Responses
The Chamber has assembled a range of preeminent experts in the field of antitrust from across a wide political spectrum to offer timely views on key questions of antitrust law and policy. This group brings together senior enforcers spanning seven administrations, from both the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. The experts have decades of experience counseling clients and include leading economists and academics. They may not all agree on all policy matters, but they all share a common belief in the importance of competition in the marketplace.
Current Prompt:
Total Reponses*: 18
- No (11)
- Yes (4)
- Other (3)
*Responses are anonymized views of individual members of the expert group
"NO" responses
“No. Antitrust enforcement at the federal level has become much more political and is no longer based on applying the facts and the law to prevent conduct and acquisitions that lessen competition and harm customers.”
“No, antitrust enforcement has been uncertain and erratic, leaving businesses guessing as to whether a transaction or conduct could trigger scrutiny while some transaction escape scrutiny all together.”
“No. 100 days in, we still have little power of prediction on where the Trump 2.0 antitrust agencies will go with top-line issues that matter the most to consumers (e.g., food, housing, healthcare). There is a non-trivial risk that the agencies will more freely exercise "prosecutorial discretion" in bringing and resolving cases, increasing the risk of weaponization in a critical area of law enforcement. Finally, the House Judiciary Committee’s GOP budget reconciliation promises to effectively eliminate the FTC, with no clarity as to how its powers will be preserved if transferred to the DOJ. This is a triple whammy of uncertainty and chaos for American consumers, workers, and businesses--at the worst possible time."
“No, I am not satisfied. Ideally the federal enforcers should clearly endorse a return to the bipartisan consumer welfare standard that existed from the early 1990s to 2020. Appropriate actions should then flow from such a pronouncement.”
“No. Antitrust enforcement, commentary and initiatives remain too politicized.”
“No. Current enforcement policy is moving in a positive direction relative to the Biden administration’s misguided and politically-driven enforcement. However, recent statements about certain enforcement priorities go beyond the consumer welfare standard and seem mainly aimed at furthering specific political initiatives (e.g., speech moderation and DEI).”
“No. Democrats and Republicans alike have reduced their focus on consumers and are spending much of their energy on things that the press and politicians care about. It grabs headlines for the enforcers but does little for the average person. However, one bright spot is the effort to identify anticompetitive regulations.”
“No. Over the span of my career, antitrust made steady, bipartisan progress toward the policy ideals of transparency, fairness, and a coherent legal/economic framework that promoted competitive markets to the benefit of consumers and the economy. In recent years, enforcement regimes from both parties have undermined that progress with policies that too often promote ideology over analysis and politics over the rule of law.”
“No. Why? There’s too much uncertainty at the moment. There are some initial signs that review of mergers are becoming more timely (and e.t. is really back yeah!) but there are also a lot of questions about how merger enforcement is working. On the conduct side, the focus on big tech seems to be at the expense of any other enforcement, which is not ideal.”
“No. ‘Why’ can be answered from several perspectives, including substantively and politically. This is a challenging time.”
“No or at least not really, at least outside of the courts (though even there some decisions by Obama/Biden judges have been among the worst in the 135 year history of the federal antitrust laws). The current Administration seems committed to continuing the direction of the last Administration in the guise of “hillbilly populism” I guess. It is early days; nonetheless, the initial signals are that they are pursuing political objectives with virtually no regard for sound economic analysis or the impact on consumer welfare. It is back to the bad old days of antitrust before the 1980s – they’re making antitrust grotesque again!”
"YES" responses
“Yes. The courts are generally in the right place. And while I wouldn’t have adopted all of the new Administration’s antitrust actions, they’re generally headed in the right direction, and I would give them time to implement a sensible agenda.”
“Yes, unless politics overshadows or infects enforcement.”
"OTHER" responses
“It's hard to answer this prompt because it's difficult to know what the current state and direction of antitrust is. The Biden Administration spent four years trying to move antitrust in a radically different direction. We will not know for years or decades to come whether it succeeded. It's too early to tell what Trump 2.0 antitrust will look like. Some of the early signs have me concerned that this administration will try to outdo the Biden Administration in perceived antitrust aggressivity. That is not a productive way to run the railroad. One major issue to track is whether this administration will reverse the prior administration's obstinacy on settlements. Another is whether they will use antitrust law politically and vindictively against Big Tech for reasons unrelated to competition. I hope not.”
"Yes and no. Yes, because I think, on balance, it’s a good thing that the courts and the agencies are working through the right amount of antitrust scrutiny for anticompetitive deals and anticompetitive conduct. On balance, we should end up in a good place. No because I think that the agencies, particularly the FTC, were too rigidly ideological and not focused on practical goals during the Biden administration. And now the agencies—especially the FTC, which is still an independent agency as far as current law is concerned—seem to be deferring way too much to the White House."
“Antitrust continues to take a populist turn. It’s not the same populist turn as we saw in the last administration. Thus far, it has only been populist with regard to rhetoric. Let’s see case selection.”
Meet the panel
Disclaimer
*Responses to the prompt are solely the anonymized views of individual members of the expert group. The opinions expressed should not be associated with policy positions of the U.S. Chamber, nor should the opinions be attributed to any individual in the group or to any law firm, client, organization, or affiliation an expert may have. The chamber has provided biographical information of each expert simply to illustrate the extensive experience and thought leadership positions that each has held during his or her career. For any reason (E.G., to avoid a conflict of interest) an individual expert might elect not to participate in the response to a particular question.
