Antitrust Concerns Escalate Under Trump Administration

The Trump administration’s approach to antitrust enforcement is facing increasing criticism from current and former officials, raising questions about corporate influence and a potential weakening of anti-monopoly efforts. Recent events have sparked a debate over the agency’s commitment to holding powerful companies accountable.

DOJ Official Defends Agency Amidst Criticism

Omeed Assefi, the Justice Department’s acting antitrust chief, recently addressed these concerns, referencing the film The Godfather with the quote, “It’s not personal, Sonny, it’s strictly business.” At a George Washington University event, Assefi asserted that the agency is actively pursuing cases against corporate misconduct while remaining open to negotiation for optimal outcomes.

Internal Disputes and Departures

Assefi’s defense comes after months of complaints regarding potential influence from corporate lobbyists and lenient settlements. Last summer, two deputies to former antitrust chief Gail Slater were dismissed for “insubordination,” with one later alleging “perversion of justice” within the Department. Slater herself abruptly left the agency in February, following reports of being sidelined on key decisions.

Controversial Settlement with Live Nation-Ticketmaster

The agency’s settlement with Live Nation-Ticketmaster in February drew particular criticism, described by industry players as “baffling.” This decision followed reports, detailed by The Wall Street Journal, of behind-the-scenes dealings involving Trump administration officials and lobbyists like Mike Davis, who publicly celebrated Slater’s departure.

Former Officials Voice Skepticism

At the American Bar Association’s annual Antitrust Spring Meeting, a sense of disillusionment prevailed. Former enforcers expressed concerns about creeping corporate influence and a rollback of enforcement efforts. Roger Alford, a former deputy to Slater, likened Assefi to the corrupt police chief Captain Renault in Casablanca, accusing him of feigning surprise at the suggestion of political interference.

Doubts About Commitment to Enforcement

Alford stated, “And essentially what we have now is disingenuous claims that we are shocked, shocked at any suggestion that there’s politics in antitrust enforcement at the federal level.” Former Federal Trade Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya echoed these doubts, questioning whether the administration was ever genuinely committed to aggressive antitrust enforcement.

State Attorneys General May Fill the Void

With the federal government’s commitment in question, state attorneys general are increasingly seen as a potential check on corporate power. While six states settled alongside the DOJ in the Live Nation case, 34 states, including 13 led by Republican attorneys general, chose to continue litigating. Several state AGs are also pursuing cases the federal government has declined to take on.

Challenges and Resource Constraints

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser emphasized the importance of state enforcement, stating, “Right now, we are seeing states and state attorneys general as a check on lawlessness and corruption at the federal level that we haven’t seen since Watergate.” However, Weiser acknowledged the resource constraints faced by states, suggesting Congress allocate additional funds to support their efforts.

Federal Officials Defend Actions

Despite the criticism, Assefi and FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson defended their actions, dismissing concerns about undue influence as “typical politics.” Assefi praised the states’ role in enforcement but maintained that the DOJ’s settlement with Live Nation was a significant achievement. Ferguson asserted that lobbying does not affect his decision-making.