Biden’s Antitrust Policy: Politicized and Irresponsible. Can Trump Do Better?

At the recent campaign rallies for President-elect Donald Trump’s 2024 bid, supporters carried signs proclaiming “Trump Will Fix It,” suggesting an expectation for systemic change in various areas, including antitrust policy. This comes amid ongoing concerns that the current administration, under President Joe Biden, has politicized antitrust enforcement, moving away from a standard that has historically focused on safeguarding consumer welfare. For decades, the prevailing wisdom among antitrust scholars emphasized that government intervention should primarily aim to maintain competition rather than shield businesses from competitive pressures. However, the Biden administration, particularly through the actions of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Lina Khan, has shifted this focus, raising alarms about the misuse of antitrust as a political tool.

Khan’s leadership at the FTC marks a significant departure from the accepted consumer welfare standard, with her actions suggesting a renewed focus on broader political objectives. For instance, her targeting of Elon Musk and his company, X (formerly Twitter), exemplifies the potential misuse of antitrust authority for political gain rather than genuine market protection. A House Judiciary Committee report indicates that Khan swiftly initiated investigations based on Musk’s other business ventures rather than any wrongdoing concerning X itself. Such moves not only call into question the motives behind these investigations but also signal a troubling trend where antitrust enforcement is used as a means of political retribution or influence against certain business figures.

The Biden administration’s DOJ has not been any less controversial in its antitrust tactics. For example, the suit against RealPage, a software company, to tackle alleged price gouging seemed unfounded as it did not present credible evidence of wrongdoing. Critics, including the Wall Street Journal editorial board, argued that the suit appeared more as a diversion from the administration’s struggles with inflation than a serious antitrust effort. Simultaneously, actions taken against Visa highlighted a pattern where the DOJ has overlooked the consumer benefits offered by established enterprises in a bid to align with its anti-corporate stance. These cases exemplify a troubling disregard for consumer interests, casting doubt on the administration’s commitment to genuine market competition.

The politicization of antitrust policy raises urgent calls for reform, especially if a Trump-led administration and a Republican-controlled Congress take shape. Advocates argue for a recommitment to the consumer welfare standard, emphasizing that protecting genuine competition should be the core mission of the DOJ and the FTC. Transparency is also crucial, with proposals for the FTC to provide clarity on the rationale behind its investigations and activities, ensuring that actions taken are based on legitimate economic analysis rather than political expediency. Such reforms could help restore the FTC’s credibility and its foundational purpose of protecting fair market practices.

The appointment of qualified leadership—specifically a competent Attorney General and a more balanced FTC chair—could serve as pivotal steps toward righting the course of antitrust enforcement. Ensuring that these positions are filled by individuals committed to non-partisan, evidence-based practices may alleviate current tensions and restore confidence in regulatory bodies. This approach is not just an administrative necessity but a critical step in preventing bureaucratic overreach that serves personal or ideological agendas rather than the public interest.

Ultimately, the need for realignment in antitrust policy is clear. By refocusing the FTC and the DOJ on their original missions, it is possible to embark on a new chapter of fair regulation that genuinely respects consumer rights and market competition. This vision for reform resonates with a broad swath of American businesses and consumers who yearn for a government that upholds the rule of law without succumbing to political pressures. Such changes could usher in a period of accountable governance that aligns more closely with the ideals of fairness and transparency—principles that the public and private sectors can collectively support.