Business
Google could be forced to sell Chrome. Here's what you need to know
Google and federal officials are battling it out over a proposal that the tech giant be forced to sell its popular Chrome web browser to restore competition to the online search market.
The proposal, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and several states this week, came after a federal judge ruled that Google maintained an illegal monopoly over internet search.
The landmark decision opened the door to the current showdown over potential remedies that could reshape the tech giant’s multibillion-dollar business. As part of their proposed penalties, Justice Department officials also suggested the judge impose restrictions on Android, Google’s mobile operating system, to prevent it from favoring Google products.
The Department of Justice says forcing Google to divest Chrome would create more competition and stop the search giant’s control over a “browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet.” Google pushed back, calling the request an “unprecedented government overreach” that would harm consumers and U.S. tech leadership.
“This is to some extent a negotiating dance,” said George Hay, a Cornell University law professor and antitrust expert. “The DOJ is probably trying to get Google to be more cooperative in coming up with remedies that will fix the problem.”
Here’s what you need to know:
What are U.S. officials proposing?
The Justice Department outlined for the judge several possible solutions in its 23-page court filing, including forcing Google to sell Chrome and potentially Android as well if the company does not adequately address its practice of requiring smartphone makers to use Google products embedded in Android.
“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 filing says. “The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages.”
The Justice Department wants to bar Google from entering into exclusive agreements with content publishers, as well as owning or acquiring any interests in search rivals. Publishers should also be able to opt out of having Google use their content to train artificial intelligence tools, under the proposal. And Justice Department officials want advertisers to have more access to data and control over ads that show up in Google search results.
The Justice Department is trying to make consumers more aware of choices outside of Google, the world’s most popular search engine. Another potential fix includes requiring Google to display a “choice screen” on every Google browser when a user hasn’t selected a default search engine.
What’s Google’s response?
Google thinks the government’s proposal goes too far. Instead, the company thinks the government should focus solutions more narrowly on agreements it has with Apple, Mozilla, smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers that require the companies to favor Google’s search engine over others.
Kent Walker, chief legal officer at Google and its parent company, Alphabet, in a blog post called the government’s proposal a “radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership.”
Google opposes the idea that it should install “choice screens” on its browser and alleges that would hinder people’s abilities to use the company’s products.
Will this affect the way I search online?
Because Google’s punishment hasn’t been decided, it is too early to say how internet search could be affected. Antitrust experts said it depends on what remedies the judge in the case decides on and whether they withstand scrutiny by an appeals court. Some experts questioned whether any changes, even a forced sale of Chrome, would be effective in getting people to use other search engines.
“It will still be there in some way, shape or form, but it may be more subtle in terms of the effects on consumers,” said Shubha Ghosh, a law professor at Syracuse University.
It’s unclear who is interested in buying Google Chrome, which Bloomberg reported could be worth up to $20 billion.
Could the Trump administration affect Google’s punishment?
Possibly. President-elect Donald Trump has criticized Google over allegations that the search giant censors conservative speech, which the company has repeatedly denied.
But Trump, who reportedly took a phone call with Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai after he won the U.S. presidential election, has also stopped short of saying he would break up the search giant.
“It’s a very dangerous thing because we want to have great companies,” Trump said in an October interview moderated by Bloomberg News. “We don’t want China to have these companies. Right now, China is afraid of Google.”
Hay said he doesn’t anticipate Trump will pull the plug on the case, but the Justice Department could soften its proposed remedies.
What happens next?
Google said it will file its own proposals next month. Court hearings on Google’s punishment are scheduled to begin in April. Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is overseeing the case, is expected to make a decision on Google’s punishment by August 2025.
The Associated Press was used in compiling this report.

Business
Video: Fed Chair Says Trump Tariffs Could Worsen Inflation

new video loaded: Fed Chair Says Trump Tariffs Could Worsen Inflation
transcript
transcript
Fed Chair Says Trump Tariffs Could Worsen Inflation
Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, stressed that the tariffs announced so far go well beyond what the Fed had expected even in its worst-case scenario.
-
The level of tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated, and the same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth. We may find ourselves in the challenging scenario in which our dual mandate goals are in tension. If that were to occur, we would consider how far the economy is from each goal and the potentially different time horizons over which those respective gaps would be anticipated to close. These are very fundamental changes in — long-held in some cases — policies in the United States, and there’s not any real experience. I mean, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were actually not this large and they were 95 years ago. So there isn’t a modern experience of how to think about this. And businesses and households are saying in surveys that they are experiencing incredibly high uncertainty. I mean, your question really is what if the uncertainty remains high? I think that’s a difficult environment. If the United States were to become a jurisdiction where risks are just structurally higher going forward, that would make us less attractive as a jurisdiction. We don’t know that at this point. But I think that would be the effect.
