Diana Moss reviews four recent examples of the Trump administration weaponizing antitrust and regulation to stifle opposing ideological and political viewpoints.


Making deals is a hallmark of the Trump administration. Take import tariffs, where much touted “dealmaking” translates to threats and coercion as the major tactic for igniting and fighting a trade war. The result has been market volatility and higher prices for consumer goods that will, in the end, hit working Americans in their paychecks and pocketbooks. This approach is spilling into antitrust and regulation, with interference by the Trump White House in government oversight of corporate consolidation. We see it in the granting of favors to companies that curry favor with the administration, the weaponization of enforcement and policy levers to punish corporations that are perceived enemies, and exercising political power simply for the sake of doing so.

Interference risks disruption to markets and competition. And the burden of these distortions will be borne by American consumers through higher prices and slower economic growth—raising their already high cost of living and embattled standard of living. Decisions on whether mergers or business practices violate federal antitrust law or regulatory statutes have—at all other times—been reserved for independent enforcers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), sector regulators with competition mandates, and even the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

This is changing. Interference by the Trump White House in these important decisions is trending up. Usurpation of antitrust enforcement and regulatory decision-making deprives American consumers of the benefits of independent, expert government agency . This risks compromising due process, the rule of law and, ultimately, the benefits of promoting competition and protecting consumer welfare. There are mounting examples of how antitrust and regulation are being weaponized by the Trump agencies.

Paramount-Skydance

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) conditional approval of the merger of media companies Paramount and Skydance comes immediately to mind. The FCC’s order finding the Paramount-Skydance transaction to be in the public interest mentions the word “competition” only six times in a 29-page order that was voted out 2-1 along party lines. Despite the absence of competition or any other public interest concerns (for that matter), the order includes a condition requiring the merged company to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs to facilitate non-discrimination in hiring. Of course, this condition is really about holding two companies hostage to Trump’s promise to his MAGA base to eradicate DEI programs from the U.S. corporate landscape entirely.

The FCC’s order also conditions regulatory approval on programming that “embodies a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum” and requires that “CBS’s reporting is fair, unbiased, and fact-based.” In parallel with the FCC’s approval of the deal, Paramount settled a $16 million Trump lawsuit alleging that “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with presidential candidate Kamala Harris. This is the basest form of political coercion—and corporate capitulation—that stands to set the mark for negotiations between regulatory agencies that are executing future orders from corrupt political administrations and U.S. companies.

Omnicom-IPG

Let’s dig deeper into some other examples of how the Trump administration is subverting antitrust and regulation, to the detriment of competition and consumers. One is the recent merger of global advertising holding companies Omnicom and IPG. Both compete in the media-buying market that facilitates ad placements in publishing outlets. The merger reduces the number of competitors in the market from six to five, leap-frogging the merged company into the No. 1 spot by market share. The FTC challenged the deal, alleging that the remaining five players will have stronger incentives to anticompetitively coordinate—or collectively refrain from hard-nosed competition.

Typically, the U.S. antitrust agencies are concerned about collusive agreements that work to raise prices or divide up markets. In the Omnicom-IPG case, the FTC pivoted to an unprecedented allegation. That is,  the remaining five media buyers could collectively refuse to deal with advertisers or publishing outlets based on political or ideological viewpoint. The FTC’s challenge is both wildly speculative and unprecedented. For example, concerns over anticompetitive coordination rarely arise in “six to five” mergers like Omnicom-IPG. Research shows that the FTC enforces only about 35% of all six-to-five mergers, in contrast to 64% of five-to-four enforced and 89% of three-to-two deals enforced.

The aberration in Omnicom-IPG, however, makes sense in light of the Trumpian practice of silencing dissenting political views. Indeed, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson recently launched a public inquiry into how the U.S. antitrust laws can be used to prevent censorship on tech platforms, a task that would test the limits of how the courts assess anticompetitive harm under the consumer welfare standard. Even if it were easily deployed for this purpose, it would require a significant diversion of enforcement resources that would inevitably come at the expense of enforcement against violations like collusive agreements and mergers that directly raise prices to consumers.

The reality is that the FTC’s action in Omnicom-IPG executes the Trump administration’s agenda on censorship and free speech. Both companies were participants in the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), formed in 2019 to provide advertisers with tools to prevent harmful and illegal content. GARM, which disbanded in 2024 after X sued it for allegedly organizing an illegal boycott of the platform, was the focus of a GOPled House Judiciary Committee investigation alleging censorship of politically conservative viewpoints. The FTC’s action in Omnicom-IPG weaponizes antitrust to attack corporations that do not toe the Project 2025 “line” on perceived censorship of conservative media. This sets a dangerous precedent and diverts agency resources away from legitimate antitrust investigations that benefit American consumers.

