Trump’s Antitrust Reckoning

“It’s not personal, Sonny, it’s strictly business.”

This saying, first uttered by crime lord Michael Corleone in The Godfather, served as the heading for an address given last Monday by Omeed Assefi, the Justice Department’s interim head of antitrust. At a George Washington University event, jointly presented alongside the publication MLex, Assefi characterized the agency as fully operational and highly effective, firmly confronting unscrupulous corporate entities when necessary, yet amenable to sensible discussions to achieve the most favorable outcome.

It was understood that Assefi was addressing numerous grievances that had accumulated over months, alleging his department was yielding to business advocates and entering into feeble agreements. Last summer, two senior subordinates to Assefi’s former superior, Gail Slater, were dismissed due to what the department termed “insubordination”; one subsequently asserted that two officials from the Justice Department had “corrupted justice and acted in contravention of legal standards.” In February, Slater suddenly exited the department, amidst reports of her being marginalized regarding crucial determinations (which the DOJ denied). Weeks later, the agency resolved its prominent dispute with Live Nation-Ticketmaster through a resolution that sector participants found perplexing. And just days before Assefi’s speech at GW, The Wall Street Journal released the most comprehensive report to date concerning the incidents preceding Slater’s exit and the agreement with Live Nation, detailing clandestine negotiations between the Trump administration and MAGA-affiliated advocates like Mike Davis, who posted, “Good riddance” upon Slater’s departure. The Justice Department has refuted any improper transactions.

However, within the Antitrust Division, Assefi stated that his team was “disregarding distractions and concentrating on aiding the American populace whom we are so honored to assist.” He asserted that the Division’s mandate involves an “unwavering quest to ensure accountability for transgressors.” He then quoted Hyman Roth in The Godfather Part II: “this is the business we’ve chosen.”

A considerable portion of the antitrust community appears notably unconvinced. When legal professionals converged upon Washington D.C. for the American Bar Association’s annual Antitrust Spring Meeting last week, expectations that President Donald Trump’s government would earnestly address anti-monopoly issues appeared diminished. Previous regulators cautioned against subtle corporate sway and a decline in legal implementation. Although Assefi and fellow representatives countered the critiques, former associates doubted their genuine commitment to upholding statutes.

During a gathering held later that week, Roger Alford, a former antitrust subordinate of Slater who was dismissed, likened Assefi to another movie antagonist: the dishonest police captain Louis Renault in Casablanca. The interim antitrust head was “emulating Captain Renault’s famous line, ‘I am astonished, astonished that wagering occurs in this venue,’” Alford stated. “And fundamentally, what prevails currently are insincere assertions that we are stunned, stunned, by any notion of political influence in antitrust regulation at the national echelon.”

Currently, the prevailing inquiry among many is not if the Trump government prioritizes antitrust matters, but rather if any other entity possesses the wherewithal to intervene.

In 2025, during the initial year of Trump’s second term, a fragile alliance favoring bipartisan populist antitrust oversight remained precariously intact. That Spring Meeting week witnessed Slater addressing an assembly at a Y Combinator function in central Washington D.C., which featured both erstwhile Trump counsellor Steve Bannon and former Biden FTC Head Lina Khan — whom Vice President JD Vance had previously lauded as one of the rare Biden appointees “performing quite competently.” However, the government was already alienating prospective supporters. The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission had prohibited high-ranking individuals from participating in the Spring Meeting, on the conviction that the ABA sided with Democrats. The administration had dismantled federal oversight bodies, prompting inquiries into their continued capability to operate as competent guardians.

Released from their roles and consequently the Trump government’s limitations, Slater and Alford both attended this year’s Spring Meeting. Slater received acclaim during her unexpected presence on the primary discussion panel. “I am genuinely pleased to be present this year while my legal accreditation remains intact,” Alford jocularly remarked, seemingly alluding to a conservative campaign to have him penalized by the D.C. bar for vocalizing his observations regarding the Justice Department.

Although certain persons and a substantial segment of Republican state Attorneys General still seem dedicated to significant monopoly litigations, erstwhile associates appear disconcerted by the government’s recent agreements. “Our operational premise ought to be that the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission will not pursue earnest implementation of antitrust legislation for the forthcoming three years,” Alford declared during an ABA event discussion. He noted that a single exception could be prominent technology cases, where, in his view, advocacy groups exist “on both sides, effectively neutralizing each other.” Such instances might encompass an appeal concerning a remedial judgment in the Google search litigation, a challenge to the FTC’s defeat in the Meta supposed monopolization proceeding, and two more purported monopolization lawsuits against Amazon and Apple that have not yet proceeded to court.

