In a recent RealClearMarkets article, Market Institute Senior Fellow Norm Singleton warns that Lina Khan’s brand of aggressive antitrust enforcement isn’t going away—it’s just shifting tactics and geography. While the Biden-era ideologues may be stepping back, their playbook is alive and well under Trump’s appointees and in progressive statehouses across the country.
Excerpt:
“President Trump’s antitrust team of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Andrew Ferguson and Justice Department Antitrust Division head Gail Slater have an approach to antitrust that resembles that of Biden-era FTC Chair Lina Khan and Deputy Attorney General for Antitrust Jonathan Kanter.”
Ferguson and Slater, Singleton explains, reject the long-standing consumer welfare standard in favor of a more expansive, politicized framework that considers how mergers and acquisitions might affect “communities” or “workers”—language often used to mask regulatory targeting of disfavored industries or viewpoints.
“They appear to be focusing on using their power to punish businesses that advance ‘anti-MAGA’ political or social agendas.”
The Bigger Threat: States Pick Up the Baton
Even if federal antitrust enforcement cools under a new administration, Singleton highlights a troubling new trend: blue states are embracing neo-Brandeisian antitrust with zeal.
“Rhode Island Lieutenant Governor Sabina Matos is using antitrust policy to fight ‘food deserts’… Mantos has proposed that the Rhode Island legislature pass a bill closing loopholes in the federal Robinson-Patman Act to give Rhode Island officials more power to sue large stores and suppliers.”
Singleton warns that these efforts ignore basic economics. Price discrimination laws may sound fair, but they hurt low-income consumers by destroying economies of scale and discouraging market-driven solutions.
From Khan to ‘Khanifornication’
“In New York, legislation has been introduced that would require businesses operating in the state to obtain approval for any proposed merger… and create an ‘abuse of dominance’ standard…”
“California may also pass legislation expanding oversight of mergers, as well as the use of pricing algorithms.”
Because of these states’ economic clout, Singleton argues, such rules could end up setting a de facto national standard—what he calls “Khanifornication via economic Californication.”
Conclusion:
Whether it’s Washington regulators with a partisan agenda or state officials using outdated laws to reshape the economy, the danger of weaponized antitrust is clear. As Singleton concludes, free markets—not political micromanagement—remain the best path to innovation, opportunity, and lower prices.
