The Justice Department has maintained its position that Google must break up its business, following a federal judge's ruling last year that the company illegally abused its monopoly in the search industry. In a new filing, the DOJ restated that Google will need to sell its Chrome browser, a proposal first made by the previous administration.

When arguing for Chrome's sale last year, the Justice Department said it would "permanently stop Google's control of this critical search access point" and give rival search engines access to what is for many users "a gateway to the internet." The filing also keeps the proposal to ban Google from paying companies like Apple and Mozilla to make its search engine the default on phones and browsers.

The DOJ did remove a previous proposal that would have forced Google to sell its stakes in AI startups. This change came after Anthropic told the government it needs Google's funding to continue operating. Instead, the government wants to require Google to notify federal and state officials before making AI investments.

Google is expected to file its own proposal for alternative remedies. In December, the company argued that the Justice Department's original remedies went "overboard" and reflected an "interventionist agenda" that exceeded the scope of the court's decision about Google's distribution agreements with partners.

Google suggested allowing it to continue paying partners like Apple and Mozilla to offer Google Search, while permitting these partners to form agreements with other companies across different platforms. Under this proposal, Apple could offer different default search engines for iPhones and iPads, and browser companies could change default search engines every 12 months.

The Justice Department's filing may show how the Trump administration will handle antitrust cases involving tech companies. Despite tech leaders supporting the new President and his policies, the approach appears to remain strict on big tech. Google has:

• Donated to the Trump campaign last year
• Recently halted efforts to hire employees from diverse backgrounds
• Stated it was "no longer set hiring targets to improve representation in its workforce"

Judge Amit Mehta, who originally ruled that Google "acted as a monopolist to maintain its monopoly," will hear both the government's and the company's proposed remedies. He will decide on the final solutions for the case in April.

The Google case unfolds as global regulators strengthen oversight of tech giants. China just announced fiscal and monetary stimulus measures targeting 5% GDP growth while addressing US trade tensions. This regulatory divergence shows different approaches to big tech and economic challenges across major economies.