> whose authority to make that "official" only extends to a single branch of a single level of government.
Yes, and Google has huge contracts with the government, meaning they must adhere to their rules if they want to keep those contracts.
> whose authority to make that "official" only extends to a single branch of a single level of government.
Yes, and Google has huge contracts with the government, meaning they must adhere to their rules if they want to keep those contracts.
What rules? There are no laws that would require Google or other private entities (or for that matter the overwhelming majority of government organizations) to use any absurd name that the president came up with instead of the actual names. Obviously they feel coerced or are just generally into boot licking but its the opposite of “rules”.
> What rules?
The terms of the legal contract they both would have signed.
Companies generally don't get to do business with the US Government without following their strict rules.
By "strict rules" are you referring to the actual laws that govern the structure of federal contractor relationships, or are you talking about arbitrary provisions that executive branch officials attempt to include in contracts without reference to those laws?
Both. But these "arbitrary provisions" are extremely common in business contracts, and not inherently illegal unless it's asking you to break a law... but a judge can still enforce the terms if one side is not cooperating.