In a recent column for RealClearMarkets, Charles Sauer, President of The Market Institute, argues that while Lina Khan may be gone from the Federal Trade Commission, the politicization of antitrust enforcement remains very much alive.
For years, free-market advocates criticized former FTC Chair Lina Khan for using antitrust and consumer protection laws to advance progressive political goals. As Sauer explains, one of the defining features of Khan’s “neo-Brandeisian” approach was expanding merger review beyond consumer welfare into broader political and social considerations — particularly claims about potential harms to workers.
“In practice, this meant the FTC would claim that a merger or acquisition would harm workers by decreasing wages, worsening working conditions, and increasing unemployment.”
Yet, as Sauer notes, Khan’s FTC rarely considered how mergers can strengthen companies, preserve jobs, or make firms more competitive in global markets. In at least two instances during her tenure, blocked mergers were followed by significant layoffs — the very outcome the FTC claimed it was trying to prevent.
Weaponizing the FTC for Political Aims
Sauer also recounts how Khan’s FTC became entangled in the Biden Administration’s efforts surrounding social media moderation during the COVID era. After Elon Musk acquired Twitter, the FTC sent “requests for information” that sought the names of journalists communicating with the platform — including those involved in publishing the Twitter Files.
Those revelations, Sauer argues, demonstrated how government pressure contributed to the censorship of Americans who dissented from official pandemic narratives.
Markets responded positively when Khan departed after the 2024 election. But Sauer cautions that optimism may have been premature.
Enter the “Khanservative”
Andrew Ferguson, President Trump’s pick to replace Khan, has taken a different tone — yet in Sauer’s telling, he may be following a similar playbook.
Rather than advancing progressive priorities, Ferguson appears willing to use FTC authority to pursue conservative political objectives.
Sauer highlights two examples:
- The FTC’s investigation into physicians providing gender-affirming care to minors — an issue traditionally handled by state medical boards and law enforcement.
- A January 30, 2026 letter to 42 major law firms regarding their participation in the Diversity Lab’s Mansfield Certification Program, which promotes diversity benchmarks in hiring and promotion.
Ferguson has raised concerns that the program’s “knowledge sharing” calls could constitute anti-competitive coordination in labor markets.
“Progressives tempted to criticize Chair Ferguson… should remember that Chair Ferguson is following the precedent set by Lina Khan’s neo-Brandeisian approach to antitrust.”
In other words: once antitrust enforcement becomes a political weapon, it will be used by whoever holds power.
The Real Solution: Limit the Power
Sauer concludes with a broader institutional warning. The problem is not simply who chairs the FTC — it is the breadth of authority the agency wields.
If FTC chairs of either party can stretch antitrust and consumer protection law to pursue ideological agendas, the solution is structural reform.
“The only way to protect against an FTC Chair using their power to advance a personal or political agenda is to limit the FTC’s power — and maybe even consider whether the modern economy needs an FTC at all.”
For those who care about markets, rule of law, and predictable enforcement, the debate is no longer about personalities. It is about restoring clear limits to administrative power.
Originally published in RealClearMarkets.
Read Charles Sauer’s full column for additional analysis and context.
0 Comments