Democrats and certain media outlets critical of Trump have claimed that his independent team is letting go of the “Maga Antitrust” agenda, pointing to some lukewarm merger approvals that faced opposition from appointees and staff in Biden’s administration.
The accusations suggest that the “Maga Antitrust” initiative has morphed into something that primarily benefits Trump’s allies while sidelining his opponents. For example, one analysis argues that the current administration’s approach mirrors that of George W. Bush, suggesting the original promises of a populist agenda have unraveled.
Since Trump assumed office, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice, particularly the antitrust division, have celebrated notable successes against major tech and censorship conglomerates. Under FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, there has been significant scrutiny on Meta, and expanded investigations into Microsoft have been initiated, alongside anti-trust probes concerning media and advertising collusion. Ferguson has also taken a firm stance against ESG conspiracies as part of their anti-trust efforts.
However, critics from the Democratic side contend that the “Maga Antitrust” is not effectively addressing these issues, suggesting instead that it perpetuates the same failed anti-business strategies seen under Biden’s FTC Chair, Lina Khan. They have raised concerns that the Trump Justice Department has resolved or abandoned anti-trust actions concerning several mergers, including those involving UnitedHealth and Amedisys, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), and American Express Global Business Travel.
It’s not surprising that Trump’s anti-trust team is revisiting these cases, especially since Ferguson has previously committed to halting what he termed “Lina Khan’s Merger War.” Slater, another key figure, has rejected both Bush and Biden-era anti-trust policies.
Some of the cases being dropped or resolved were pretty clear-cut. Notably, even more progressive bodies in Europe and the UK consented to similar mergers, signaling a more lenient approach toward companies like HPE, which holds a much smaller market share compared to giants like Cisco.
Additionally, there were national security factors that prompted the Justice Department to act. Reports indicate that U.S. intelligence agencies influenced the decision concerning the merger, arguing its progression was essential to countering competition from China.
Nonetheless, some politicians, including Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, have expressed outrage, claiming procedural violations involving a lobbyist connected to the White House. Subsequent letters from House Democrats criticized the legitimacy of these actions based on non-issues like social media posts.
Unfortunately for them, the Tunney Act mandates that judges must consider the public interest when assessing merger agreements, meaning superficial procedural complaints aren’t likely to hold weight.
A true “Maga Antitrust,” as Ferguson suggests, focuses on combating big tech’s censorship and radical left agendas—an initiative the Trump anti-trust team appears to effectively pursue.
