Antitrust experts say the up-to-date administration’s dovish approach to tech regulation could win the president the loyalty of tech executives in the brief term, but could hurt the competitiveness of America’s tech sector in the long term. (Photo by hapabapa/Getty Images)
Technology leaders enjoyed greater freedom of action and an overall deregulatory stance under the Trump administration. But antitrust experts say the administration’s dovish approach could ultimately harm American companies’ ability to innovate and compete on a global scale.
Antitrust laws protect fair competition and ensure that no company controls an entire market, increases prices for its products, or controls labor costs. In the brief term, a lax approach to these laws could mean the American people may see more large tech companies merging or acquiring smaller competitors.
In the long term, that means the already compact group of people running the country’s most powerful tech firms would gain even more control over the market, said Illinois-based attorney Maaria Mozaffar.
“Traditionally, innovation in technology is inspired by how we can solve problems. And if there are fewer people who invest not in solving problems but more in making profits, the intent of innovation will be different,” Mozaffar said. “We’re going to get a repeat of the same models and the same products that don’t really solve problems, just provide a quicker way to make money.”
Trump’s approach to the FTC
Although Democrats and Republicans may have had different “philosophies” on antitrust rules in the past, it is unusual for there to be wide swings in opinion at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), said New Jersey-based antitrust attorney Nadine Jones.
The independent regulator, which protects consumer interests and anti-competitive business practices such as price-fixing, illegal mergers and monopolization, has historically had little influence from the president, Jones said, even though it technically reports to the executive branch.
But recent moves by the Trump administration suggest it wants a much more hands-on approach, Jones said. Before taking office, Trump chose Andrew Ferguson as FTC chairman, replacing Lina Khan, who fought against the dominance of Big Tech during her term. Along with antitrust specialist Mark Meador, the pair have focused on issues of “censorship” by large tech companies, arguing that tech platforms unfairly restrict conservative views.
Earlier this year, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners of the FTC, a decision he made recently endorsed by the Supreme Courtand set a precedent that gives the executive branch more control over the independent agency.
And in August, Trump revoked a Biden-era executive order It called for the enforcement of antitrust laws to promote competition within industries and prevent companies from monopolizing companies.
Everything points to a central issue of deregulation for the technology industry, with the aim of growing the industry with as little government involvement as possible. Trump’s alliances with large tech leaders during the 2024 election are likely the first indication that he would handle the FTC differently, Jones said.
“I think if I tried to read the tea leaves of previous administrations, ingratiating myself with the president would be less important,” Jones said. “The DOJ, the antitrust division, the deputy attorney general of the department, or the chairman of the FTC were the people you wanted to curry favor with. Whether you were on good terms with the president or not was, in my opinion, less important because they usually left these technical areas of law to the experts.”
For California-based tech founder and author Mark Weinstein, the FTC plays a critical role in upholding democracy and free-market capitalism. Trump’s attempts to fill the commission with Republicans are a threat to both concepts, he said.
“It’s concerning, even if he appoints people who tend to be strong antitrust enforcers, because they’re still appointed by the president,” Weinstein said. “There is a consideration that can clearly be derived from this.”
Weinstein believes that before his second term, Trump recognized the immense power that information giants like Meta and Apple had in controlling content and shaping public opinion. Deregulation measures could appeal to Big Tech executives and support it control information, Weinstein said.
“If Meta bans him from their platform, then they have all the power,” he said. “And he wants all the power.”
With his influence over major tech platforms, Mozaffar said, Trump is better able to spread his ideas around diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as the previous “censorship” of conservatives.
“When you see the tech giants behind Donald Trump, people think all they care about is getting richer,” Mozaffar said. “It really is [Trump’s] Ability to have control over how these technology platforms run their business in terms of content control.”
What does this mean for American technology companies?
So far, the FTC has continued previous administrations’ antitrust lawsuits against some tech giants such as Google, which is currently awaiting a decision a lawsuit that claimed it had monopolized its search engineafter liability was established in a separate advertising-related proceeding Trial in 2024.
The commission is also awaiting the outcome of a six-week trial in a case it brought against Meta, Facebook’s parent company, in which it claimed in 2020 – under the leadership of the first Trump administration – that the company was dead created a monopoly by taking over Instagram and WhatsApp.
Trump-appointed FTC Commissioner Meador said last month at the NYU Law Forum that he believes most Americans support oversight of large tech companies.
“I don’t think this moment is a flash in the pan,” Meador said during the event. “I think it grows out of deeper feelings and concerns about economic justice and economic regulation and policy at a very broad level. And this is just one manifestation of that. I think it’s a generational thing. I think it’s only going to grow. So I don’t think it’s going to go away.”
But the current Trump administration has filed only one antitrust case against a technology merger when it sued for blocking Hewlett Packard Enterprise bought Juniper Networks for $14 billion earlier this year.
Trump is likely considering his options, Mozaffar said – he could embrace more established Republican measures aimed at enforcing antitrust laws to promote competition. But he could also apply a framework FTC chairman Ferguson explained that he is critical of the tech platform’s content moderation rules: as a way to rein in platforms that the GOP has long accused of censoring conservative viewpoints.
Mozaffar said she is watching how the government handles both horizontal and vertical mergers. Horizontal mergers, in which two similar companies merge into a single company, are probably more familiar to the average American. But vertical mergers, which involve companies partnering across multiple levels of a supply chain, have the potential to have truly comprehensive power.
A possible example is a current one $100 billion deal between the AI giant OpenAI and the data center Nvidia. Nvidia’s investment in OpenAI includes the opportunity to expand its data center capacity and computing chip needs, thereby connecting the companies’ growth and success. The deal Antitrust law was immediately addressed Issue.
“How much control do you have over every part of the process? To the point where there is no innovation in the product and competition that leads to that final product?” Mozaffar said. “And then how closely do you control the protection of labor rights and best practices, because you can always cut corners to make sure that the end product makes the profit that it is supposed to make.”
Amid conflicting federal antitrust cases, Jones advised corporate lawyers to pay attention State antitrust lawsas state attorneys general are among the largest antitrust enforcement agencies in the country.
She said that while allowing tech companies to operate freely could achieve some of Trump’s short-term goals, a lack of enforcement will ultimately make the United States less competitive and groundbreaking.
“The antitrust philosophy assumes that the only way to achieve real benefits for consumers and to get people racing to the finish line with their money — and you vote for them with your money — is to compete with each other,” Jones said. “And then we, the consumers, enjoy the fruits of these competitions.”
This story was originally produced by News from the Stateswhich is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network that includes West Virginia Watch, and is a 501c(3) public charity supported by grants and a coalition of donors.
