Peter Schottenfels, emphasized these risks.

“We’re concerned the current proposals would harm the American economy and national security,” he said.

While Google has not provided explicit details on how its search and Chrome dominance bolster national security, it has previously pointed to the security advantages of its integrated technology stack. The company claims that its scale enables it to deliver regular security updates across its products, including Android and Chrome, which could become less frequent if these entities were separated.

However, it has been argued that smaller firms, such as Mozilla with its Firefox browser, have managed robust security practices without Google’s vast resources.

AI Investments in the Crosshairs

Beyond its search and browser businesses, the DOJ’s proposed remedies also target Google’s investments in AI companies. While AI is not directly related to Google’s search monopoly, regulators are wary of the company’s growing influence in this critical field. Google has invested heavily in AI, including a $3 billion stake in Anthropic, an AI firm that recently attempted to intervene in the antitrust case. The DOJ has so far opposed Anthropic’s involvement, potentially underlining concerns over Google’s expanding footprint in emerging technologies.

AI has become a significant focus of national security, with both the government and tech sector racing to maintain leadership in the field. Google’s defense strategy taps into this narrative, suggesting that limiting its AI investments could undermine U.S. competitiveness. This argument might gain traction with the DOJ under the Trump administration, which has shown a more tech-friendly stance. The new administration has criticized the EU’s regulatory measures, such as the Digital Markets Act, for potentially hampering U.S. tech companies and their global influence.

A Shifting Legal and Political Landscape

The outcome of Google’s case may hinge not only on legal arguments but also on the shifting political and regulatory environment. The Trump administration’s arrival has brought new personnel and perspectives to the DOJ, with many of the officials now handling the case having joined after the initial verdict. This could open the door for Google to reframe its arguments, possibly finding a more receptive audience to its national security narrative.

Judge Mehta’s willingness to consider AI-related remedies also complicates Google’s position. During a November hearing, Mehta acknowledged the rapidly evolving nature of the search market, influenced by AI products designed to mimic traditional search engine functionality. This perspective could justify regulatory limits on Google’s AI investments, particularly if these are seen as a means to entrench its dominance further.

As the case moves into the remedy phase, both sides are expected to submit their final proposals to Judge Mehta this week. While Google’s position is unlikely to change drastically, the DOJ’s approach remains uncertain. The new administration’s influence could lead to a more lenient stance or potentially reinforce calls for a significant restructuring of Google’s business.

The formal remedy phase is set to begin in April, and the judge’s decision could reshape the tech industry. Should Google be forced to divest from Chrome or scale back its AI investments, it could lead to a major shift in the balance of power within the tech industry. Conversely, a softer regulatory outcome might embolden Google and other tech giants, impacting future antitrust strategies in the U.S. and beyond.

The case is also part of a broader global trend where U.S. and European regulators are increasingly scrutinizing major tech companies. While Europe has led the charge with stringent regulations like the Digital Markets Act, U.S. authorities are now showing a willingness to impose similarly tough measures. However, the Trump administration’s skepticism towards the EU’s tech policies might signal a more protective stance towards American firms.

If Google can successfully convince regulators of the national security risks posed by a breakup, it may set a precedent for other tech giants to use similar arguments. This strategy could complicate future antitrust actions, blending corporate interests with national defense narratives—a potentially powerful but controversial defense in an era of heightened geopolitical and technological competition.