Trump Administration’s Antitrust Honeymoon Ends

The initial period of optimism surrounding antitrust enforcement under the current administration has clearly faded. Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi recently invoked a famous line from The Godfather, framing the Justice Department’s mission as a businesslike pursuit of holding wrongdoers accountable while being open to negotiation. This rhetoric arrives amid a backdrop of significant internal turmoil and external skepticism. Following the controversial settlement in the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case and the high-profile departures of former antitrust chief Gail Slater and her deputies, many observers question the administration’s commitment to aggressive monopoly enforcement.

Criticism has been sharp and public. At the recent American Bar Association Antitrust Spring Meeting, Roger Alford, a former deputy fired under Slater, compared Assefi’s defense to a corrupt official feigning shock at misconduct. Alford expressed profound disappointment, stating the working assumption must now be that federal agencies will not engage in serious antitrust law enforcement for the remainder of this term. This sentiment reflects a broader disillusionment among former allies who believed the administration’s populist rhetoric would translate into action against corporate consolidation.

With federal enforcement perceived as weakened or compromised, attention has shifted to state attorneys general. A bipartisan coalition of 34 states, including 13 with Republican leadership, continues to litigate against Live Nation, rejecting the DOJ’s settlement as insufficient. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser called the disparity between the strength of the evidence and the terms of the federal settlement “embarrassing.” Enforcers like Weiser argue that states are now serving as a critical check on federal lawlessness, a role not seen for decades. However, this reliance on states raises serious questions about resources, as their capacities are vastly outstripped by the corporations they aim to police.

Federal officials have pushed back against the narrative of diminished rigor. Assefi defended the Live Nation settlement as a historic win that secured unprecedented concessions, including caps on Ticketmaster fees and increased transparency. Alongside FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, he dismissed concerns about corporate lobbying influence as overblown political theater, noting that lobbyists have always been part of the Washington landscape. Ferguson was more pointed, suggesting media fascination stems from a shift in which party’s allies now populate lobbying firms.

The central question is no longer whether this administration prioritizes antitrust action, but what viable enforcement mechanism remains. The upcoming Big Tech cases against Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple may become the true test, with some suggesting they could proceed because intense lobbying “on both sides” cancels out political pressure. The outcome of the states’ Live Nation trial will also be telling. A state victory would cast the DOJ’s negotiated settlement in a poor light, while a loss might validate the federal strategy of seeking manageable, certain concessions over protracted legal battles.

This moment represents a significant pivot. The administration’s “strictly business” posture offers a vision of regulatory negotiation rather than confrontational litigation. Whether this approach protects competition or merely manages monopolies is now for the states to challenge. As federal enforcers emphasize deal-making, state agencies are left to shoulder the burden of litigation, potentially determining whether the future of U. S. antitrust policy lies in boardroom settlements or courtroom accountability.