Antitrust Outlook: Competition Policy Under a Second Trump Term
By TMC Research Staff | The Milwaukee Company | tmcresearch@themilwaukeecompany.com
As Donald Trump prepares to take the White House once again, the corporate world is bracing for what could be a radical reorientation of antitrust enforcement.
Trump's return follows an ambitious yet polarizing Biden administration that set out to reshape competition policy, taking direct aim at the nation’s largest corporations, especially in the technology and financial sectors. Now, however, the outgoing administration’s legacy in antitrust—a stricter, deterrence-focused regime—may be on the verge of being redefined.
A second Trump administration will likely chart a different course, perhaps balancing deregulation with selective enforcement, thereby creating a complex and potentially uncertain landscape for U.S. businesses and global markets.
Biden’s Antitrust Legacy: From Corporate Concentration to Consumer Rights
During his tenure, President Biden embarked on a mission to tighten federal antitrust enforcement, focusing on two primary issues: corporate consolidation and consumer rights. Under the guidance of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan and Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust head Jonathan Kanter, the administration brought a high-profile case against Alphabet Inc. (the parent company of Google) for monopolistic practices and pursued Amazon for similar concerns. Biden’s DOJ and FTC worked to limit mergers that could stifle competition, adopting an enforcement approach that emphasized deterrence over compromise. In this paradigm, the threat of blocking deals became a cornerstone, signaling to industries—from tech to finance—that large-scale mergers could be halted without concessions.
The Biden administration’s stance on mergers stood in somewhat of a contrast to prior administrations, where mergers generally could proceed if companies agreed to divest certain assets or businesses. The administration aimed to halt potential monopolistic consolidations in their tracks, with the FTC recently blocking an $8.5 billion merger between Tapestry Inc. (parent company of Coach, Kate Spade, etc.) and Capri Holdings (parent company of Michael Kors, Jimmy Choo and Versace), a move widely seen as emblematic of the new merger guidelines. Additionally, Biden’s FTC aggressively pursued consumer protection, with FTC Chair Khan moving to ban noncompete agreements that restrict workers’ mobility and advocating for clearer cancellation policies for online subscriptions.
Yet, the FTC’s robust reforms were not without their opponents. Within the FTC, Republican commissioners Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak openly questioned several of Khan’s initiatives, suggesting that Biden’s aggressive stance may not survive under a Trump administration. Some critics have argued that Biden’s approach dampens economic growth and imposes an unsustainable regulatory burden on businesses. For President-elect Trump, these criticisms offer fertile ground for a deregulatory agenda that would most likely peel back key elements of Biden’s antitrust legacy while selectively retaining others.
Trump’s Antitrust Policy: A Fusion of Deregulation and Populism?
Trump’s first term set the groundwork for a somewhat distinct approach to antitrust enforcement, one that blended a traditional Republican preference for deregulation with a populist skepticism toward Big Tech. Despite his general pro-business stance, Trump’s administration launched investigations against major tech firms, including Alphabet and Meta Platforms (Facebook’s parent). This approach diverged from the laissez-faire reputation Republicans often carry in antitrust discussions, marking a notable shift in conservative policy.
Legal experts suggest that Trump’s second term could witness an “unpredictable” antitrust strategy, one that balances leniency on mergers with targeted enforcement against specific corporations. Analysts, argue that the GOP’s evolving identity as a populist movement will mean continued scrutiny of Big Tech, albeit with a selective focus. While investors might expect a loosening of antitrust restrictions, Trump’s stance on tech giants remains complicated by personal and political factors. For instance, his support base harbors significant animosity toward companies like Google, which could push Trump toward enforcing penalties against these firms while scaling back other regulatory measures.
A clear example of Trump’s complicated stance on Big Tech emerged in October 2024, when he suggested that breaking up Google may not be necessary to ensure fair competition. Instead, he proposed mechanisms that promote “fairness” within Google’s search engine ecosystem—leaving room for potential regulatory adjustments without a full breakup. Such a stance would appease populist constituents by addressing perceived tech overreach while simultaneously reducing regulatory burdens, a dual goal that might align with Trump’s deregulatory rhetoric.