Recent episodes in Business
Business
Commentary: Trump's Kafkaesque attack on Social Security–Declaring living people as dead
In so many ways the Trump administration has given us a window into a dystopian world — flouting a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, elevating scientific myth into healthcare policy and so on. But its latest attack on the Social Security system is arguably the most frightening of all.
Reportedly pressured by Elon Musk’s DOGE team and by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, the current stewards of Social Security have allowed the government to declare 6,300 people “dead” in a crucial Social Security database, even though they’re very much alive.
The initial reports of this action were reported by the New York Times and Washington Post, but it was confirmed for me, if somewhat obliquely, by a White House spokeswoman.
You’d have a hard time explaining this to someone in a way that doesn’t seem dystopian.
— Devin O’Connor, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
“President Trump promised mass deportations and by removing the monetary incentive for illegal aliens to come and stay, we will encourage them to self-deport,” the spokeswoman, Elizabeth Huston, told me by email.
The White House claims that “DHS identified over 6,300 temporarily paroled aliens on the terrorist watch list or with FBI criminal records,” and as of April 8 “terminated” their right to hold Social Security numbers or receive benefits.
“To prevent them from receiving any payments,” the White House told me, the Social Security Administration moved their numbers into what the White House calls the “Ineligible Master File.”
What’s that? It’s what is officially known as Social Security’s “Death Master File,” the database of deceased number holders.
Make no mistake: In effect, these 6,300 living, breathing individuals have been declared “dead” by Trump administration fiat.
“You’d have a hard time explaining this to someone in a way that doesn’t seem dystopian,” says Devin O’Connor, an expert on Social Security at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Social Security advocates are aghast. “As with most of the actions of the Social Security Administration since Trump came into office, we cannot make rational sense of the policy to place immigrants on the SSA’s list of deceased persons,” says Max Richtman, chief executive of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
“These are people who are in the United States legally and need active Social Security numbers in order to work and transact personal business,” Richtman says. “By placing them on the list of dead persons, the Trump administration is needlessly preventing them from utilizing their Social Security numbers for legitimate reasons.”
Before we delve further into the consequences of this action — for the newly “dead,” for all Social Security beneficiaries and indeed American citizens, and for the Social Security system itself — a few words on how this came about.
It started on inauguration day, when Trump abruptly terminated four Biden administration humanitarian programs granting legal U.S. residence to applicants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela seeking asylum. By the end of Biden’s term, more than 500,000 applicants had been granted so-called parole via the programs known collectively as CHNV. Typically, they feared political violence or death in their home countries.
After passing national security and public safety scrutiny and showing that they had a U.S. sponsor to provide housing and other support, they were granted a “parole” of up to two years permitting them to work legally, which required them to obtain Social Security numbers and to contribute payroll tax to the program. During that period, they could seek more permanent permission to stay in the country. As of April 8, they lost those rights and obligations.
The White House hasn’t specified what evidence it has that the 6,300 immigrants declared “dead” were members of terrorist groups or FBI-designated criminals.
As it happens, the termination order was blocked Monday by federal Judge Indira Talwani of Boston. In a 41-page order, Talwani raised the question of whether Congress had given Trump the authority, “after parole has been granted and individuals have entered the country on a lawful basis,” to revoke the grants of parole “en masse.” She wrote: “The answer is no.” The revocation, she ruled, would have to be on a case-by-case basis, just as their paroles had been granted.
Meanwhile, Tuesday in Baltimore, federal Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander convened a hearing over whether the Social Security Administration has complied with her earlier order to keep DOGE employees’ hands off the agency’s records — an issue on which the unilateral “death” designations may well be relevant. Hollander had ordered acting Commissioner Leland Dudek to appear for testimony, but the government has refused to allow him to appear.
That brings us back to the Death Master File. (The administration has said it should be referred to now as the “Ineligible Master File,” but its authority to change its official designation isn’t clear, and in any case this looks merely like an attempt to obscure the nature of the file itself.)
The DMF is one of the most important and closely supervised databases in the Social Security Administration’s possession. Currently it contains more than 141 million names of deceased workers, along with their Social Security numbers and their dates of birth and death. The program uses the information, according to former Social Security official Tiffany Flick, for the purpose of “discontinuing benefits payments to deceased individuals, confirming an individual’s right to survivor benefits, and identifying fraud” carried out by users of dead persons’ Social Security numbers.
The information is carefully vetted unless it comes from family members, a state agency or a funeral home, Flick said in a court declaration. The agency takes pains to verify reports from anyone else. Of the 2.9 million death reports received each year, Flick said, fewer than one-third of 1% typically have to be corrected.
