Google wants employees to focus on their work and not fret about the company's loss of "parts of" its online advertising monopoly case, it said in a memo to employees Thursday.

Why it matters: The court's ruling, which Google said it would appeal, could fundamentally reshape the giant's advertising business, depending on the remedies, or penalties, the judge determines.

• Advertising represents the vast majority of Google's revenue. It fuels the company's ability to invest in new technologies, like AI and cloud servers.

Zoom in: In a note to staff, Google VP of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said it's important for employees to"continue to focus on our users and customers by building amazing products that help people around the world."

• Google, she noted, plans to appeal the ruling, arguing it "incorrectly suggests a company like ours has a legal obligation to do business with competitors."
• "This is contrary to past Supreme Court decisions," she asserted.

Between the lines: Mulholland also sought to clarify the outcome of the case by noting that the court delivered a mixed ruling.

• "It rejected key parts of the DOJ's case," she said. "The court found our advertiser tools don't harm competition and our acquisitions of DoubleClick and AdMeld were not anticompetitive. But it agreed with the DOJ's claims about one of our publisher tools. In other words, we won half, lost the other half."

Go deeper: Here's the full text of Google's memo:

Today, a U.S. district court issued a mixed decision in our advertising technology case with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). We asked Lee-Anne Mulholland, VP of Regulatory Affairs, for her thoughts.

Give us an overview of the court's decision today. The court delivered a mixed ruling in the DOJ's lawsuit focused on some of our ad tech. It rejected key parts of the DOJ's case: The court found our advertiser tools don't harm competition and our acquisitions of DoubleClick and AdMeld were not anticompetitive. But it agreed with the DOJ's claims about one of our publisher tools. In other words, we won half, lost the other half.

For those unfamiliar, what's the focus of this case? This case is focused on the tools we provide to advertisers and publishers for third-party display advertising on the web. While these tools are valuable for those customers, they represent a narrow part of our advertising business — separate from Search and YouTube ads. Specifically, it looked at whether some of our advertising technology — tools that connect advertisers (like retailers) and ad sellers (typically website owners) — violated antitrust law; as well as whether our acquisitions in this space were anticompetitive.

What are the next steps? On this case, there is a ways to go; this is definitely not the final word. We will next go to trial to decide the remedies in this case, and then we will appeal the decision. We believe we're strongly positioned to appeal based on established Supreme Court precedent, the facts of our case, and the findings of the court today:

• The ruling doesn't align with how the Supreme Court has previously viewed multi-sided markets like ours, which involve advertisers, publishers, platforms, and users.
• The ruling incorrectly suggests a company like ours has a legal obligation to do business with competitors. This is contrary to past Supreme Court decisions.
• The court recognized that our advertising tools operate in a competitive market, alongside major players in social media and beyond.
• The ruling found that our acquisitions in this space (DoubleClick and Admeld) did not harm competition.
• Publishers have tons of options and they choose Google because our tools are simple, affordable, and effective.

Is there anything else you want Googlers to know? There's been a lot of interest by regulators in our ad tech products around the world for many, many years so this scrutiny isn't new! We've long invested in ad tech because it goes back to our mission of making information universally accessible and useful. Ad tech helps online publishers, content creators, and bloggers make money—which in turn keeps the internet free and open to use for all of us.

We're deeply committed to providing solutions to a wide array of publishers and advertisers in a highly competitive sector. The Regulatory Affairs team will keep working to challenge this case through the appeals process. It's important for Googlers to continue to focus on our users and customers by building amazing products that help people around the world.

Former top Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot "was asked to resign," a Defense Department official said in an emailed statement on Thursday evening.

Why it matters: Despite this announcement, Ullyot maintains he offered his resignation, telling Axios late Thursday that "DoD officials who hide behind anonymous statements clearly resent that they did not have the access or relationship to Secretary [Pete] Hegseth that I enjoyed under President Trump's leadership."

