Headline

Trump Signs Order Requiring Citizenship Proof In Elections

Published

6 months ago

March 26, 2025

Editor

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday ordered tighter controls on federal elections, including requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote, as the Republican continues to attack a system he insists remains tilted against him.

Experts swiftly denounced his executive order as an abuse of presidential power that could ultimately prevent millions of Americans from casting ballots, and rights groups already have vowed to challenge it in court.

Trump, now in his second term, has never acknowledged his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, and he maintains baseless claims of massive election fraud — particularly in absentee voting, a method which has become widely used across the United States.

“Perhaps some people think I shouldn’t be complaining, because we won in a landslide” last November, Trump said as he signed the executive order in the White House.

“But we’ve got to straighten out our election. This country is so sick because of the election, the fake elections,” he said. “And we’re going to straighten it out, one way or the other.”

The new rules will require proof of citizenship to be presented — through documents such as a passport — when registering to vote in one’s state of residence. US states that fail to comply with the directive could see cuts to their federal election funding.

According to the executive order, the attorney general would be empowered to “take all necessary action… against States that violate these provisions by including absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in the final tabulation of votes.”

Several states allow absentee ballots to be counted if they arrive after Election Day, provided they are postmarked before the polls close in their state.

For law professor Richard Hasen of the University of California, Los Angeles, this “dangerous” executive order could “potentially disenfranchise millions of voters.”

On his Election Law blog, Hasen calls Trump’s directive “an executive power grab,” and notes that federal elections are largely the responsibility of the states, with Congress setting rules for the conduct of elections.

The Brennan Center, a nonprofit public policy institute, denounced the executive order, posting on X that it “would block tens of millions of American citizens from voting. Presidents have no authority to do this.”

The powerful civil liberties group ACLU also slammed the order as “an extreme abuse of power” and suggested legal challenges would be filed. “We’ll see him in court,” it said.

Voting in US federal elections by non-citizens has been a criminal offense for decades, with the law threatening fines, imprisonment and deportation.

AFP

Headline

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti Is Dead

Published

1 hour ago

September 23, 2025

Editor

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdulaziz, has died at the age of 82.

According to a statement from the Royal Court, the revered cleric passed away on Tuesday morning.

Born in Mecca in November 1943, Sheikh Abdulaziz rose to become one of the most influential religious authorities in the Kingdom.

He served as head of the General Presidency of Scholarly Research and Ifta, as well as the Supreme Council of the Muslim World League.

Headline

Antitrust Trial: US Asks Court To Break Up Google’s Ad Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year, following a similar government demand to split up its empire that was shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.

Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

“We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.

Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.

Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.

Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

AFP

Headline

Google Faces Court Battle Over Breakup Of Ad Tech Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year after the California-based tech juggernaut saw a similar government demand to split up its empire shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.
Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.
Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.
Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.
Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.