tag

A US judge Thursday declined to block President Donald Trump ‌from proceeding with construction of a $400mn White House ballroom to replace the demolished East Wing, finding ​that a challenge from preservationists did not ‌meet the high bar for a preliminary injunction that would halt the project for now. US ‌District Judge Richard Leon's ⁠ruling came in a lawsuit ‌by the National Trust for Historic Preservation aiming ‌to stop construction until the White House complies with federal law and rules including congressional authorisation. The National Trust had sought ⁠a preliminary injunction to freeze the work on the ballroom, planned to be 90,000sq ft (8,360sq m), while the private nonprofit group's lawsuit proceeds.The Trump administration has argued that the project is consistent with established presidential renovation practices and serves the public interest.Leon, in his ruling, said he could not issue an injunction based on the specific arguments the National Trust made, but he said the group could amend its complaint to reassert its claims that Trump is acting beyond his authority."Unfortunately, because both sides initially focused on the President's constitutional authority to ​destruct and construct the East Wing of the White House, Plaintiff didn't bring the necessary cause of action to test the statutory authority the President claims is the basis to do this construction project without the blessing of Congress and with private funds," ‌Leon wrote in his ruling.Trump in a post ⁠on his Truth Social ​platform called the decision "Great news for America, and our wonderful White House!" He said the ballroom "will ​stand long into the future as a symbol to the Greatness of America!"The National Trust did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The National Trust sued Trump and several federal agencies in December, arguing that the project moved ahead unlawfully without required approvals, environmental review or authorisation by Congress.Trump's demolition of the East Wing building, a part of the White House complex originally built in 1902 during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency and greatly expanded in 1942 during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, was carried out in October. Construction equipment tore down the structure, which had housed the first lady's offices, a theatre and a visitors' entrance that welcomed foreign dignitaries.The ballroom project is one of several major changes Trump has made to the White House since returning to office ‌in January 2025. Trump has added gold accents ‌throughout the Oval Office and converted the Rose ⁠Garden lawn into a paved patio resembling one at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.The National Trust argued that federal ⁠law bars construction on federal parkland in Washington ⁠without the express authority of Congress. It also argued the National Park Service violated federal law by issuing an environmental assessment instead of a full impact statement, and by releasing it after demolition had begun. "No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else," the lawsuit said.The administration has defended the legality of the project, arguing it follows in a long line of presidential ​renovations. It said in a court filing that the ballroom is needed for state functions, its design is still evolving and above-ground construction is not planned until April, making an injunction unnecessary. Last week, the US Commission of Fine Arts approved Trump’s ballroom proposal. The panel, whose commissioners were appointed by Trump in January, advanced the project on a unanimous 6-0 vote.Trump's swift demolition of the East Wing drew scorn from preservationists and other critics, who saw the project as an extension of the Republican president's claims of expansive presidential powers. Trump has defended the project, asserting in a post on his Truth Social platform that his use of private donations for the project means "ZERO taxpayer funding." Trump called the planned ‌ballroom a "desperately needed space."No firm ​completion date has been given but the White House said it will be "long before the end" of Trump's term. 

When a US federal judge ruled in late November that Meta does not maintain an illegal monopoly in social media, it was a reminder that even the strongest evidence can look weak when enforcers act too late. Rejecting the US Federal Trade Commission’s narrow market definition, the court instead concluded that Meta, formerly known as Facebook, competes against a broad array of rivals such as TikTok and YouTube. While legal scholars can and will dissect the opinion, the biggest takeaway is that timing matters in dynamic markets, implying that antitrust authorities must develop a preventive approach, rather than relying solely on reactive measures. The case centred on Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, when both were unmistakably competitive threats. Facebook said so itselfBut the case collapsed under the weight of today’s market reality. Instead of considering the world as it existed when the mergers occurred, the court (incorrectly) cited the rise of TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube Shorts as evidence that Facebook lacked monopoly power. The flaws in the court’s reasoning reflect a deeper problem with litigating consummated mergers: it asks judges to travel back in time and forget what they now know. Questions like “Would Instagram have become this significant without Facebook’s investment?” or “What competition might have emerged if the acquisitions had not taken place?” are inherently counterfactual. It is very difficult to measure the impact of competition that never existed. This suggests that the acquisitions should have been challenged when they were first proposed – a difficult task, but not as hard as challenging consummated deals. Predicting the future is less formidable than reconstructing the present on the basis of an imaginary past. The flaws of late enforcement were also on display in the Google antitrust trial. Even as a US federal judge ruled in 2024 that Google had illegally monopolised general-search services, the remedy was softened by the perception that AI chatbots were already reshaping the market. Even the boldest proposed remedies centred less on restoring competition in search and more on ensuring that the next tech frontier remains open. Regulators should have prevented Facebook from acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp in the first place, but erred on the side of caution, fearing false positives and believing that the market would self-correct. But that decision has proved impossible to unwind, even though Facebook’s acquisition of direct competitors in a competitive market should have been a straightforward win for antitrust authorities – the very kind of textbook harm the law is designed to prevent. To their credit, the FTC and the department of justice under former US president Joe Biden had begun to develop and use their preventive toolkit. They challenged several mergers (including Nvidia-Arm, Illumina-GRAIL, and Microsoft-Activision Blizzard), examined practices in nascent industries such as AI partnerships, and launched early probes into emerging monopolies in the cloud computing and semiconductor markets. But the pendulum has swung back under Donald Trump’s second administration, which has pursued merger settlements, dialled back investigations into AI giants, and revived the myth that tech firms are the guardians of innovation and national security. It doesn’t have to be this way. US antitrust regulators now have stronger merger guidelines and a clearer understanding of how digital markets work. What they need is the political will to act early and decisively. The same applies to other governments. The most consequential tech mergers are reviewed simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions, and regulators in the European Union and the UK also have powerful preventive tools, including merger review and market studies. Even just initiating an investigation can create enough friction and uncertainty for parties to abandon a deal, as happened with Nvidia-Arm and Visa-Plaid. But the global scramble to attract AI investment has pushed competition enforcement into retreat. Amid increasing geopolitical turbulence, regulators are forgetting the hard-earned lessons of the platform era and pulling back precisely when they should be applying those lessons to block anti-competitive AI mergers and prevent the emergence of AI monopolies. The result is a classic collective-action problem, even though all it takes is one courageous competition authority to block a global deal and change the trajectory of an entire market. The Meta decision can seem like much ado about nothing: one case that was too difficult to win despite overwhelming evidence. But viewed in a broader context, it becomes clear that timing makes all the difference in antitrust enforcement. Regulators must learn to flex their preventive muscle to have any hope of taming Big Tech. - Project Syndicate 

