Watch out, Google: Trump should move online in his fight against left-wing bias
However, if the administration's objective is genuinely to root out institutional bias, its scope must extend beyond traditional media. Trump must also confront the digital giants — most notably, Google, whose influence over public discourse dwarfs that of any single news outlet or federal program.
Google receives substantial financial benefit from federal contracts and partnerships. It has also repeatedly faced scrutiny for partisan behavior and the suppression of conservative voices. While some argue that it is the only realistic option for search, there are alternatives that offer a more balanced experience and directly address concerns about partisan filtering.
In 2019, former Google engineer Zach Vorhies leaked more than 950 internal documents exposing ideological manipulation within the company. These documents, shared with the U.S. Department of Justice, revealed a troubling ecosystem of 'blacklists,' manual overrides and algorithmic demotions specifically targeting such right-leaning news sources as Newsmax and The Western Journal.
Public perception echoes these concerns. A Pew Research Center survey revealed that 73 percent of Americans believe social media platforms and browsers censor political views. Among Republicans, the figure rose to a staggering 90 percent.
While partisan suspicion alone is insufficient to prove systemic bias, academic research adds weight to the claim.
Robert Epstein, a behavioral psychologist with credentials from Harvard and former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, provided peer-reviewed findings to the U.S. Senate indicating that Google's search manipulation may have influenced up to 2.6 million votes in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.
Epstein's research reveals how subtle algorithmic biases in search results can profoundly influence voter behavior. In certain demographic groups, that swing can climb to an astonishing 80 percent. This influence is particularly dangerous in close elections, where even a small nudge — between 4 percent and 8 percent — could determine the winner. He emphasized that such influence operates below the threshold of awareness, undetectable by users and immune to oversight, making it one of the most powerful and least accountable forms of political persuasion in the digital age.
To be clear, Epstein had no political motive behind his findings. He was a supporter of the Clinton campaign in the 2016 election, said he has never supported a conservative candidate, and has remained center-left throughout his life.
More recent audits show the trend continues. In 2024, AllSides conducted a systematic review of Google's election-related search results and found that 65 percent were geographically mismatched. AllSides concluded that this misdirection not only limited access to localized, relevant information, it also diminished the digital presence of conservative voices.
Yet despite these troubling findings, Google's footprint within the federal government continues to grow. In July 2025, the tech giant's public-sector arm secured a Department of Defense contract worth up to $200 million for artificial intelligence services. Google also participates in the Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability initiative, a $9 billion cloud infrastructure project shared with Amazon and Microsoft.
Through the General Services Administration, Google supplies Workspace tools to numerous federal agencies under a contract projected to save $2 billion over three years. Collaborations with DARPA, NASA, and the Department of Energy further entrench Google within critical government operations.
Google isn't the only search engine available, but it still dominates the market, accounting for roughly 90 percent of global usage. That said, there are meaningful alternatives worth considering. Luxxle, for example, is a privacy-focused search engine that gives users greater control over their data and the ideological slant of the content they see. Unlike Google, it doesn't track searches, monitor user behavior, or build consumer profiles.
