WASHINGTON — The promise of antitrust reform from the Trump administration has crumbled, revealing a policy landscape that favors corporate mergers and undermines consumer protection.
The second Trump term has seen a rollback of federal regulatory autonomy, with a surge in merger approvals and weakening of consumer protection agencies.
- Claims of Trump’s commitment to antitrust reform, fueled by early campaign rhetoric and commentary from figures like Matt Stoller, proved to be false.
- Six months into the administration, consumer protection, corporate oversight, and labor laws have faced significant challenges.
- Federal regulatory autonomy has been eroded through court rulings, executive orders, and captured regulators, diminishing their power to curb corporate influence.
- Merger approvals have become commonplace, often contingent on companies demonstrating “racist and sexist” policies or aligning with administration initiatives.
- Agencies like the FTC and FCC have seen their consumer protection efforts weakened, with the FTC facing politically motivated investigations and the FCC stripping broadband protections and media consolidation limits.
Has the Trump administration delivered on its antitrust reform promises? No, the reality of the second Trump term has been a significant setback for consumer protection and corporate oversight.
The Populist Illusion
Leading up to the last Presidential Election, a narrative circulated that a second Trump term would bring serious antitrust reform. This claim, amplified by some in the press and by commentators like Matt Stoller, suggested a continuation or expansion of the antitrust legacy of former FTC boss Lina Khan. The evidence cited was largely Trump’s public criticism of tech giants like Google and Meta. However, this critique appeared to stem from a desire to influence content moderation policies on platforms concerning right-wing propaganda and disinformation, rather than a genuine interest in curbing corporate power.
Despite this thin evidence, many news outlets, particularly those focused on Washington D.C. insider circles, published articles suggesting the Republican party was serious about antitrust. These stories, often appearing over-credulous, falsely promoted a second Trump term as beneficial to the average person.
However, the reality after six months has been starkly different, marked by a downturn for consumer protection, corporate oversight, labor law, and regulatory independence. Activist efforts against media consolidation and monopoly power have also faced setbacks.
Regulatory Autonomy Undermined
A significant factor has been the erosion of federal regulatory autonomy. Through a combination of court rulings, executive orders, and the influence of captured regulators, agencies have seen their independence hollowed out. Landmark Supreme Court decisions have further limited the authority of U.S. regulators, stripping them of their ability to make expertise-driven decisions to rein in corporate power.
The current administration has been approving mergers at a rapid pace. Approvals often come when companies demonstrably engage in discriminatory practices or align with the administration’s agenda, including attacks on American journalism and the First Amendment. Meanwhile, agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are reportedly occupied with politically charged initiatives, including anti-trans harassment and investigations driven by political motives. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also been criticized for stripping away consumer protection enforcement for broadband and dismantling limits on media consolidation.
Even a recent report highlighted the disconnect between headlines and the actual substance of the administration’s actions on antitrust. One article, for instance, suggested a nuanced picture of the FTC’s actions, noting settlements in multibillion-dollar deals and the dismissal of a previous administration’s lawsuit. However, the same report acknowledged that the current FTC leadership avoids traditional “trustbuster” language, framing dealmaking as “fuel for the fires of innovation.”
“Yet nearly six months in, a more nuanced picture is emerging. Ferguson’s FTC reached settlements in several multibillion dollar megadeals and dismissed one Biden-era lawsuit altogether. He has acknowledged harm from mergers, but eschews the language of a traditional trustbuster, saying dealmaking can be “fuel for the fires of innovation.”
The only perceived continuation of Lina Khan’s antitrust efforts lies in the administration’s decision not to immediately terminate ongoing antitrust cases against tech giants like Meta and Google. This inaction, however, is seen not as a commitment to curbing corporate power, but as a strategic move to maintain leverage over companies that control online information flow.
Expert Opinions and Reality
The narrative that the current administration cares about unchecked corporate power persists in some media circles. A prominent example is a recent article that presented a headline suggesting a commitment to antitrust, yet the article’s content revealed a more complex and less favorable reality for consumers. As the article stated, the current FTC leadership has reached settlements in several multibillion-dollar deals and dismissed one lawsuit from the previous administration, while acknowledging merger harms but eschewing traditional trustbuster language.
Lina Khan’s tenure at the FTC, despite its challenges, represented a significant push for antitrust enforcement in decades. Yet, she faced considerable backlash from the press, centrist Democrats, billionaires, and Republicans.
The idea that authoritarian figures genuinely support common Americans is a fallacy. The Trump administration’s approach is seen by critics as a hollow performance, a farcical imitation of populism that fails to benefit the working and middle classes, who have long suffered from corruption and unchecked corporate power.
Even influential figures like Matt Stoller, who was positioned as a leading political thinker in a 2023 publication, initially suggested that Trump’s FTC appointments, such as Gail Slater, the advisor to JD Vance, signaled a positive direction for corporate oversight. Stoller had stated that Trump’s picks indicated a desire to confront Big Tech and continue aspects of an anti-monopoly revival.
“This is a very powerful statement that Trump wants to take on Big Tech,” wrote Matt Stoller of Trump’s pick of Slater in a post on X. Stoller, who runs an anti-monopoly podcast and is a fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project, added in his newsletter, “while it won’t be like Joe Biden’s, it seems [Trump] is going to continue some significant parts of the anti-monopoly revival.“
Since then, the administration has taken actions such as the alleged illegal firing of two Democratic FTC Commissioners. The FTC has also reportedly remained passive as crucial policies, like making service cancellations easier and the FTC’s ban on restrictive non-compete clauses, have been dismantled. Furthermore, the FCC and Department of Justice have approved numerous mergers, often when companies demonstrate a willingness to adopt discriminatory practices or display unwavering loyalty to the current leadership.
While there may be genuine populists within the administration, their influence is reportedly overshadowed by pervasive corruption and incompetence, hindering any substantial achievements. Even internal dissent, such as DOJ staffers reportedly expressing annoyance over approving mergers, highlights a potential disconnect between ideals and actions.
The warnings about the direction of this administration were clear. The second Trump term has been characterized as a chaotic spectacle that has actively dismantled corporate oversight, labor laws, and environmental protections. The consequences, according to critics, are severe, leading to widespread suffering and harm.
Filed Under: andrew ferguson, antitrust, authoritarian, bloomberg, consolidation, ftc, lina khan, matt stoller, mergers, monopoly
<br/></p>