New York City voters didn’t just elect a self-proclaimed democratic socialist mayor — they handed the keys to the transition team to someone whose regulatory philosophy has already reshaped Washington: former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan.
During her tenure, Khan oversaw what CNBC’s Jim Cramer called a “one woman wrecking crew” against mergers and business growth, driven by the abandonment of the longstanding consumer welfare standard. As Charles Sauer writes in RealClearMarkets, this marked a break from four decades of bipartisan antitrust policy:
“Khan and her allies replaced it with a throwback to the ‘big is de facto bad’ approach to antitrust policy… regardless of the impact on consumers.”
A New Direction for Antitrust — and a Dangerous One
Under Khan, the FTC challenged mergers at a record pace. Rather than evaluating whether a transaction would benefit the public through lower prices or more innovation, the agency took aim at market share itself — particularly in technology.
“Khan’s war against successful businesses made her a progressive superstar and public enemy number one among free-market conservatives, as well as centrist Democrats and the business community.”
Her influence wasn’t limited to high-profile headlines. As Sauer notes, Khan revived long-dormant authorities, such as “notices of penalty offenses” that hadn’t been used since 1999, and resurrected the Robinson-Patman Act, a New Deal-era policy punishing distributors for offering volume discounts that ultimately help consumers.
Now, That Philosophy Heads to City Hall
Speaking at a Pod Save America event, Khan explained that her team is focused on identifying dormant laws the mayor can “unilaterally deploy.” That mirrors her time at the FTC — and it should concern anyone who thinks economic policy should be guided by open markets instead of political discretion.
“Khan may have discovered an equivalent in New York City — a 56-year-old law giving city officials power to punish ‘unconscionable’ acts.”
The problem, as Sauer points out, is not simply enforcement — it’s the vagueness. What is “unconscionable”? Like “unfair,” it depends entirely on who holds the power to define it.
What This Means for New Yorkers — and the Debate Ahead
If Khan’s record is a roadmap, Sauer warns the results could be clear:
“The result will be higher prices, fewer choices, and a declining quality of life in New York City.”
This moment also matters nationally. For Democrats deciding whether to follow a market-friendly path or embrace aggressive economic intervention — and for voices on the right flirting with “Khanservatism” as a model for populist regulation — NYC may soon offer a real-world test case.
“A prominent example of what happens when Khan’s policies are put in place may finally show them that ‘Khanservatism’ is not the way to make America Great Again.”
Conclusion
Lina Khan’s regulatory vision reshaped the FTC. Now, it may reshape New York City. Whether it becomes a cautionary case study remains to be seen — but the stakes are high for consumers, businesses, and the future of competitive markets.
Read the full article at RealClearMarkets by clicking here.