If the Trump administration truly aims to uphold ideological neutrality and preserve intellectual freedom, cutting off funding to biased government institutions is just the first step. The greater challenge lies in confronting powerful private entities like Google, which function as modern-day gatekeepers of public discourse.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
As America Backslides On Clean Energy, States Will Fill The Leadership Void
The federal government has ceded its leadership on climate and clean energy, but America doesn't have to. And in statehouses across the country, it isn't. A slew of federal legislation and executive action, including President Trump's big tax bill, signed into law on the Fourth of July, is dismantling the policy and economic foundation that in recent years unleashed hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment into clean technology across the U.S. It's not just a loss for the climate – it's also a blow to U.S. competitiveness in a changing global economy. It means less new power at a time of growing electricity demand, fewer manufacturing jobs on U.S. soil, and weaker footing in key strategic industries that will command the 21st century. But as much as this backsliding in Washington is regrettable, it presents an opportunity in states across the country. Having seen federal clean energy policy drive unprecedented clean energy investment nationwide, state policymakers know full well what's at stake – for the climate, yes, but also for jobs, energy affordability, and innovation. If the administration won't deliver for the nation, governors and state lawmakers should seize the opportunity for their communities, businesses, and economies. Here's how. Grid modernization America's aging electric grid is in serious need of modernization to efficiently and affordably deliver power across the economy. It's especially urgent as energy demand spikes with the growth of artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and vehicle electrification. Even states that are building new clean energy at a record pace – such as Texas, New Mexico, and Kansas – will face challenges in powering their economies without new capacity in the transmission lines that carry power over long distances. States can meet this challenge by both improving existing transmission infrastructure and making it easier to build new transmission lines. Some already have, with action in red, blue, and purple states alike – from South Carolina to Ohio to Colorado to Oregon. Policymakers should encourage utilities and other transmission line owners to modernize existing infrastructure, while also responsibly reform their permitting processes to make it easier to build new transmission lines so we can adequately meet our growing electricity needs without sending utility rates skyrocketing. Affordable clean cars The federal government hasn't merely targeted federal policies designed to support electric vehicle adoption. It has also taken aim at state policies, with Congress acting to revoke federal approval for vehicle standards adopted by California and several others under the Clean Air Act – even though these standards had wide support from businesses because they provided a clear, predictable timeline to increase clean vehicle sales and adoption. Despite the federal overreach, states still have a significant opportunity to support electric vehicle growth in the U.S. In June, 11 governors announced the launch of the Affordable Clean Cars coalition, which will collaborate across state lines on policies and investments that make it easier to own and operate electric vehicles. With their work just beginning, more states ought to join the coalition to help businesses and consumers access the cost-saving vehicles they want while bolstering a technology that will be critical to U.S. competitiveness in the coming years. California reauthorization California lawmakers face an urgent and crucial task in the coming weeks. For more than a decade, the Golden State has operated one of the nation's most important climate policies – its cap-and-trade program. It's exactly the kind of market-based policy approach that economists have long cited as the most efficient and affordable way to reduce carbon pollution, by putting a price on the vast risks of climate change, encouraging the private sector to act accordingly to reduce pollution while using the funds to invest in solutions that better serve the economy. And in California, the fourth largest economy in the world, it has worked. But with the program due to expire in 2030, uncertainty about its long-term future is making it less effective and reducing revenue by billions of dollars that could be used to invest in communities, including by taking action to protect against climate-driven threats and rising energy bills. Lawmakers must reauthorize the cap-and-trade program through 2045 before the current legislative session ends in September. Providing a clear, predictable, and market-based policy foundation will position California to continue leading the nation in climate and clean energy policy at a time when that leadership is so strongly needed.
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
From Power Of The Purse To Power Of The President
During the first six months of the Trump presidency, an assertive executive branch has wrested some budgetary power from Congress. Whether this trend continues is an open question, but it is unfolding against a backdrop of now-standard disagreement and dysfunction over how to fund the government for the coming fiscal year. The White House has capitalized on procedural ambiguities and executive tools to assert greater control over spending decisions—raising legal and constitutional questions and the stakes of future budget showdowns. To be sure, the administration has achieved notable success in advancing its fiscal agenda, including: While the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, this authority does not constitute a legislative monopoly over fiscal matters. The executive branch plays a vital role in administering appropriated funds. As I have written previously, the Trump administration appears determined to expand that role—at times in ways that raise legal concerns. They have used tactics to delay, cancel, and otherwise not spend funds provided by law. The full impact of those actions may not be clear until the current