Alphabet Inc shares are suddenly unshackled after a long-awaited antitrust ruling removed a key risk that’s weighed on the stock for months.The decision by a US district court judge on Tuesday enabled Google’s parent to avoid the most punitive measures sought by regulators, including the sale of its Chrome browser. That sent the stock up nearly 11% over the past three days, including Friday’s 0.7% advance. The climb has put it within striking distance of a $3tn market value. With the case now out of the way, investors are turning their attention back to the potential for gains in Alphabet’s stock, which is the cheapest among the Magnificent Seven despite the recent rally.“What it does is it clears the runway for additional growth opportunities,” said Neville Javeri, senior fund manager at Allspring Global Investments, referring to the ruling. He sees an “incredible opportunity” in the stock as the decision “sets them up for a growth opportunity that might have been taken away.”The ruling caps a strong stretch for Alphabet shares that began after its second-quarter earnings showed demand for artificial intelligence products is lifting sales. At the same time, its AI offerings continue to boost investor confidence in Alphabet’s ability to fend off competition from rivals like OpenAI.The stock has gained more than 20% since the July 23 earnings report, vaulting Alphabet into the top third of performers in the Nasdaq 100 Index this year, after months of struggles amid concerns about antitrust risks and fears that AI upstarts could eat away at its Google search business, which accounts for more than half of revenue. As recently as June, Alphabet shares were down more than 10% while the Nasdaq 100 was in positive territory.Though the debate over AI is unlikely to be settled anytime soon, Wall Street is increasingly confident Alphabet can defend its turf. It debuted AI functions that were widely praised earlier this year, and the latest version of its Pixel phones, which come loaded with AI features, were also well received. Sales of handsets from both Alphabet and Samsung Electronics indicate consumers are willing to switch to devices that use Google’s Android operating system.“Given new AI Search features and GOOG’s rapidly scaling Gemini app, we expect Google will maintain its leadership in traditional search,” TD Cowen analyst John Blackledge wrote in a note to clients on Wednesday.With a market capitalisation of $2.83tn, Alphabet is roughly 6% shy of the $3tn mark, a level that’s only been reached by Apple Inc, Microsoft Corp, and Nvidia Corp.Closing that gap may not be much of a stretch. Alphabet trades around 21 times estimated earnings, compared with 26 times for the Nasdaq 100, and its revenues are expected to grow 14% this year, outpacing the benchmark.“The stock still looks attractive, since it has so many high-quality businesses growing at fast rates,” said Liam McGarrity, US investment analyst at Harris Oakmark, which has Alphabet as its largest holding.Despite the improving sentiment, Alphabet’s momentum could be difficult to sustain in the near term. The stock’s 14-day relative strength index jumped above 84, its highest since 2017 and well above 70, the level where technical traders consider a security overbought. The shares are trading slightly above with average analyst price target, suggesting Wall Street doesn’t see much upside from here.Investors “understandably are relieved that near-term risks are dissipated,” but “long-term concerns about competitive risks to search will constrain the multiple,” Rosenblatt Securities analyst Barton Crockett wrote in a note to clients Wednesday, reiterating his neutral rating on the stock.For McGarrity, owning Alphabet comes down to believing in its ability to stay ahead of AI rivals and maintain growth.“When you consider it is cheaper than the market even though it has industry-leading AI and significant potential in businesses like Google Cloud and Waymo, then it seems like it is trading at a significant discount,” he said.