In the early stages of his presidency, Donald Trump has often shocked financial markets with his unpredictable actions. Recently, he backtracked on previous statements regarding Jay Powell, the Federal Reserve chairman, and suggested that tariffs on China—previously raised to 145 percent—might be reduced.

This behavior is typical for Trump, who is known for his spontaneous decision-making. He continues to surprise in business policy discussions, especially concerning Silicon Valley. Leading up to the election, many anticipated that he would reverse President Joe Biden’s initiatives aimed at regulating major tech companies.

Past U.S. administrations have largely ignored the dominant presence of tech giants like Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Apple in online markets. Lawmakers traditionally hesitated to enforce standard competition rules in this evolving digital landscape, which complicated efforts to prove consumer harm—typically a prerequisite for judicial intervention. Major tech firms had grown powerful either by creating entirely new markets or by offering lower prices than traditional retail competitors.

However, Biden’s administration shifted this paradigm by appointing Lina Khan as chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission. Khan had previously gained attention with her influential Yale paper, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” which provided a fresh perspective on online market competition.

Additionally, Jonathan Kanter, a lawyer aligned with Khan’s views, became head of the antitrust division at the Department of Justice. This tandem catalyzed an escalation in regulatory actions, leading to multiple lawsuits targeting these dominant firms. A significant milestone occurred last year when the Department of Justice successfully prosecuted Google, with a court ruling confirming its anti-competitive practices in maintaining its search engine dominance.

As Trump took office, both Khan and Kanter departed, and many assumed that the momentum to rein in big tech would diminish. Surprisingly, that has not been the outcome.

This week saw the commencement of proceedings concerning the remaining aspects of the Google case, specifically relating to penalties. Prior to that, the Department of Justice secured another major legal victory against Google, focusing on its commanding position in online advertising. This win prompted Kanter to publicly express his satisfaction, noting that it represented a significant achievement for antitrust enforcement and the principles of a free internet.

The detailed ruling reveals intricate insights into the lucrative and often opaque world of online advertising. While many are aware of Google’s search dominance, fewer understand its extensive control over the digital ad landscape. The judge, Leonie Brinkema, emphasized how traditional advertising practices failed to keep pace with the rapid interactions occurring in the online marketplace.

In the current digital environment, software programs have become the new leaders in advertising. Publishers quickly learned that relying on traditional ad agreements wasted valuable space, leading to the modern standard of programmatic advertising, which instantly connects advertisers with available ad slots and user profiles. This frantic matchmaking occurs millions of times per hour, often in the blink of an eye.

In this automated advertising economy, the company controlling the software gains significant market power. Google’s preeminence in search has bolstered its advertising visibility, further enhanced by strategic acquisitions. Notably, in 2008, Google purchased DoubleClick for $3.1 billion to prevent Microsoft from acquiring this key ad network. Then, in 2011, it acquired Admeld, a tech firm specializing in optimizing online ad placements.

The Department of Justice contended that Google held an unfair advantage in three critical areas: ad servers, auction exchanges, and ad networks. While Google maintained it competed fairly by delivering quality services, the court found against Google on the first two issues, ruling that its practices tied customers into using multiple services. Google has announced plans to appeal, arguing that advertisers choose its platform for the value it provides.

Regardless of the appeal’s outcome, the likelihood of Alphabet—Google’s parent company—facing significant legal repercussions is growing. The DoJ has called for drastic measures, including forcing Google to divest its Chrome browser and to dismantle agreements that establish it as the default search provider on mobile devices. Similar actions could be pursued against Meta, which faces potential regulatory actions aimed at its ownership of WhatsApp and Instagram.

Adding to this dynamic is Trump’s stance on tech regulation. Although he has expressed skepticism toward European regulatory efforts, his views on U.S. actions have varied.

In a recent interview, Trump appeared ambivalent about breaking up tech monopolies, suggesting that decisions should be case-by-case and market-dependent. Nevertheless, his tendency to intervene in critical corporate matters raises questions about the future direction of American tech regulation. For Silicon Valley, the hope for relief from regulatory pressures may hinge less on the judiciary and more on the White House’s stance.

Dominic O’Connell is a business presenter for Times Radio.