Live Nation-Ticketmaster

A third example is the DOJ’s 2024 landmark monopolization case against Live Nation-Ticketmaster. The government’s case alleges that the company has stifled competition in ticketing by squeezing out smaller ticketing rivals, including resellers. This strategic conduct works to steer ticket buyers back to the Ticketmaster platform, where the company extracts monopoly ticketing fees on even more tickets sold. As the only game in town for artists that do not have the bargaining power of a Taylor Swift or Bruce Springsteen, Live Nation-Ticketmaster extracts its monopoly tax by reducing their cut of ticket revenues.

Given the strength of the case, the government may well succeed in restoring competition in the live events ticketing market. But the only remedy that will ensure bringing needed relief to ticket buyers and artists is breaking Ticketmaster off from Live Nation and again into several smaller ticketing rivals. But this prospect is quickly receding in the rear-view mirror. Live Nation-Ticketmaster is pushing for state laws to regulate the resale ticketing market while the primary ticket market, which the company dominates, continues to operate unfettered. Price caps or other provisions that cripple access to the resale ticketing market will shut down the only source of competition in ticketing and the only opportunity to put more “butts in seats” that artists need to thrive.

Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s campaign has clearly hit home in the White House. In March 2025, Trump dashed off an executive order on “Combating Unfair Practices in the Live Entertainment Market” with music artist and MAGA booster Kid Rock standing by his side. The executive order points the finger for “egregious” high ticket fees at middlemen and scalpers in the ticket resale market, not at the documented market power abuses by the Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly. In reality, scalpers account for a tiny percentage of resale ticket sales, and the resale market has demonstrably lowered ticket fees to fans.

The Trump executive order undermines the DOJ’s antitrust case by scapegoating the resale market and diverting attention away from the ticketing monopoly. In the meantime, Live Nation-Ticketmaster is riding this wave—currying favor with the Trump administration by touting venue development projects, most of which are in “heartland” cities in red states, and appointing a long-time Trump confidant to its board of directors. This is a setup for increased White House pressure on the DOJ to settle the case with weaker remedies than what could be gotten by fully litigating the monopolization case. If this comes to pass, locking in Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly power for the foreseeable future will subject consumers and artists to even more abuse.

Nippon-U.S. Steel

A final example is the merger of Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel. Proposed in late 2023, the deal was a lightning rod for controversy. It roiled trade unions who feared production and job cuts, but in the absence of competition concerns it elicited little resistance from Congressional antitrust hawks and enforcers. Both the Biden and Trump administrations opposed the deal based on national security issues around foreign ownership of a U.S. company. In light of Japan’s status as a long-term U.S. ally with significant investments in the U.S., however, pundits racked up political opposition simply to keeping U.S. Steel American-owned and operated.

CFIUS was unable to reach a consensus on whether the Nippon-U.S. Steel transaction raised national security concerns, so then President Biden blocked it. Upon taking office, Trump ordered a new CFIUS review and quickly extracted an unprecedented condition: a “golden share” for the U.S. government. This share in the merged company grants the U.S. government veto power over corporate decision-making, with control reportedly extending to strategic decisions such as plant closures, import levels, or technology transfers.

State-ownership—whether in the form of a full or even a partial share—has never been a governance model for a privately held American company. Compared to the Obama administration’s decision to bail out General Motors and American International Group during the financial crisis in 2009, Nippon-U.S. Steel is very different. Namely, Trump’s murky “golden share” in Nippon-U.S. Steel risks long-term, strategic government involvement with corporate planning and operations that could misalign with the objectives of the business, the demands of consumers, and distort competition in the U.S. steel market. These risks, which are largely borne of power-mongering interference, are decidedly not a win for U.S. consumers.

The Paramount-Skydance, Live Nation-Ticketmaster, Omnicom-IPG, and Nippon-U.S. Steel matters are relatable examples of the perils of corrupting independent government decision-making, due process, and the rule of law. More are sure to come under the Trump administration. These “shots across the bow” should put U.S. consumers on notice that antitrust is quickly becoming another casualty of the Trump agenda to weaponize key areas of law and policy.

Author’s Disclosure: Diana Moss works for the Progressive Policy Institute. PPI is supported by corporations, individuals, and foundations such as the Lumina Foundation, Peterson Foundation, and Arnold Foundation. No funding source influenced the arguments expressed in this article or stands to benefit from them.

Articles represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty.

Subscribe here for ProMarket’s weekly newsletter, Special Interest, to stay up to date on ProMarket’s coverage of the political economy and other content from the Stigler Center.