Later, conversing with journalists, Alford conveyed astonishment at the progression of events over the preceding year. “We simply had no foreknowledge that our decisions would be overridden in such a manner. I mean, such an occurrence was unprecedented during the initial administration,” Alford stated. He considered Slater to be, and to remain, “a genuine advocate for the common people.”

who “aimed to uphold legal statutes, and we were generally taken aback by the situation.” When questioned if senior officials within the Justice Department were ever truly committed to rigorous anti-monopoly measures, Alford expressed uncertainty. “Probably not, I’m uncertain. It’s difficult for me to ascertain.”

Previous Federal Trade Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, a Democrat dismissed by President Donald Trump the previous year, also indicated his uncertainty regarding whether this administration genuinely intended to pursue major technology companies and monopolies broadly. “I believe certain individuals were, yet I cannot be certain,” he conveyed to The Verge during a side conversation at a gathering organized by American Economic Liberties Project (AELP).

Bedoya and Alford are among those now entrusting state regulators to champion robust anti-monopoly efforts. Justification for this stance exists: while six states, led by Republican Attorneys General, reached agreements concurrently with the DOJ, 34 Attorneys General opted to persist in legal action against Live Nation, among them 13 Republicans. A number of state Attorneys General have pledged to undertake additional legal matters that federal authorities have declined, such as the corporate integration of Nexstar and Tegna media entities. Bedoya highlighted several Republican Attorneys General whom he perceives as pursuing vigorous anti-monopoly measures, stating, “it is crucial to distinguish the actions of this administration, involving individuals identifying as Democrats and Republicans. This represents a distinctive mode of governance that I believe is quite distinct from developments observed at the state jurisdiction.”

“The current situation is neither typical, permissible, nor safe. Furthermore, the degree to which individuals grow accustomed to this predicament presents a sustained peril to our prospects,” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, declared during the AELP gathering. “Presently, we are seeing states and their Attorneys General serving as a counterweight against federal lawlessness and malfeasance, a role unprecedented since Watergate.”

Weiser, a member of the alliance persisting in the Live Nation litigation, stated they possess “more proof of a monopoly misusing its dominant market position than I ever imagined witnessing in my lifetime … considering the disparity between the caliber of the evidence and the inadequacy of the resolution, it is shameful.” Live Nation has refuted these allegations and is presently presenting its legal arguments in court.

Nevertheless, state-level assets are overshadowed by those of the federal government, and the greater the number of legal actions they must undertake independently, the more strained their capacities will be. Weiser stated that should the federal government abstain from enforcing anti-monopoly statutes, Congress ought to apportion financial resources to the states for this purpose. Lacking such provision, Weiser acknowledged that managing the caseload would not be simple, yet asserted that “when compelled, challenged, and motivated, one can accomplish a great deal.”

During a gathering organized by FGS Global and Semafor, Assefi, from the DOJ, commended the states’ part in upholding anti-monopoly legislation. “I trust the states can undertake the extensive scope of action they propose and manage it effectively, though it presents difficulties,” he remarked. He championed the DOJ’s resolution as “a significant victory” and asserted they achieved “greater concessions from Live Nation than any other entity in historical record.” Such concessions encompass a limit on certain Ticketmaster service charges, enhanced openness for performers, and permitting other event organizers to schedule venues in 13 amphitheatres under its management. He claimed that, until now, no other party has secured as many benefits from the corporation as his team achieved.

Addressing allegations of excessive corporate sway while sharing the platform with FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, Assefi dismissed the critique as customary political maneuvering. “It is crucial to recognize that advocates did not emerge in 2025; they have existed for a considerable period,” Assefi remarked. “We will convene with anyone… yet that grants no special privileges, nor does it guarantee specific results.” He observed that media accounts portray those advocates as “far more influential and potent than they truly are.” He concluded, “Occasionally, we peruse these pieces and merely chuckle, thinking, ‘Is that so?’”

Ferguson adopted a more assertive stance. “Advocacy exists; this is Washington. It does not sway my choices,” Ferguson declared. “I understand that the media relishes its sensational aspects. I am also persuaded that a contributing factor here is the media’s enjoyment of crafting narratives concerning individuals who, in the previous administration and the one preceding it, were not advocates, as all the K Street advocates were Democrats. Now, with some Republicans involved, it provides engaging content for journalists.”

The Trump administration’s ostensibly “business-only” strategy appears more amicable than aggressive tech oversight. No physical intimidation is implied—merely the prospect of forging advantageous agreements. Does this constitute a feasible alternative to acting as an anti-monopoly enforcer? The outcome of the Live Nation hearing could provide clarity: Should the states be unsuccessful, the DOJ’s resolution could stand as the most significant relinquishment obtained from the corporation; however, if they prevail, it might appear as an inadequate agreement. Forthcoming major technology cases will scrutinize the boundaries of corporate advocacy and the resolve of agencies to negotiate firmly. Meanwhile, states might ponder whether their federal colleagues are forsaking their duties for personal gain.