Federal law requires the agency to keep the full database confidential. A redacted version, however, is marketed via the Department of Commerce to banks, credit agencies and other financial institutions — but only if they can pass an annual certification in which they have to show they can protect the data from illicit use. The limited version contains only information that is more than three years old.
There can be no question that “intentionally marking people who are still living as dead” in the master file “is unheard of and improper,” Flick stated.
Beyond that, “when Social Security incorrectly declares someone dead, it ruins their lives,” observes Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy organization Social Security Works.
In 2023, Altman notes, “a Maryland woman was wrongly declared dead and found her health insurance and Social Security benefits terminated, her home listed for sale, her credit cards canceled, and her water shut off. Her health deteriorated as she spent endless hours trying to undo the mistake. Indeed, she did actually die seven months later.”
Because the DMF is viewed as authoritative by financial services companies, adds O’Connor, its misuse can cause “disruption in your bank account access, your credit cards canceled, your pension benefits being cut off, your insurance coverage canceled or an insurance claim denied. If you apply for a job your application could be rejected, or have a denial of credit.”
The very idea that government bureaucrats can designate living persons as dead for reasons other than their actual death should send shudders through all Social Security participants, citizens and otherwise — especially given the manipulation of the program from Trump acolytes already and the absence of official oversight over DOGE’s rampaging minions.
“Now, if you’re included in the Death Master File even by accident, how do you show not only that you’re not dead, but that you don’t belong on the file for some other unknown, mysterious reason?” O’Connor asks. “It’s creating the potential for some Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmares every time they make a mistake — and there will be mistakes.”
As for the administration’s contention that the 6,300 “dead” people are on a terrorism watch list or FBI list, the administration’s treatment of facts and statistics when it comes to immigrants or Social Security does not inspire confidence.
The administration, for instance, has consistently described Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom it admits to having transported to El Salvador illegally, as an “illegal alien” and a member of the criminal gang MS-13. But he was in the U.S. legally, and no valid evidence has been produced to show he’s a member of MS-13 — quite the contrary, he may be a victim of MS-13.
DOGE’s claims about Social Security data are almost risibly ignorant. Musk asserted that DOGE found millions of dead people as old as 150 receiving benefits, but he was misinterpreting a software artifact.
The manipulation of the Death Master File itself has obliterated its validity as a data source for financial and commercial institutions. If those institutions can no longer trust what was once the gold standard for information about their present or future customers, how can it be used at all?
What’s scariest about the cavalier manipulation of the Death Master File is that Trump’s refusal to observe bureaucratic norms, statutory limitations, and even to respond to court orders, points to the question of how far he’s willing to go. Designating living persons as dead could be only the beginning.
“If they can do this to somebody,” O’Connor says, “they can do it to anybody.”
Business
How Much Are Tariffs on Chinese Goods? It’s Trickier Than You Think.

The escalating trade war between the United States and China has created deep uncertainty for U.S. companies that rely on Chinese suppliers. Retaliations in recent days by the two countries have resulted in huge average tax rates on each other’s imports, with tariffs often costing more than the price of the goods themselves.
But because of an ever-changing patchwork of trade rules, not every product will be charged an astronomical tariff, trade lawyers, customs brokers and importers say. In some cases, tariffs will pile on other tariffs. In other instances, they can reduce costs, while other times they can cancel out new ones.
The new 125 percent rate that President Trump imposed will in many cases be added on top of long-existing duties. There are four main categories of tariffs that are imposed on goods from China.
A standard tax applied to imports from the world. The rate depends on the goods. Most rates are very low.
Taxes introduced during the first Trump administration and expanded by former President Joseph R. Biden as a way to protect U.S. industries.
Trump imposed a 25% tariff on these imports worldwide.
-
+25%
On steel and some products that contain steel.
-
+25%
On aluminum and some products that contain aluminum.
-
+25%
On cars and car parts.
Trump imposed and raised tariffs on Chinese goods multiple times this year.
-
+20%
On most goods as a punishment for the flow of fentanyl into the United States.
-
+125%
On most goods in an effort to reset the trade balance between the two countries.
Rates ultimately depend on what is imported, what materials are used (from where), which special rates are applied and what sorts of products are exempt.
New tariff rates on select goods from China
Understanding which tariffs will apply and which ones won’t will ultimately determine what businesses choose to buy, how they’ll factor in the new costs — if they can even afford them — and what they may ultimately pass on to their customers.
“Companies are scrambling to mitigate their tariff exposure, particularly those with supply chains involving China,” said Richard A. Mojica, a customs lawyer at Miller & Chevalier. “But there are only a few levers they can pull.”