• He added in his emailed statement: "Their sour-grapes anonymous spin is as inaccurate as it is laughable." Representatives for the Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment in the evening on his statement.
• Ullyot's resignation comes during a staffing overhaul at the Pentagon that saw three politically appointed senior aides to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth placed on administrative leave during in an investigation into Defense Department leaks.

The big picture: Politico first reported on Wednesday that Ullyot would leave the Pentagon on Friday and AP first reported on Thursday's announcement and the former Pentagon press secretary's denial that he was asked to resign.

• Ullyot oversaw responses to outrage at the Defense Department's removal — and subsequent restoration — of webpages related to baseball and civil rights legend Jackie Robinson and the Navajo Code Talkers as part of a Trump administration crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
• The Marine veteran also held senior roles in the first Trump administration and served in a top communications role during the president's 2016 campaign.

Read former top Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot's resignation letter that he shared with AP, via DocumentCloud:

Editor's note: This article has been updated with comment from former Pentagon press secretary John Ullyot and further context.

• President Donald Trump hinted at a potential trade deal with China amid ongoing tariff tensions.
• The trade war has escalated tariffs on China up to 245%, affecting US-China economic relations.
• China and the US are seeking new global trade partners to strengthen their positions.

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he expects an agreement "over the next three to four weeks" that would end the escalating trade war with China.

"I believe we're going to have a deal with China," said Trump during an executive order signing session in the Oval Office alongside Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. "I think we have plenty of time."

There was no immediate confirmation from Beijing on whether a deal is likely to happen. And Trump dodged questions on whether China's leader, Xi Jinping, made the overture to end the tariffs battle.

This is the first time since Trump increased tariffs on China — up to 245% — that the possibility of a deal has appeared on the horizon.

"It's a game between China and the US in terms of who's going to blink first," Nick Vyas, the founding director of USC Marshall's Randall R. Kendrick Global Supply Chain Institute, told Business Insider before Trump's Thursday remarks. "China feels that they have all the cards to continue to hold out, and President Trump feels that he has power, because we consume more from China than China consumes from us."

"Both of these cases are true, and one has to just wait and watch and see which reality will end up shaping up in the end," he added.

China's upper hand? Its system of government

Supply chain and geopolitics experts have told Business Insider that Xi may have more time and leverage than Trump.

"Xi can make life difficult for some American tech companies and for farmers in the Midwest, but the damage to China by the US could be much worse," said Andrew Collier, a senior fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. "On the flipside, the political pressure on Trump in a democracy is likely to be much higher once people realize how bad the economy and markets are."

"China's authoritarian system is an advantage here," he added.

Vyas said that while Trump's term ends within four years, Xi is the lifetime president of China with a "long horizon."

Xi doesn't have to worry about elections or consumer sentiment, which could make this a "long, drawn-out battle," Vyas added.

Vyas also noted that China has dominance in the EV market and controls 85% of the capacity to process rare earth minerals, which would impact the US's defense capacities and AI ambitions if China completely cuts off that supply.

A history of trade conflict

Trump has a history of raising tariffs on China in attempts to reduce the US trade deficit and bring back manufacturing jobs.

In 2017, his administration began investigating China's trade practices and, in 2018, imposed a 25% tariff on certain Chinese exports, such as electronics and auto parts.

In February this year, Trump targeted China with tariffs twice, resulting in 20% in duties on China by the end of the month. On April 2, Trump again hit China with 34% tariffs. After China responded with tariffs on US exports, he then hiked this figure to 125%, then 145%, and now up to 245% according to a White House document.

China has announced a 125% counter-tariff on US goods by April 11 and halted exports of rare earth elements critical to US defense industries.

Previous efforts to reduce trade deficits with China have yielded limited results. In 2024, the trade deficit was about $295 billion, lower than $375 billion in 2017 but still more than double the total amount of US exports to China in a year.

