OPINION:
Stanley Woodward, the third-ranking official at the Justice Department, recently said the Trump administration is trying to avoid taking antitrust cases to trial and is instead seeking settlements with companies.
Mr. Woodward’s statement represents a serious departure from the Biden administration, which sued every company under the sun. His comments suggest that the left’s legal crusade against American businesses is finally ending.
The Biden team swept into the White House determined to overhaul antitrust policy. Historically, antitrust regulators took action only when consumers were directly harmed by a merger or contract — the so-called consumer welfare standard.
The Biden administration, though, took a radically different approach. Its guiding star was Lina Khan, President Biden’s appointee to head the Federal Trade Commission and a left-wing ideologue. Ms. Khan cut her teeth at the Yale Law Journal, where she wrote an article arguing that Amazon should be targeted for its monopolistic practices, even though it was not a monopoly.
Under Ms. Khan and her fellow leftists, it was not long before the Biden government had 40% of the companies in the S&P 500 under investigation.
Legal warfare between the feds and the business world became the norm as business groups retaliated over regulatory overreach. Then Donald Trump was elected to a second term. His administration immediately began reining in this anti-business crusade. Ms. Khan was swiftly ousted.
The new FTC chair, Andrew Ferguson, wrote an op-ed condemning regulators who were “focused on picking winners and losers.” In 2025, Mr. Ferguson dropped a ridiculous “price discrimination” lawsuit against Pepsi that erroneously cited an anti-price discrimination law, the Robinson-Patman Act, claiming the company could not sell discounted items to big-box stores.
The FTC also axed a nakedly political lawsuit against Grand Canyon University. The Justice Department further reversed course on a lawsuit against U.S. tech companies Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, which were trying to merge.
The intelligence community reportedly intervened, saying the new HPE-Juniper company would have the scale to compete with the Chinese giant Huawei, which is considered a national security threat.
Ms. Khan might sputter on X, but antitrust is shifting back toward the consumer welfare standard and common sense. Other considerations, such as national security, were also on the table.
Mr. Woodward’s recent remarks are further proof that we should be cautiously optimistic. Better for the government to settle with companies to ensure problems are solved than to punish them in court.
Let us hope the Trump administration also plans to settle the handful of Biden-era lawsuits that remain open. Another laughable “price discrimination” case, similar to the Pepsi one, is still pending against liquor distributor Southern Glazer’s (although the two sides are reportedly approaching a settlement).
Likewise, there is a 2024 lawsuit against Visa. This one accuses the company of monopolizing debit markets while acknowledging that Visa is responsible for only 60% of debit interactions.
If nothing else, the Biden administration came up with some creative definitions of “monopoly,” “price discrimination” and “consumer.” A softer-touch policy of settlements will not just save Americans untold millions of dollars in legal fees. It will also signal to businesses that the days of Lina Khan are truly over.
Businesses thrive on predictability, and there is none when the government keeps stretching the law and redefining words to pursue an ideological agenda.
Mr. Trump’s return to normalcy on antitrust is one of the quieter ways he is changing Washington for the better. Now his attorneys should seek to make these changes permanent through a landmark Supreme Court decision that restores clear constitutional limits on antitrust enforcement.
The Sherman Antitrust Act’s broad, often indeterminate standards have led to shifting interpretations, leaving businesses uncertain about which lawful commercial practices may later be deemed illegal.
A ruling that requires objective, predictable standards before imposing antitrust penalties would better protect due process, property rights, competitive markets, consumer welfare and the rule of law.
Such a decision would not eliminate legitimate enforcement against coercive conduct, fraud, collusion or government-created monopolies, but it would ensure that productive competition is distinguished from unlawful exclusion.
By demanding clear statutory limits and rejecting arbitrary enforcement, the court could significantly reduce regulatory uncertainty. It could establish enduring safeguards against both crony capitalists and socialist crusaders using antitrust law to punish business success.
This would ensure the days of Lina Khan are truly over. It would also give businesses the predictability and breathing room they need to grow.
• Alex Tokarev is a professor of economics and philosophy at Northwood University.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.