Many organizations evaluate antitrust risk by considering potential investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) or private action. However, firms should also consider that Congress, particularly the House of Representatives and Senate Judiciary Committees, have been launching a steady stream of antitrust investigations of their own. Such investigations can land organizational leaders across the United States in a hot seat they never saw coming.

The Judiciary Committees’ investigations are staffed by top-notch investigators and do not follow DOJ or FTC guidelines regarding what conduct warrants an antitrust investigation. Instead, the Committees are free to investigate whomever they choose for whatever behavior they choose for whatever reason they choose.

This recent spree of activity from the Judicial Committees has been accompanied by a reported proposed cut to the budget of the DOJ Antitrust Division of approximately $95.2 million. This may make it more likely organizations will find themselves in the Judiciary Committees’ crosshairs.

The Judiciary Committees have recently initiated the following four investigations:

1. Asset Management Companies: In December of 2024, Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee sent letters to more than 60 asset management companies accusing them of “colluding with climate activists through initiatives like the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) and the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative to collectively adopt and impose left-wing environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-related goals,” which GOP members allege are in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The letters sought documents and communications related to proxy voting engaged in by the companies, among other topics, suggesting that the Republican members are concerned that these companies are using their influence to pressure the executive leadership of various publicly traded companies. 
2. Medical Residency Programs: In March of this year, Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee sent letters to hospitals, medical associations, the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), and health systems across the U.S. seeking records relating to complaints about the resident doctor matching process; communication about compensation limits and resident doctor working conditions; and the movement of resident doctors among residency positions. Those letters also posited that, according to the Republicans on the Committee, the residency antitrust exemption “has distorted the American medical residency market, undermining free market principles to the detriment of the nation’s doctors and the patients who rely on them.” 
3. Ivy League Universities: On April 8, 2025, the Republican members of the Judiciary Committees sent letters to all eight Ivy League schools. The Committees asserted that the schools had illegally coordinated their financial aid policies and admissions practices to keep attendance prices high while limiting the amount of financial aid available to students. The Committees’ investigations come alongside the well-publicized battle between elite colleges and universities and the Trump administration’s wider pressure campaign on elite institutions of higher education.
4. CVS Caremark Pharmacies: In December of 2024, the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee initiated an antitrust investigation into CVS Caremark, specifically, whether CVS Caremark had threatened to rescind independent pharmacies’ “in network” status if they used certain “innovative technologies,” including pharmaceutical hubs, that could have reduced drug prices.
5. Energy Sector Asset Managers: In May 2025, the DOJ and FTC voiced their support for a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states against asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. The two federal agencies submitted a statement of interest in the lawsuit, in which Texas and 12 other states assert that these firms (which manage a combined $27 trillion in assets) leveraged their significant investments in U.S. coal companies to stifle competition. This effort stems from a Congressional investigation that started in December 2024.

A review of the Committees’ recent investigations reveals a few common elements that the Committees seem to believe warrant investigation:

1. The organization previously supported individuals, entities, or groups that have been targeted by the Trump Administration.
2. The organization previously supported causes, such as environmental activism, the recognition of climate change, or diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, which have been targeted by the Trump administration. 
3. The organization allegedly shared non-public, purportedly competitively sensitive information, such as financial aid numbers, tuition rates, proxy voting plans, specific supply prices, prices charged to customers, and planned employee compensation offers. 
4. The organization behaved similarly, voted similarly, or otherwise showed signs that may indicate coordination with their competitors and peers to achieve shared goals.
5. The organization allegedly engaged in communication and coordination with competitors to achieve a shared goal. 
6. The organization received an exemption from antitrust laws and regulations from past Congresses. 
7. The organization has or is perceived to have an ideological or political agenda that differs from the Trump Administration’s.
8. The organization has taken actions that may have reduced output or customer choice, particularly if those actions were taken near in time to similar actions by competitors or peers.

There are steps that organizations can take to reduce the chances of receiving letters from the Judicial Committees:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of the organization’s public presence to ensure that it emphasizes compliance with all applicable laws, including but not limited to the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act.
• Avoid discussing information about competitors’ operations, strategies, prices, or related sensitive confidential information if that information is not already publicly known.
• Do not discuss pricing, customers, or any other sensitive confidential information with competitors. 
• Consider direct advocacy before Congress and the Administration, leveraging memberships in trade associations or directly engaging with elected officials to ensure that your organization’s conduct is not drawing unwanted attention.