Antitrust Enforcement to Survive Through States, Private Parties

Further diminishing hopes of economic populism during President Donald Trump’s second term, the White House ousted Department of Justice antitrust chief Gail Slater last month. She had at least rhetorically represented a continuation of the antitrust renaissance that began in the Biden years. But neither the abruptness nor significance of her dismissal should be overstated. For the past year, the Trump administration has shown practically no interest in trustbusting.

Yet not all is lost. The executive branch is only one of several players involved in US antitrust enforcement. The others—state attorneys general, consumers, workers, and independent businesses—will continue the fight against the abuse of corporate power.

Slater’s departure was the culmination of a year in which she was increasingly isolated in Trump’s pro-big business administration. Despite her stated intentions of enforcing anti-merger and anti-monopoly laws against major corporations, she had few accomplishments on the job.

Whereas the Biden administration’s DOJ had a policy of suing to stop problematic consolidations outright, Slater reverted to the previous practice of allowing harmful mergers but seeking to “fix” them through divestitures of business assets or imposition of duties of fair dealing. For instance, she permitted major mergers between UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Amedisys Inc. and power generation companies Constellation and Calpine in exchange for such remedies. Slater also accepted a weak settlement in the case against RealPage Inc., the software company accused of facilitating large-scale collusion among landlords across the country.

The opaque procedural nature and subjective legal standards of contemporary antitrust have created a rich mine of favors for the Trump administration to dispense on favored businesses. Slater’s termination reportedly stemmed from her refusal to settle the antitrust suit against Live Nation Entertainment Inc.-Ticketmaster, which the Biden administration had filed in May 2024, a few weeks before the trial’s opening on March 2. On Monday, the DOJ announced a mid-trial settlement with the company.

Her division’s one notable effort to stop a merger, the tie-up between Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. and Juniper Networks Inc., was reversed by higher-ups in the administration. The DOJ even fired two of her deputies who insisted on trying to block this merger in court. One of the dismissed officials, Roger Alford, described a “new normal” in which cases are “being resolved based on political connections, not the legal merits.”

Politicized antitrust precedes Trump, whose administration has merely supercharged it. For instance, the Obama DOJ abandoned the legal challenge to the American Airlines-US Airways merger in 2013 after a furious lobbying effort by the airlines and their allies, including then-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

The record of the DOJ’s antitrust partner, the Federal Trade Commission under Chairman Andrew Ferguson, reveals the Trump administration’s priorities. In September 2025, the FTC quietly stopped defending the previous commission’s non-compete clause rule, which prohibited these contractual provisions for nearly all workers. It also terminated a lawsuit against PepsiCo Inc. for granting improper concessions to Walmart Inc. at the expense of rivals of the retailing giant. Like the DOJ, the FTC has returned to the pre-Biden practice of accepting remedies for harmful mergers, and Ferguson said he views M&A as generally beneficial for the public.

Despite the Trump administration’s retreat from antitrust enforcement, others are still pursuing it with vigor. Thirty-nine states and Washington, DC, joined the federal antitrust suit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. On the day of Slater’s firing, California’s antitrust chief said, “We look forward to going to trial on March 2 against Live Nation.” Following Monday’s announced federal settlement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said that the deal “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case” and indicated that at least 25 states and the District of Columbia would continue with the trial.

In another indication that many states don’t intend to follow the feds, a group of 20 state attorneys general have asked a federal court to pop open the hood on the shady settlement in Hewlett Packard Enterprise-Juniper. Multiple states independently sued RealPage and continue to pursue the company in court. In January, Michigan’s attorney general filed a sweeping suit against the oil majors for collusively attempting to stifle green energy.

Beyond enforcement, state legislatures are also reforming their respective antitrust statutes. For example, California is considering a significant strengthening of its antitrust laws, and several other states have enacted prohibitions or restrictions on non-compete clauses and limited the use of algorithmic price-fixing tools.

Private parties, whether consumers, workers, or businesses, also are enforcing antitrust laws with zeal. In recent years, private parties accounted for more than 95% of civil antitrust cases filed in federal court. In February, a rival to Medtronic Inc. obtained a $382 million damages award, persuading a California jury that the medical device giant engaged in unfair competitive practices.

Over the past year, the Trump administration has signaled that it isn’t interested in trust busting. Slater’s ouster was a formality confirming this disinterest. The awesome power of large corporations remains a threat to consumers, workers, businesses, and citizens. Fortunately, states and the private plaintiffs’ bar have continued the antitrust campaign in earnest.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Sandeep Vaheesan is legal director at the Open Markets Institute.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines