High inflation is top of mind for voters as the presidential election approaches, but many aren’t prioritizing an important influence on it: antitrust policy.
Despite increasing political division, promoting fair competition has remained one of the few bipartisan priorities in the country. However, the approaches to antitrust policy differ significantly between the two parties. President Biden made a significant shift in this area upon taking office, signaling a more aggressive approach to regulating monopolistic practices. Moving beyond the traditional consumer welfare standard, the Biden administration has adopted a more comprehensive view of antitrust, considering the effects of corporate consolidation on labor markets, innovation, and the distribution of political power.
This shift in approach is underscored by two key appointments within the administration: Lena Khan as chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Jonathan Kanter as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Both have been instrumental in efforts to reduce market power in Big Tech. Over the past two years, the FTC has initiated a prominent lawsuit against Amazon, while the DOJ has filed a second antitrust lawsuit against Google focusing on its adtech practices and has also brought an antitrust suit against Apple.
Although Khan and Kanter initially had bipartisan support, their strict stance on antitrust enforcement has alienated big business. After four years of very aggressive antitrust enforcement, we will see how this will all turn out in the election. As the political landscape evolves, who will hold their current positions will determine whether their approach continues or not.
Khan's future at the FTC particularly remains uncertain. If the Senate shifts to a Republican majority, her confirmation for another term would be highly unlikely. However, J.D. Vance, Trump’s running mate, has expressed support for Khan’s efforts to challenge dominant tech companies, saying she is one of the few members of the Biden Administration “doing a pretty good job.” This stance adds a layer of complexity to the Republican ticket's position on antitrust matters. Additionally, there's the possibility that Khan might choose to depart from the commission voluntarily. If Lena Kahn leaves the FTC, the process of confirming a new commissioner could be lengthy, potentially leaving a leadership vacuum at a critical juncture.
So far, Kamala Harris has not talked much about her stance on antitrust, but many observers expect her to follow Biden’s footsteps. Drawing on her prosecutorial background and experience as Attorney General in California’s tech-driven economy, Harris has often framed her approach in terms of holding corporations accountable for their actions and has emphasized penalties and settlements in cases of corporate wrongdoing. Furthermore, her potential alignment with progressive antitrust reformers may lead her to advocate for more systemic changes in the future, particularly in addressing labor market harms and privacy concerns.
Trump has also not articulated his antitrust agenda for the next four years, but during his term, he generally favored deregulation and the business-friendly approach historically embraced by Republicans. While his DOJ did initiate some high-profile cases, Trump’s economic stance typically reduced government oversight and regulations, allowing market forces to operate freely unless political interests dictated otherwise. Trump’s administration's antitrust actions were often sporadic and primarily aimed at companies he perceived as hostile rather than focused on breaking up monopolies or pursuing structural reforms.
As the political landscape evolves, the future of antitrust policy hangs in the balance, contingent on the victors of the upcoming elections. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump present contrasting philosophies that could lead to markedly different outcomes for consumers, labor markets, and corporate accountability.
To understand their competing stances, it’s helpful to look back at the history of antitrust regulation. Since the 1940s, proponents of a more interventionist approach to antitrust policy have argued for limiting market power—the concentration of industry dominance among a few firms that undermines competition. Democrats have often embraced this approach.
The Reagan era ushered in the Chicago School, which emphasized both the market’s ability to correct itself efficiently and the importance of considering consumer welfare when determining if a company’s actions are anticompetitive. Republicans have generally gravitated to this approach, arguing that market efficiencies may outweigh competitive concerns and, in most scenarios, that corporate mergers should only be blocked when there is clear evidence of consumer harm, such as higher prices or reduced output.
However, since around 2015, a new perspective has emerged. The New Brandeis Movement, named after Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, sees antitrust policy as a tool to curb the influence of large corporations on politics and society. Its advocates seek to reduce corporate power, which they argue contributes to high inflation. Both Lena Kahn and Jonathan Kanter are exponents of the New Brandeis Movement.
Understanding where the political parties stand on antitrust regulation is essential for voters aiming to make informed choices about candidates who will truly represent their interests. At the end of the day, voters will have an opportunity to consider what type of future is best for them—one where industries such as Big Tech are subject to stricter oversight, or one where they continue on their present path without restrictions. The direction of antitrust policy will play a pivotal role in shaping that future, influencing not just inflation but also the broader economic and social fabric of the country.
