The Trump Administration’s Antitrust Era Comes to an End

“It’s not personal, Sonny, it’s strictly business.”

This iconic line from The Godfather was echoed last Monday by the acting antitrust chief, Omeed Assefi, during a speech at George Washington University. Co-hosted with an outlet, Assefi emphasized the Justice Department’s commitment to tackling corporate misconduct while remaining open to reasonable negotiations for optimal outcomes.

His remarks seemed to address ongoing concerns that the agency was yielding to corporate lobbyists and settling for weak agreements. Last summer, two of Assefi’s top deputies were dismissed for what the agency termed “insubordination,” with one later alleging that officials had “perverted justice.” In February, Assefi’s predecessor, Gail Slater, left the agency amid claims she was sidelined on critical decisions, which the DOJ denied. Shortly after, the agency’s settlement with Live Nation-Ticketmaster raised eyebrows across the industry. Just days before Assefi’s speech, a detailed report surfaced, revealing behind-the-scenes interactions between the Trump administration and lobbyists, including reactions from figures like Mike Davis, who expressed relief at Slater’s departure. The DOJ has refuted any allegations of improper conduct.

Assefi reassured attendees that his team was focused on serving the American public, stating their mission was to relentlessly hold wrongdoers accountable. He quoted Hyman Roth from The Godfather Part II: “this is the business we’ve chosen.”

However, skepticism looms large in the antitrust community. As lawyers gathered in D.C. for the American Bar Association’s annual Antitrust Spring Meeting, many felt disillusioned about the administration’s commitment to anti-monopoly efforts. Former enforcers voiced concerns about increasing corporate influence and a decline in enforcement rigor. While Assefi and others defended their stance, former allies questioned the seriousness of their commitment to the law.

At a later event, Roger Alford, a former deputy under Slater, likened Assefi to Captain Louis Renault from Casablanca, suggesting he was feigning surprise at the political influences in antitrust enforcement. “What we have now is disingenuous claims that we are shocked at any suggestion that there’s politics in antitrust enforcement at the federal level,” Alford remarked.

The pressing question now is whether anyone has the resources to step up in the face of these challenges. As Trump’s second term begins in 2025, a fragile coalition of bipartisan populist antitrust enforcement remains. During the Spring Meeting, Slater shared a stage with figures from both sides of the aisle, but the administration’s actions were already alienating potential allies. The DOJ and FTC had restricted leaders from attending the meeting, believing the ABA was aligned with Democrats, and the administration had weakened federal regulatory agencies, raising doubts about their effectiveness.

Freed from the administration’s constraints, both Slater and Alford made appearances at the Spring Meeting, with Slater receiving applause during her surprise keynote. Alford humorously referenced his legal troubles stemming from his outspoken views on the DOJ.

While some individuals and a significant number of Republican state AGs remain committed to pursuing major monopoly cases, former allies are shaken by recent settlements. Alford suggested that the DOJ and FTC might not engage in serious antitrust enforcement for the next three years, with the exception of Big Tech cases where lobbyists on both sides might balance each other out. These cases could involve appeals related to Google and Meta, as well as ongoing cases against Amazon and Apple.

After the event, Alford expressed surprise at the rapid changes over the past year, noting that such a shift had never occurred in the previous administration. He believed Slater genuinely aimed to enforce the laws, leaving many shocked by the current state of affairs. When asked about the seriousness of higher-ups at the DOJ regarding aggressive antitrust enforcement, Alford was uncertain.

Former Federal Trade Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, who was dismissed by Trump, echoed this uncertainty about the administration’s commitment to tackling Big Tech and monopolies. He and Alford are now looking to state enforcers to champion aggressive antitrust actions. There’s optimism here: while six states with Republican AGs settled with the DOJ, 34 AGs, including 13 Republicans, chose to continue litigation against Live Nation. Several state AGs are also pursuing cases that federal enforcers have opted out of, such as the merger between Nexstar and Tegna. Bedoya highlighted the importance of distinguishing between the current administration’s actions and those of state-level officials.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser emphasized the abnormality and danger of the current situation, stating that states are acting as a check against federal lawlessness and corruption. He noted that they have substantial evidence of monopoly abuse, contrasting it with the perceived weakness of the settlement. Live Nation has denied the allegations and is currently defending itself in court.

Despite the states’ efforts, their resources are limited compared to the federal government’s, and as they take on more cases, they risk becoming overstretched. Weiser suggested that if the federal government won’t enforce antitrust laws, Congress should allocate funds to support state efforts. He acknowledged the challenges but expressed determination to make an impact.

At an event hosted by FGS Global and Semafor, Assefi acknowledged the role of states in antitrust enforcement, expressing hope that they could handle the cases they’re taking on. He defended the DOJ’s settlement as a significant achievement, claiming it secured more relief from Live Nation than any previous agreement.

Addressing concerns about corporate influence, Assefi dismissed the criticism as typical political discourse, asserting that lobbyists have always existed. He emphasized that meetings with lobbyists do not guarantee favorable outcomes. Ferguson, the FTC Chair, took a firmer stance, stating that lobbying does not influence his decision-making and critiqued the media’s portrayal of the situation.

The Trump administration’s “strictly business” approach appears to favor amicable negotiations over aggressive regulation. The outcome of the Live Nation trial may reveal whether this strategy is effective. If the states lose, the DOJ’s settlement could stand as the largest concession from the company, but a win for the states might expose the settlement as inadequate. The forthcoming Big Tech cases will test the resilience of corporate lobbying and the agencies’ ability to enforce the law. Meanwhile, states may find themselves questioning whether their federal counterparts are leaving the gun and taking the cannoli.