On December 3, 2024, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, citing the need to eliminate “anti-state” forces and protect the nation’s constitutional order. This unprecedented move, reminiscent of South Korea’s authoritarian past, was met with swift opposition. The National Assembly convened promptly, with 190 out of 300 members present, and voted unanimously to lift the martial law declaration.

Following the parliamentary vote, President Yoon announced his intention to honor the legislature’s decision and lift martial law. He indicated that he attempted to assemble the cabinet to formalize this action but faced delays due to the early morning hours. President Yoon assured the public that he would proceed with lifting martial law as soon as the minimum required number of cabinet members could be gathered.

This series of events has intensified political tensions in South Korea, drawing criticism from both opposition parties and members of President Yoon’s conservative People Power Party.

Special counsel Jack Smith has formally requested a federal judge to dismiss the election interference case against Donald Trump following his victory in the 2024 presidential election. In court documents filed Monday, Smith argued that the Justice Department’s longstanding policy prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president, citing constitutional immunity.

Trump, who was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States and other offenses related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, pleaded not guilty earlier this year.

Smith’s filing states:

“As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant, Donald J. Trump, will be inaugurated as President on January 20, 2025. It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States Constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting President.”

He clarified that the dismissal request is not a reflection on the merits of the case:

“This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”

Trump’s spokesperson Steven Cheung hailed the request as a “major victory for the rule of law.”

“The American People re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again,” said Cheung. “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”

The dismissal request adds to the legal complexities surrounding Trump’s return to the White House. Sentencing in Trump’s New York criminal case has been delayed indefinitely, and another federal case involving classified documents is also expected to face dismissal under the same immunity principles.

Smith’s decision to seek dismissal underscores the constitutional challenges of prosecuting a sitting president. It also raises questions about the future of federal cases involving Trump and the broader implications of presidential immunity on accountability and the justice system.

Google has reacted strongly to reports that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) may propose forcing the tech giant to sell its Chrome browser as part of antitrust remedies. The DOJ is expected to present its final recommendations to a judge this week in response to an August ruling that deemed Google a monopoly in online search.

Bloomberg reported the DOJ might also push for new restrictions on Google’s artificial intelligence (AI), Android operating system, and data usage practices. In a statement, Google executive Lee-Anne Mulholland criticized the proposal, saying, “The DOJ continues to push a radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case.”

Mulholland warned that such measures would harm consumers, developers, and U.S. technological leadership at a critical time for innovation.

Chrome is the dominant web browser worldwide, commanding 64.61% of the global market as of October, according to Similarweb. Google’s search engine, with an estimated 90% global market share, benefits significantly from being the default search option in Chrome and other browsers, such as Safari on iPhones.

Judge Amit Mehta previously described default search engine agreements as “extremely valuable real estate” for Google, noting that competitors would need to spend billions to secure similar deals.

The DOJ has hinted at potentially breaking up Google to address concerns over its ability to leverage products like Chrome, the Play Store, and Android to maintain its search monopoly. Final proposals are expected to include remedies aimed at limiting Google’s dominance across multiple platforms.

Google remains firm in its opposition, maintaining that the proposed measures would negatively impact users and innovation. The outcome of the DOJ’s recommendations will shape the future of antitrust enforcement in the tech industry.