Both the US and China are courting other countries

With the US taking a harder stance on global trade, Ilaria Mazzocco, senior fellow in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told BI that China is seeing "a diplomatic opportunity" to launch "a charm offensive."

"Conversations between the EU and China seem to have taken a softer tone," said Mazzocco. "There's hope on Beijing's side that by showing they are a more status quo, stable, reliable trading and global partner, countries are going to feel reassured, and it's going to improve its foreign relations, like with the EU, where there's been a lot of tension."

After meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez in Beijing last week, Xi embarked on a tour across Southeast Asia to sign deals on infrastructure and trade. Xi's stop in Malaysia led to deals on AI, rail connectivity, and the export of coconuts.

EU leaders are also planning to travel to Beijing for a late July summit with Xi, which Mazzocco says could be a chance for China to acknowledge it has a structural issue of overproduction and make commitments to address it.

However, Mazzocco added, it is unlikely Southeast Asian countries will replace the US with China as a trading partner, because China doesn't have a strong enough internal demand from consumers to absorb imports from overseas.

The US is also in talks with leaders of the EU. At the White House on Thursday, Trump told Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni that a deal between the EU and US would "100%" be reached "at a certain point."

Mazzocco points out that unpredictability of Trump's policies may be harmful for striking a deal, and runs the risk of having US allies quietly pull back the alliance in the long run.

"We seem to understand that part of the goal is to extract concessions from trading partners, and those concessions may be economic or defense related, but the unpredictability is unhelpful." said Mazzocco. "This is really dangerous because it could really undermine business sentiment globally, and could also in the long term incentivize US trading partners to be a little less reliant on the US, diplomatically and on trade."

Sen. Chris Van Hollen met with Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, a Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, per social media posts by the Maryland Democrat.

Why it matters: Van Hollen said he was twice denied requests to visit Ábrego García at the high-security Salvadoran prison for terrorists where the legal U.S. resident is being held as the Trump administration evades courts' orders to facilitate his release, despite conceding that he was deported in an "administrative error."

• The Trump administration has repeated unsubstantiated claims that Ábrego García is a member of the Mara Salvatrucha gang, commonly known as MS-13.
• Ábrego García has never been convicted of being a member, and the claim appears to have come from an anonymous tip that was never proven.

Driving the news: "I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar. Tonight I had that chance," Van Hollen said in posts to his social media accounts.

• I have called his wife, Jennifer [Vasquez Sura], to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return.
• Representatives for the White House and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment in the evening.

The intrigue: It was not immediately clear why the government of El Salvador changed its mind and allowed Van Hollen to meet with Ábrego García.

• Before Van Hollen posted his photo with Ábrego García on his social media accounts, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele posted photos on X of the pair meeting.
• "Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the "death camps" & "torture", now sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!" Bukele posted on X. "I love chess," he wrote in another post.
• Bukele also reposted supportive posts from conservative supporters and pinned one, writing, "Now that he's been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador's custody."

Now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody 🇺🇸🤝🏼🇸🇻 https://t.co/2xVt4SNOGn

— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) April 18, 2025

What they're saying: Vasquez Sura said in an emailed statement Thursday night that her family's prayers had been answered as she thanked Van Hollen for the visit.

• "The efforts of my family and community in fighting for justice are beng heard, because I now know that my husband is alive," she said. "God is listening, and the community is standing strong."

The other side: "Chris Van Hollen has firmly established Democrats as the party whose top priority is the welfare of an illegal alien MS-13 terrorist," said Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, in a statement emailed Thursday night.

• "It is truly disgusting. President Trump will continue to stand on the side of law-abiding Americans."

Context: Ábrego García has had no communication with anyone outside Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) since he was "illegally abducted," the senator previously said at a press conference.

• "This ability to communicate with his lawyers is in violation of international law," Van Hollen said, adding that El Salvador is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Catch up quick: The Trump administration is resisting the court's orders to return Ábrego García from El Salvador, despite conceding that he was deported in an "administrative error.

