America
US considers breaking up Google
A proposal to break up Alphabet-owned Google is one of the options being considered by the Justice Department following a landmark court ruling that the company has monopolised the online search market.
According to Bloomberg, the move would be Washington’s first attempt to break up a company for illegal monopolisation since the failed attempt to break up Microsoft two decades ago.
Less serious options include forcing Google to share more data with rivals and measures to prevent it from gaining an unfair advantage in artificial intelligence products, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private talks.
Alphabet’s shares fell 3.8% as of 10:13 a.m. in New York yesterday, the biggest drop since August 5, when a federal judge ruled the company had an illegal monopoly in the search market.
Android and Chrome could be divested if there is no fragmentation
Regardless, the government is almost certain to seek a ban on the specific types of contracts at the heart of its case against Google.
If the Justice Department insists on a break-up plan, the units most likely to be divested are the Android operating system and Google’s Chrome web browser, officials said.
Officials are also considering forcing a possible sale of the AdWords platform, which the company uses to sell text ads.
Google has said it will appeal the 5 August ruling, but Mehta ordered both sides to begin planning for the second phase of the case, which will include the government’s proposals to restore competition, including a possible motion to dismiss.
The US plan will have to be accepted by Mehta, who will order the company to comply with it. A forced break-up of Google would be the largest break-up of a US company since the break-up of AT&T in the 1980s.
Justice Department lawyers advising companies affected by Google’s practices have expressed concern in interviews that the company’s dominance in search gives it an advantage in developing artificial intelligence technology.
As part of the solution, the government may try to stop the company from forcing websites to allow their content to be used for some of Google’s artificial intelligence products in order to appear in search results.
Google to sign consent decrees for Gmail and Play Store
Divestment of the Android operating system, which is used on some 2.5 billion devices worldwide, is one of the most frequently discussed remedies by Justice Department lawyers. In his ruling, Mehta found that Google requires device makers to sign agreements to provide access to its applications, such as Gmail and the Google Play Store.
These agreements also require Google’s search widget and Chrome browser to be permanently installed on devices, effectively preventing other search engines from competing.
Mehta’s ruling follows a December jury verdict in California that found the company had monopolised the distribution of Android apps. The judge in that case has not yet ruled.
The Federal Trade Commission, which also enforces antitrust laws, filed a brief in the case this week, saying in a statement that Google should not be allowed to “reap the rewards of unlawful monopolisation”.
Google has paid companies up to $26 billion to make its search engine the default on devices and web browsers, including $20 billion to Apple.
Google’s huge advertising revenues also in the crosshairs
Mehta’s ruling also revealed that Google has a monopoly on so-called search text ads, which appear at the top of search results pages to attract users to websites.
These ads are sold through Google Ads, which was renamed AdWords in 2018, and allows marketers to run ads for specific search terms related to their business.
According to testimony at last year’s hearing, about two-thirds of Google’s total revenue comes from search advertising, and will exceed $100 billion by 2020.
If the Justice Department does not require Google to sell AdWords, it may require interoperability requirements that would allow it to run smoothly on other search engines, the people said.
Google could be forced to share more data
Another option would be to require Google to transfer or licence its data to competitors such as Microsoft’s Bing or DuckDuckGo.
According to Mehta, Google’s contracts not only ensure that the search engine receives the most user data (16 times more than its nearest competitor), but this influx of data also prevents its rivals from improving their search results and competing effectively.
Recently introduced digital gatekeeping rules in Europe imposed a similar requirement on Google to make some of its data available to third party search engines. The company has publicly stated that sharing data could raise privacy concerns for users, so it only provides information on searches that meet certain thresholds.
Requiring monopolists to give competitors some access to technology has been a remedy in previous cases. In the first case brought by the Justice Department against AT&T in 1956, the company was required to grant royalty-free licences to its patents.
In the antitrust case against Microsoft, the settlement required the technology giant to make some of its applications, called application programming interfaces or APIs, available to third parties for free.
APIs are used to enable software programs to communicate and exchange data effectively.
Google uses data to develop artificial intelligence
For years, websites have given Google’s web crawler access to ensure they appear in the company’s search results. But recently, some of that data has been used to help Google improve its artificial intelligence.
Last autumn, Google created a tool that allows websites to block scraping for AI, after companies complained.
But this opt-out doesn’t apply to everything. In May, Google announced that some searches will now come with ‘AI overviews’, narrative answers that save people the trouble of clicking through various links. The AI-powered panel appears below queries and provides summarised information from Google search results across the web.
Google does not allow website publishers to opt out of appearing in AI Overviews because it is a ‘feature’ of search, not a separate product. Sites can opt out of Google’s use of snippets, but this applies to both search and AI Overviews.
A snippet is a piece of source code that does not work on its own, but is used as a shortcut in code.
America
Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports
The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.
According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.
In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.
As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.
Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.
Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.
On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.
These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.
Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.
CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.
That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.
A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.
Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.
The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.
White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.
The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.
During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.
In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.
The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.
America
Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races
A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.
These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.
According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.
The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.
Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.
Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.
Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:
“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”
The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.
Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.
The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.
Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.
More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.
The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.
According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.
Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.
The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.
America
Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives
Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.
The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.
Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.
Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.
I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.
— Jacob Coxon (@hilbertspaess) September 9, 2026
“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”
In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.
Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.
Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.
Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.
Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.
Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.
In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.
Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.
“They are gambling with our lives”
Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.
However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.
Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.
Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.
On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.
It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.
Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.
A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.
Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.
-
Europe5 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Europe1 week agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
