Google revealed that assassinated Turning Point USA (TPUSA) founder Charlie Kirk was the top trending search on its engine for 2025.

Google announced that Kirk beat out other search queries such as Democratic mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani of New York City, the Netflix film “K-Pop Demon Hunters,” the iPhone 17 and the 43-day fall government shutdown. Authorities arrested Tyler Robinson, 22, early in the morning of Sept. 12, accusing him of fatally shooting Kirk during a TPUSA event at Utah Valley University two days earlier.

Kirk’s assassination was the third-most searched item for when it came to news, according to Google’s Year in Search 2025 report. It drew more searches than the wildfires that tore through the Los Angeles area in January, the selection of the new pope by the Roman Catholic Church, the Jeffey Epstein files, President Donald Trump’s inauguration for his second term, and the tariffs Trump imposed in April.

Kirk was also the top search when it came to those who passed away, ranking ahead of notable people like actors Michelle Trachtenberg, Val Kilmer, Gene Hackman and Diane Keaton, wrestler Hulk Hogan, Pope Francis and Food Network host Anne Burrell.

Kirk’s widow, Erika, who succeeded her late husband as CEO of the conservative student group, ranked fourth in trends for people, beating out Pope Leo XIV, Cleveland Browns quarterback Shedeur Sanders, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and ABC late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel. Robinson, the TPUSA founder’s alleged assassin, ranked second among trending people on Google in 2025. (Read more from “Top Trending Google Search Of 2025 Revealed” HERE)

Google has found a new way to police the speech of its users: scolding them for typing factual terms into its search bar.

After a Justice Department lawsuit resulted in Texas ending in-state tuition for illegal aliens at state universities, I used Google to look up more details about the case. In response to the search “texas scholarships for illegal aliens,” the search engine’s AI overview slapped a patronizing warning at the top of the page, scolding me that “the term ‘illegal alien’ is considered pejorative and offensive.”

“It is more accurate and respectful to use terms like ‘undocumented students’ or ‘immigrant students,’” the note continued.

But a term like “immigrant students” is far less accurate, because the lawsuit applied only to immigrants who are in the United States illegally, not immigrants on student visas or green card holders.

I reached out to Google asking if it was company policy to scold users for the words they type into the search bar and pressure them to self-censor, and a Google representative emailed back but did not provide a response to my question. Nor would she point to any inaccuracy in the term, or explain why the search engine recommended a less accurate term. (Read more from “Look How The Google Speech Police Scold Me For Searching The Term ‘Illegal Alien’” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

On Monday, Google faced a significant legal setback as U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled that the tech giant violated U.S. antitrust laws through its search business. This ruling marks a notable moment in the ongoing scrutiny of Big Tech companies, highlighting the clash between corporate power and regulatory oversight.

Judge Mehta’s decision is rooted in the assertion that Google has behaved as a “monopolist,” leveraging its dominant position in the search engine market to suppress competition. Specifically, Mehta condemned Google for using exclusive contracts to ensure its search engine was the default option for major browsers like Apple’s Safari and Mozilla’s Firefox. “After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta stated, emphasizing that Google’s practices violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The ruling follows a high-profile lawsuit filed last January by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and several state attorneys general. They accused Google of monopolizing various digital advertising technologies, thereby violating both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland underscored the gravity of the allegations, asserting that Google’s actions aimed to “eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies.”

Financially, Google has reportedly invested billions to secure its dominant position. Notably, it paid Apple approximately $18 billion in 2021 alone to remain the default search engine on Safari. Critics argue that such expenditures are a clear attempt to stifle competition and entrench its market position. During the trial, Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai defended the company, asserting that Google’s dominance was a result of providing superior services to consumers. In contrast, Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella criticized Google’s practices, describing them as creating an “oligopolistic” relationship with Apple.

The DOJ’s complaint also accused Google of maintaining a protected monopoly over its advertising space within its search engine. Allegations included raising ad prices beyond what is deemed reasonable in a free market, which supposedly reflects Google’s excessive market power. The claim highlights a broader concern that Google’s market practices may be undermining fair competition and inflating costs for advertisers and consumers alike.

This ruling is significant as it represents the first major antitrust case involving a tech company in over two decades. The outcome could set a precedent that influences other legal challenges facing tech giants such as Apple, Amazon, and Meta. While Judge Mehta has yet to determine the specific consequences for Google, the potential ramifications could be profound, impacting not just Google’s operations but also shaping the regulatory landscape for the tech industry at large. (Read more from “Google Hit Hard as Judge Finds Violation of U.S. Antitrust Laws” HERE)