A New FTC Agenda? Khan’s Fate and Trump’s Choices
Lina Khan, Biden’s FTC chair, stands as a symbol of aggressive antitrust enforcement. Her tenure has marked a shift in the FTC’s operations, championing bold stances on mergers and tech regulation. However, Trump’s return brings her future into question. While it is common for an FTC chair to step down when party control changes, Khan’s term does not technically end until 2027, which means she could stay on as a commissioner if Trump chooses a new chair. Nevertheless, pressure from Republican commissioners could curtail many of her initiatives, especially if Trump selects an FTC leader who favors a rollback of her policies.
In the lead-up to Trump’s second term, JD Vance, Trump’s vice president-elect, praised Khan’s approach to reining in corporate giants—a stance that introduces the possibility of an uneasy but enduring alliance on certain tech-related issues. While Republicans traditionally lean towards pro-business policies, today’s populist climate has reshaped the GOP’s stance, especially on Big Tech, aligning it more closely with progressive calls for action against monopolistic practices. Yet Khan’s legacy (specifically her efforts to revamp merger guidelines and restrict noncompete agreements) will likely face significant resistance if Trump appoints a more traditional conservative to the FTC chair.
The Impact on Merger and Acquisition (M&A) Activity
For corporations with ambitions to merge, the anticipated Trump administration will likely bring relief. Under Biden, the DOJ and FTC heightened scrutiny on mergers to preemptively address anticompetitive risks. Trump’s administration, however, is expected to shift away from the strict deterrence approach, with antitrust experts like Gerald Stein predicting a return to more predictable M&A approvals. Robin Adelstein, an antitrust leader at Norton Rose Fulbright, suggests that large-scale mergers could surge under Trump, given his administration’s preference for less restrictive policies.
This likely shift does not mean, however, that Trump’s DOJ would abandon all antitrust enforcement. Experts anticipate continued scrutiny on mergers that could significantly consolidate market power, as both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on targeting clear monopolization risks. The private antitrust bar—comprising plaintiffs’ lawyers and state attorneys general—may play a more pronounced role in merger oversight, especially if federal enforcement recedes. This trend could lead to increased state-led investigations, particularly in Democratic-led states like New York, which is already examining Capital One’s proposed acquisition of Discover Financial Services.
Consumer Protection Reforms: A Return to Minimalism?
Beyond mergers, Trump’s administration is expected to reconsider Biden’s consumer protection policies, particularly the FTC’s proposed ban on noncompete clauses and regulations on subscription cancellations. These initiatives, aimed at empowering consumers and improving labor mobility, could be rolled back or stalled as Republican commissioners question their efficacy. Holyoak, one of the FTC’s Republican members, has signaled her opposition to the subscription rule, suggesting that such regulations may be eliminated under a Trump-led FTC. This rollback would align with Trump’s deregulatory agenda, appealing to business groups that argue against restrictive employment contracts.
Antitrust in Flux: Looking Ahead
The Biden administration’s antitrust agenda sought to reshape the competitive landscape, but Trump’s second term could potentially halt, if not reverse, this transformation. With state regulators poised to fill potential gaps in enforcement and the private sector likely mobilizing to protect consumer interests, the next few years will test the resilience of Biden’s reforms. Investors expecting a wholesale return to business-friendly policies may be surprised by the selective enforcement Trump has hinted at, particularly regarding Big Tech and industries subject to heightened populist scrutiny.
In a second Trump administration, antitrust policy will likely merge market-driven motives with a populist ethos that is more selectively critical of corporate concentration. This approach could benefit large corporations, especially in areas that are not on the immediate radar of the president-elect’s base, and fuel an uptick in M&A activity, which in turn could be a boon for investment banks that have seen a fall in M&A revenue due to lackluster dealmaking.
At the same time, it would allow Trump to channel public discontent toward “unfavorable” corporations. The result is likely to be an antitrust landscape that is neither wholly deregulatory nor as uniformly strict as Biden’s vision—a nuanced fusion that reflects Trump’s unique brand of governance. For American corporations, the message is clear: while some regulatory pressures may ease, the unpredictable combination of populism and pragmatism could still make for a volatile four years in competition policy.
For enquiries contact Michael Willms at mwillms@themilwaukeecompany.com