• The Supreme Court said last week that the U.S. must "facilitate" his release.
• The Justice Department is also arguing in legal filings that courts don't have the power to dictate specific steps to the executive branch. So, effectively, no one can initiate this process.

Zoom out: Ábrego García's wife defended him Wednesday after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security posted on X a temporary protective order she filed against him in 2021.

• Vasquez Sura said in a statement that she "acted out of caution after a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a civil protective order" after "surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship."
• "Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process."

The Department of Homeland Security posted on X on Wednesday the protective order Vasquez Sura filed in 2021.

• "According to court filings, Garcia's wife sought a domestic violence restraining order against him, claiming he punched, scratched, and ripped off her shirt, among other harm," officials wrote in the post.

Editor's note: This a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

The Trump administration must work to return a wrongly deported Maryland man, a federal appeals court said Thursday, rejecting a request to block a lower court's order requiring his return.

The big picture: The administration is resisting court orders to return Kilmar Armando Ábrego García from a notorious Salvadorian prison, despite conceding that the legal U.S. resident was deported in an "administrative error."

• The U.S. government has accused Ábrego García, a Salvadorian national legally living in Maryland, of being a member of the MS-13 gang. He has not been charged with gang-related crimes.

Driving the news: The unanimous ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' decisions outlining the next steps for Ábrego García's return.

• "The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order," the ruling said.
• "While we fully respect the Executive's robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court's recent decision," the order states.

Context: Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had asked the appeals court to temporarily halt enforcement of a lower court's orders requiring Ábrego García's return.

• The Trump administration has argued that courts don't have the power to dictate specific steps to the executive branch — so, effectively, no one can initiate the process to return Ábrego García.
• The Supreme Court ruled last week that the U.S. must "facilitate" his release. But the Trump administration argued that simply means if El Salvador asks to send him back, the U.S. has to help.
• "'Facilitate' is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear," the appeals court said.
• El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said he can't return Ábrego García to the U.S., nor will he release him within El Salvador.

Zoom in: "The federal courts do not have the authority to press-gang the President or his agents into taking any particular act of diplomacy," the government argued in its filing to the appeals court.

• Rather, they argued, the courts only have the authority to order the executive branch to "facilitate" a return.
• "As that term has long been understood and applied, that means the Executive must remove any domestic barriers to the alien's return; it does not, and constitutionally cannot, involve a directive to take any act upon a foreign nation," the filing said.

More from Axios:

• Timeline: The case of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador
• Senator again denied entry to El Salvador prison to visit mistakenly deported man
• Judge in deportation case threatens Trump admin with contempt of court
• Mistakenly deported man will be removed from U.S. if he manages to return: DOJ

• Ivan Leong won a $1 million lottery when he was 23.
• After years of working in insurance, he quit to open a Cantonese roast pork eatery.
• Now, he's rethinking his choice of laboring behind a hot oven and working 11-hour days.

Ivan Leong, 37, used to work as an insurance agent — a job with crisp button-ups, perfume, coffee chats, and flexible schedules. Ten years later, as he slices up juicy pork in his own Cantonese roast pork stall, he said his life is a far cry from what it once was.

Leong started out as an administrative assistant at a recruitment firm, a job he described as "stagnant." One day in 2013, his colleagues persuaded him to join them in buying lottery tickets.

The lottery ticket he bought with 10 Singapore dollars won him SG$1 million. The windfall gave him the confidence to quit his job, and he gave his one-month notice shortly after.

His first order of business was buying a government-subsidized apartment with his fiancé. Even with the lottery money, buying a condominium or private property was out of the question, he said, as was retiring early.

"Honestly, one million is never enough, especially in Singapore," Leong said. The tiny Southeast Asian island is one of the world's most expensive cities.