fiscal year ends and agency chief financial officers issue financial statements. Still, the persistent risk of unilateral funding decisions—and the use of arguably unlawful 'pocket rescissions'—may prompt Congress to reassert its budgetary powers as the scope of such practices becomes more apparent. Sharing Budgetary Power Through Impoundment Controls Like other legislation, appropriations bills—whether standalone measures, omnibus packages, or continuing resolutions—are considered and passed by Congress and then sent to the president for approval or veto. Once enacted, the president assumes the constitutional duty to ensure that the law is faithfully executed. The process of obligating and disbursing funds is referred to as budget execution. Much of the framework governing budget execution is rooted in the power of the purse statutes: the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Antideficiency Act. I've written previously about the 1974 Act's impoundment controls, which outline a lawful process for the president to delay or withhold spending of appropriated funds. Despite President Trump's views that impoundment controls represent an unconstitutional constraint on executive authority, those statutory procedures were followed earlier this year when the White House proposed and the Republican-led Congress enacted a rescission package aimed at reducing funding for USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Whether the executive branch will formally submit additional rescissions or resort to pocket rescissions in the final weeks of FY 2025 remains to be seen. The Other Power Of The Purse Statute Budget execution is guided by the Antideficiency Act, prohibiting federal agencies and employees from incurring financial obligations without explicit legal authorization. Dating back to 1870, the law is designed to enforce constitutional separation of powers, ensuring that Congress—not the executive branch—controls how taxpayer dollars are spent. It has been amended and reinterpreted over time. For example, at the end of the Carter administration, then–Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a pair of legal memos from the Department of Justice (DOJ) offering a narrow definition of the types of government activities that could continue during a lapse in appropriations. Along with subsequent DOJ guidance issued in 1995 clarifying the scope of emergency exceptions, the memos have served as the foundational legal framework for shutdowns. Since 1981, agencies have generally been barred from obligating funds beyond what has been appropriated or from entering into contracts before appropriations are enacted. Agencies are also prohibited from accepting voluntary services or employing staff, except for activities involving emergencies related to the safety of human life or the protection of property. Unlike the impoundment control features of the 1974 act, the Antideficiency Act includes significant administrative and criminal penalties for willful violations, ensuring a high degree of compliance. Nevertheless, as discussed in a 2024 paper by Eloise Pasachoff, different administrations have taken inconsistent and sometimes legally questionable approaches to keep parts of the government open during funding lapses. And there is no reliable way for courts, Congress, or the public to assess the legality of these decisions due to the short duration of shutdowns and a lack of transparency. Could Government Shutdown Rules Be Revisited? Before the DOJ memos, agencies generally operated under the assumption that they could remain open during temporary funding gaps, based on the belief that Congress did not intend for a government shutdown to result from routine delays in appropriations. While nonessential activities—such as hiring or discretionary travel—were curtailed, core operations typically continued. Then–Comptroller General Elmer Staats supported that approach, arguing that the Antideficiency Act was meant to prevent overspending and unauthorized commitments, not to bring government functions to a halt. In his view, congressional intent did not support a complete cessation of agency activity during short-term funding lapses. The DOJ memos effectively created the modern concept of a government shutdown by requiring agencies to halt all non-excepted operations and furlough employees during a funding hiatus, under threat of legal penalties. Notwithstanding the plain language of the Antideficiency Act, another administration could conceivably revisit the memos to reinterpret the scope of executive branch authority to guide shutdown operations and keep favored programs and policy priorities operational while shuttering activities deemed less important. Congress has made some progress on FY 2026 appropriations, but the risk of a full or partial shutdown remains. Lawmakers engaged in high-stakes budget negotiations should recognize the potential consequences of ceding discretion over government operations to President Trump—particularly given his demonstrated willingness push the boundaries of emergency powers and other executive tools. A failure to complete on-time appropriations could once again see the balance of budgetary powers swing toward the executive branch. A future shutdown might not only be a fiscal standoff but a test case for reimagining the structure—and constitutional boundaries—of shutdown governance itself.
Associated Press
a minute ago
- Associated Press
Construction on $200 million White House ballroom to begin in September
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Thursday announced that construction on a $200 million ballroom will begin in September and be ready for guests 'long before' President Donald Trump's term ends in early 2029. Trump has said for months that the White House doesn't have enough space to hold large events and he does not like the idea of hosting heads of state and other guests in tents on the lawn, as past administrations have done for the hundreds of guests who attend state dinners. The 90,000-square-foot ballroom will be built where the East Wing currently sits and hold 650 people, seated. The East Wing is home to several offices, including the first lady's, and those offices will be relocated during construction. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Republican president and other donors have committed to raising the approximately $200 million in construction costs.