Here is how the import duties on certain goods from China add up:
-
0%
Base tariff
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
The United States imported nearly $52 billion worth of smartphones in 2024 — more than 80 percent of it from China. Smartphones from the country were originally subject to a duty of up to 145 percent, but customs guidance issued late Friday exempted laptops and smartphones from the 125 percent reciprocal tariff on most Chinese goods. The devices are still subject to new import taxes introduced earlier this year.
-
0%
Base tariff
-
100%
Pre-2025 extra tariff
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
-
125%
Reciprocal” tariff
Syringes and needles are charged some of the highest tariff rates. These items are among the Chinese goods targeted initially by the first Trump administration and then subject to increases under Mr. Biden. His administration levied a 100 percent tariff on syringes and needles last September as a part of an effort to protect American factories and show a tough-on-China stance.
These types of tariffs on Chinese goods can range from 7.5 percent up to 100 percent and apply to clothing, solar panels, electric vehicles and other goods that China has been accused of selling at far lower prices than many American businesses do.
With this week’s tariffs included, American importers will now have to pay a 245 percent tariff — or roughly 2½ times the cost of the product itself.
-
0%
Base tariff
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
-
125%
Reciprocal” tariff
Over three-quarters of toys imported into the United States come from China, making it America’s biggest supplier. Previously, things like tricycles, stuffed animals, dolls and puzzles could enter the country duty free. Now, all these items are charged a 145 percent import tax. Retail prices for these items are expected to rise significantly.
-
16%
Base tariff
-
7.5%
Pre-2025 extra tariff
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
-
125%
Reciprocal” tariff
Many goods have a category-specific tariff that applies regardless of the country of origin. For wool sweaters, that is 16 percent. They are also on the list of goods subject to an additional tariff introduced during Mr. Trump’s first term. For the $170 million worth of wool sweaters that came into the United States from China last year, the tariff rate was roughly 24 percent — which at the time was considered relatively high.
Now, with tariffs from February intended to punish China over the flow of fentanyl into the United States and with this week’s “reciprocal” round, the import tax for sweaters has significantly jumped.
-
0%
Base tariff
-
25%
Pre-2025 extra tariff
-
25%
Aluminium, steel tariff
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
Before Mr. Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on all foreign steel and aluminum parts in March, there was already a levy on some Chinese metal imports — all part of a protectionist effort to bolster domestic manufacturing. But Mr. Trump’s new tariffs significantly expanded what will be taxed: Not just steel beams or aluminum rods, but a wide range of products that contain aluminum and steel components.
While most U.S. imports of these metals are from other countries, including Canada, China supplies many products that have metal components.
Aluminum and steel products are exempted from this week’s “reciprocal” tariffs, which reduces the effective tax rate of Chinese steel and aluminum products to lower than that of many other goods.
-
2%
Base tariff
-
7.5%
Pre-2025 extra tariff
-
12.5%
Aluminium, steel tariff
-
25%
Cars, car parts
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
New tariffs of 25 percent also apply to all imported cars, and starting in May, car parts. Some car parts, like door hinges, fall under both the car parts tariff and the aluminum tariff. In this case, an importer would not only have to pay a duty on the value of the aluminum in the part, but also an additional tariff on the value of the entire product.
Because this item is subject to the aluminum and car parts tariffs, it is exempted from the China-specific reciprocal tariff.
On the other end of the cost spectrum are books. Ninety-three percent of the nearly $600 million in children’s books that the United States imports each year comes from China. Children’s books typically enter the United States duty free.
“Informational materials” are one of the very few classes of goods that are exempt from new tariffs on China this year.
Do you have a business that relies on Chinese suppliers? Tell us how the tariffs are affecting you.
The New York Times wants to talk to business owners about President Trump’s imposition of additional tariffs on imports from China. We’ll read each questionnaire response. We will not publish any part of your response without talking with you further. We will not share your contact information outside The Times newsroom, and we will use it only to contact you.
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
Film Review: 'Warfare' is an Immersive and Intense Combat Experience – Awards Radar
-
News1 week ago
3 Are Killed in Shooting Near Fredericksburg, Va., Authorities Say
-
Health1 week ago
As RFK Jr. Champions Chronic Disease Prevention, Key Research Is Cut
-
News1 week ago
Boris Johnson Has Run-In With Feisty Ostrich During Texas Trip
-
World1 week ago
EPP boss Weber fells 'privileged' to be targeted by billboard campaign
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta got caught gaming AI benchmarks
-
World1 week ago
DR Congo repatriates three US citizens convicted over failed coup
-
News1 week ago
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Let Him Fire Agencies’ Leaders