After trying his hand at selling insurance products for a couple of years, Leong felt he wanted to be his own boss.

"In Singapore, if you start an F&B business, you can be a boss straight away. It's the fastest way," he said with a laugh.

He said he loved cooking as a kid, particularly during Lunar New Year. To get back into it, he cut his teeth at his friend's roast pork shop in Singapore's Ang Mo Kio neighborhood.

In 2018, he and his wife opened their own roast pork, or char siu, shop in Bukit Merah, a residential area in the south of Singapore. Over the next few years, he would close his original outlet and open two others — one in Woodlands and another in Ang Mo Kio, both of which are residential districts.

Now, he spends 11 to 12 hours behind the counter every day. Feeding a hungry lunch crowd means reaching his stall at 7 a.m., and he rarely leaves before 6 p.m.

The roast pork in question

Some key things set Leong's roast pork apart.

He said he had always found char siu in other restaurants laden with food coloring. He also did not like that customers could not choose the type of meat they wanted.

For him, good char siu means roasting the meat for up to two hours in a charcoal oven instead of the regular 45 minutes. He also lets patrons choose between three different types of pork: fatty, lean, or half-fat.

For Leong, an average day involves earning around SG$1,500 from each outlet. That means selling five slabs of roast pork, 60-80 strips of char siu, and about seven whole chickens.

When I visited his stall, I ordered the SG$8 "trio" dish to sample all three types of meat. The dish consisted of chicken and two types of pork over fragrant rice, with fresh cucumbers and a bowl of hot soup.

The crackling pork skin was super crispy, balanced out by the tender meat under it.

The char siu was tender and coated with a sticky glaze, which paired well with the fragrant rice. The third meat, the roasted chicken, was light. The quantity was generous — I ended up taking most of it away in a doggy bag.

The most surprising part of the dish was the clear soup. It was salty, warm, and comforting, with boiled slices of vegetables at the bottom.

Some of Leong's regulars told me his char siu is unlike those they've had before.

Eddie Soh, 36, said he's been eating at Leong's stall weekly since 2019. He said Leong "raised the bar" for char siu.

Soh, an IT product manager, added that Leong's roast pork has become a staple in his Lunar New Year reunion dinners. He said he sometimes buys "as much as 2kg of char siu and 2kg of roast pork" for his family.

Andrew Ong, a 49-year-old officer with the Singapore Armed Forces, said he found Leong's stall last year and has been having it about three times a week since.

Ong said the sides — the rice and jammy eggs, which deviate from the usual hard-boiled eggs served with char siu — are just as good as the meat.

It's not just regulars who rave about it — Sethlui.com, a prominent local food publication, said in a July review of Char Siu Lang that the pork was "caramelized to perfection."

The endgame is to get out of the kitchen

In Singapore, small hawker stalls like Leong's are known to serve world-class fare, including some that have been included in the Michelin Guide.

But many hawkers say the work is difficult, and the chance of failure in Singapore's competitive F&B business is high.

For Leong, trading corporate life for days sweating in front of a charcoal oven was tough. He had to adapt everything from his time-management skills to his physical appearance.

"When I was doing financial advisory, I dressed up, used perfume, and wore all the brands. But in the shop, I just wear whatever is comfortable, maybe a pair of shorts, my company T-shirt, and I need to wear safety boots," he said.

The insurance job also allowed for more flexibility, where he could just "push the appointment, change the timings" for client meetings. But reaching his stall at 7 a.m. daily is a schedule that requires discipline.

When I asked him about the future of the business, Leong immediately answered, "My endgame is to sell the business to big organizations."

He said he doesn't think he can sustain the long work hours in the long term.

But a return to a corporate job is off the table, he said. He wants to explore new business ventures and not have to answer to anyone.

"I would love to not only spend my time in the store," Leong said. "I really need to take a step back because I really feel like I spend too much time in this business."

