We still have a limited sample—Andrew Ferguson has only been in the FTC Chair role a month, and Gail Slater, Trump’s nominee to head the DOJ Antitrust Division, is just nearing the end of her confirmation process. That said, each is starting to give indications about where enforcement policies and priorities may shift relative to the outgoing leadership at the antitrust agencies—a continued focus on “Big Tech” adding censorship as a competitive harm, more predictability to promote business certainty, and a case-by-case approach to labor market (e.g., non-compete) enforcement. Here’s what we know so far.

Andrew Ferguson – FTC Chair

Andrew Ferguson became FTC Chair immediately after inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025. He was able to assume the role without a confirmation because he was already a sitting Commissioner confirmed by Congress in the spring of 2024. Before joining the FTC, Ferguson served as a solicitor general of Virginia, chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Republican counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also worked in private practice after clerking for Judge Karen L. Henderson of the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

As Commissioner, Ferguson authored several strong dissents, critical of what he perceived as overstep by the prior FTC majority. On Feb. 20, Chair Ferguson gave a window into his priorities during an interview with Fox Business. From that several themes emerged.

• Focus on Big Tech, Consolidation, & Censorship. During his interview, Chair Ferguson was critical of companies with “economic power” that enabled abuses in “social and political ways, like with censorship.” He said he will look to prevent those conditions and confront abuses of such power in the future. Along these lines, Chair Ferguson expressed opinions that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides certain immunity to online platforms for third-party content or its removal, was originally intended to promote nascent business but is now used by large platforms to “mistreat ordinary Americans,” and the courts or Congress should address that. When it came to “Big Tech” specifically, he commented that pending FTC cases will continue and “all of Big Tech is going to remain under the microscope” as the authorities hold “Big Tech’s feet to the fire.”
   
• Emphasis on Business Certainty—Especially in Merger Reviews. Chair Ferguson made clear that promoting a “vibrant, innovative economy” is a priority and he sees his part in that as providing clarity and certainty to the business community. Consistent with this statement, Ferguson also issued a memo to FTC Staff on Feb. 18 affirming that the joint FTC and DOJ Merger Guidelines issued in 2023 will continue to guide agency merger analysis. During his interview he stated that the guidelines are “not perfect” and they “push the envelope a bit.” However, he wants to hold off on any changes and base them on future working experience because the Guidelines are generally “consistent with older guidelines” and “case law” in his view. If revisions to the Guidelines are needed, he said they will be done in an “iterative transparent revision process” but he would not “rescind them wholesale.”
   
• Protecting Labor But Still Against the 2024 Non-Compete Ban. Chair Ferguson reiterated his criticism of the FTC’s rule broadly banning non-compete agreements, the validity of which remains the subject of litigation in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 24-10951 (5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2025) and Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 24-13101 (11th Cir. June 21, 2024). (Many commentators have opined they expect the administration to drop its defense of the FTC ban. But even once a third Republican Commissioner is confirmed, defense of the rule in the courts may continue to preserve questions about the FTC’s rulemaking authority for the Supreme Court.) Despite his opposition to the non-compete rule, however, Ferguson said that the FTC’s job is, in part, to “protect workers” because the antitrust laws “protect labor markets.” Favoring case-by-case enforcement, Ferguson emphasized he will be “focusing very intently on attacking anticompetitive conduct that hurts America’s workers” and will look across industries for no poach, no hire, and non-compete agreements that are unlawful under the Sherman Act.

Gail Slater – Nominee to Lead DOJ Antitrust Division

Gail Slater is the President’s nominee for assistant attorney general of the DOJ Antitrust Division. She most recently served as then-Senator JD Vance’s economic policy adviser, and during the last Trump administration she was an advisor on technology issues for the National Economic Council. Slater worked at the FTC for a decade and also worked in-house, including for an internet trade association. On Feb. 12, 2025, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Slater’s nomination, giving a first window into what her approach at DOJ might entail.

• Tech Focus – Though Current Cases Could be Narrowed. As her background suggests, technology will remain a focus for Slater. She testified that she “will bring a deep understanding of technology markets to the Department as the common thread in my private sector work was technology.” She views antitrust law as playing a key role in fostering innovation and economic freedom. However, she emphasized that enforcement should be a “scalpel” and “requires evidence of anticompetitive conduct and harm to consumers.” Regarding pending DOJ cases against major tech firms, she committed to reviewing the files but noted that “resources are of course a very important consideration in antitrust litigation and taking cases further . . . . It’s very complex civil litigation . . . and costly.”
   
• AI: Traditional Analysis of Component Concentration But Open to More Merger Remedies Generally. Slater seemed undecided about AI technology’s impact on competition, but she did commit to looking at “concentration in the AI technology stack.” During her testimony she also noted there is a “critical need to prevent the monopolization of digital markets,” though in another statement she signaled that under her leadership the Division may be more open to settlements in merger cases when “effective and robust structural remedies can be implemented without excessively burdening the Antitrust Division’s resources.”
   
• Censorship as a Monopolization & Collusion Issue. Like Chair Ferguson, Slater also touched on potential enforcement around censorship. She expressed concern that in highly concentrated markets “anybody’s viewpoint can be quickly throttled or suppressed.” However, Slater also suggested that group boycotts may also be pursued; she noted a recent House Judiciary Committee report describing a trade association’s alleged facilitation of national brands (representing an estimated 90% of domestic ad expenditures) selectively withholding advertising dollars from certain companies.
   
• Non-Competes as a Potential Abuse of Monopoly Power. Slater said she wanted to “depoliticize” the harms from non-compete agreements. She said “this is a growing concern in many parts of the country. It prevents workers from switching jobs easily, which is particularly problematic in highly concentrated markets.”

As the antitrust landscape in the U.S. evolves under new leadership, businesses across industries should stay alert to shifting enforcement priorities and their potential implications.