• Carrie Kirby, now 51, is married but opted to celebrate turning 50 with a girls-only trip to Utah.
• They went canyoneering and horseback riding — two things her husband has no interest in.
• Having traveled with her husband for three decades, she now sees the benefits of taking separate trips.

As newlyweds in our 20s, my husband and I backpacked from Beijing to Paris, spending 14 weeks riding trains, buses, and boats. We were good travel partners. But as we've grown older, our travel desires have diverged: I itch for more adventure, while he prefers vacations spent reading and sketching.

For my 50th birthday, instead of coaxing my husband to join me on a hiking trip to a national park, I invited our 20-year-old daughter, who loves active adventures as much as I do. We also brought along a family friend — who, like me, left her husband behind.

The three of us headed to Utah to explore Zion and Bryce Canyon national parks. Along the way, I sent my artistic husband plenty of photos of the red cliffs against the blue sky.

He would have hated it all

When we won the permit lottery to hike up Zion's 1,488-foot rock formation, Angels Landing, I knew going with the girls had been the right choice — my husband has always been scared of heights. With narrow paths and sheer drop-offs, Angels Landing is considered one of the most terrifying hikes in America.

The four-hour trek to Angels Landing begins with Walter's Wiggles, a series of strenuous switchbacks. Once we entered the formation's upper section, we scrambled over rocks and tiptoed down paths only a few feet wide. The river snaking through the canyon below looked like the view from an airplane.

I have to admit I was a little shaky when I came to the short sections with no chains to clutch. My husband wouldn't have been scared at all — because he'd have turned back miles earlier.

We also signed up for another of my husband's most hated activities: horseback riding. We descended into the Bryce Canyon on mules and ponies, hoping they wouldn't lose their footing as we enjoyed intimate views of the park's famous hoodoos.

We went canyoneering as well, donning harnesses and helmets to rappel into otherwise inaccessible slot canyons. Stepping backward off a cliff edge to walk our way down, "Spider-Man" style was a lot of fun for us girls. For my husband? Canyoneering would have been another huge nope.

Breaking routines and learning new skills

During our adventures, the girls and I laughed and told stories nonstop. Although I love my husband, my spirit basked in the pause from everyday squabbles and responsibilities. Had he been there, I'd have put a full dinner on the table nightly. But with just us girls, we ate hummus straight from the container for dinner when we felt like it.

I married at 24 and have been a wife for more than half my life. One thing that happens when you couple young is specialization. When we travel together, my husband does most of the driving. On this trip and a few others, I've been able to improve my driving skills, although I still need to learn to change a tire on my own.

Now that our three kids are teens or young adults, my husband and I are discovering what great travel companions they are — each one shares different interests with us, including some we don't share with each other.

Last month, my husband took the two younger kids to visit our oldest in her college town for a hockey game — something that would've bored me to tears, but they all loved it.

Traveling separately has not only let us each pursue what we truly enjoy without guilt, but it's also practical: I'm self-employed with flexible time, while he has limited vacation, and with two kids still in high school, solo trips let one of us travel during the school year without leaving them alone.

It has strengthened our relationship

When friends and family find out one of us isn't coming on a trip, they often ask "Why?" I'm sure some worry that our separate wanderings mean we're headed for divorce.

In reality, our his-and-her trips have been a relationship boon. After 27 years of going through the same daily schedules together, we don't usually have a lot to say that the other hasn't heard before. Travel gives us new stories to share.

The night my daughter and I got home from our Utah adventure, my husband had a hot meal on the table and was excited to sit down and view photos.

"You have got to see this!" I found myself saying as we shared the view of Zion's towering walls. I told him how good the icy Virgin River water felt on our bare feet near The Narrows, and he said he'd love to experience that.

And maybe next time, we'll travel together. We could sign up for a bike tour — his favorite active pursuit — and skip the steep hikes.

Do you have a story to share about celebrating your 50th birthday? Contact the editor at [email protected].