In her first formal address as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Gail Slater emphasized the importance of conservative principles in antitrust enforcement. Speaking at Notre Dame Law School, she highlighted values such as American patriotism, textualism, and a commitment to law enforcement as guiding factors in their approach. Slater noted Indiana's historical significance in shaping these principles, referencing President Benjamin Harrison, who signed the Sherman Act into law. She expressed gratitude for the bipartisan support she received during her confirmation and reiterated her commitment to protecting the rights of Americans against market power abuses. 

For competition law advisors, this address signals a potential shift towards more aggressive antitrust enforcement under the current administration, particularly against large corporations. Advisors should prepare for increased scrutiny of market practices and be aware of the administration's focus on conservative legal principles in antitrust cases. Businesses may need to reassess their compliance strategies and market behaviors to align with this new enforcement landscape. The Antitrust Division is committed to fighting for the American people against large corporations, as demonstrated in cases like Google Ad Tech. The current economic and industrial changes present significant challenges and opportunities for businesses. The focus is on ensuring that the American economy is shaped by the people rather than by external influences like lobbyists. 

Competition law advisors should note the emphasis on antitrust as a tool for fostering a resilient economy, especially in light of past manufacturing declines in states like Indiana. The historical context highlights the importance of making informed choices about economic policies to avoid repeating mistakes that led to job losses and community decline. Advisors should prepare for increased scrutiny of large businesses and advocate for policies that prioritize American workers and innovation. The article discusses the impact of neoliberal policies, particularly the "Washington Consensus," on the U.S. economy, highlighting how these policies have contributed to job losses and economic inequality. Free trade agreements and lax antitrust enforcement have favored large corporations while harming local businesses and communities, leading to a weakened middle class and social issues. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasizes that the American Dream is about prosperity and upward mobility, not just access to cheap goods. For competition law advisors, this underscores the importance of robust antitrust enforcement to ensure competitive markets that support local businesses and promote economic security for all citizens. Advisors should consider how current policies and enforcement practices affect market dynamics and community well-being, advocating for changes that prioritize fair competition and support for small and innovative businesses. The speaker emphasizes a new approach to antitrust law called "America First Antitrust," which aims to empower everyday Americans, particularly consumers, workers, and small businesses that have been overlooked by current economic policies. This approach is rooted in historical principles, including the Sherman Antitrust Act and movements like the Boston Tea Party and the Granger Movement, which fought against monopolies and government overreach.

The speaker outlines three key conservative values that will guide this antitrust strategy:

1. **Protection of Individual Liberty**: This principle focuses on safeguarding citizens from both government and corporate oppression, ensuring that Americans can freely express themselves, work, and innovate without unnecessary interference.

2. **Respect for Legal Foundations**: There is an emphasis on adhering to textualism, originalism, and legal precedents to ensure fair and effective law enforcement in antitrust matters.

3. **Caution Against Overregulation**: The speaker warns that excessive regulation can hinder economic growth and competition, advocating for a balanced approach that promotes rather than stifles market opportunities.

For competition law advisors, this speech signals a shift towards a more populist and conservative framework in antitrust enforcement. Advisors should prepare for potential changes in regulatory focus that prioritize the interests of small businesses and consumers over larger corporations. They may need to adjust their strategies to align with this new emphasis on individual liberties and historical principles, while also being mindful of the potential for increased scrutiny on corporate practices that could be seen as monopolistic or oppressive. The article discusses the historical context of antitrust laws and their role in protecting individual liberty from monopolies. It highlights the belief that monopolies restrict choices for consumers and producers, echoing sentiments from the Founding Fathers and philosophers like Adam Smith. The text notes that monopolies, whether granted by a king or formed by private entities, threaten the natural rights of individuals. It references the Grangers, a group of midwestern farmers in the 1860s, who organized against monopolistic practices in the railroad and grain elevator industries that harmed their economic interests.

For competition law advisors, this summary underscores the importance of understanding the historical roots of antitrust principles. Advisors should be aware of how monopolistic practices can infringe on individual rights and economic fairness, particularly in sectors like agriculture and transportation. This context can inform their strategies in advising clients on compliance with antitrust laws and in advocating for fair competition. The article discusses the historical context of antitrust laws, starting with the Grangers' call for government action against monopolies in the 1870s and Senator Sherman’s 1890 Sherman Act aimed at promoting economic competition and protecting individual liberty. It highlights a shift in the nature of monopolies, particularly with the rise of online platforms that not only control prices but also influence commerce, communication, and public discourse. For competition law advisors, this indicates a need to reassess current antitrust frameworks to address the unique challenges posed by digital monopolies, which have far-reaching implications for consumer rights, market competition, and democratic processes. Advisors should be aware of the evolving landscape of monopoly power and consider how existing laws can be applied or adapted to regulate these new forms of market dominance effectively. The article highlights a shift in antitrust policy driven by conservative leaders who view concentrated economic power as a threat to individual liberty, similar to political tyranny. Key figures like Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chair Mike Lee and Vice President Vance emphasize the need for strong antitrust enforcement to combat the influence of large companies, particularly in sectors that affect everyday life, such as housing and healthcare. They argue that protecting competitive markets is essential for maintaining economic freedom. 

For competition law advisors, this signals a potential increase in scrutiny of large corporations and a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement. Advisors should prepare for a regulatory environment that prioritizes consumer protection and market competition, while also being mindful of the balance between government intervention and economic freedom. Understanding the conservative perspective on antitrust will be crucial for navigating future legal challenges and advising clients effectively. The article emphasizes that antitrust law in the U.S. should strictly adhere to the laws enacted by Congress, focusing on enforcement rather than regulation. Antitrust agencies must operate within the framework established by the Sherman and Clayton Acts, which were designed to reflect common law principles regarding trade restraints and monopolies. This means that businesses involved in antitrust matters should be aware that enforcement actions will be based on established legal texts and precedents, rather than evolving economic theories or regulatory interpretations. 

For competition law advisors, this underscores the importance of understanding the historical context and legal definitions within antitrust laws. They should prepare their clients for potential enforcement actions that rely on traditional interpretations of the law, particularly concerning practices like price-fixing and monopolization. Advisors must also recognize that while economic innovations may influence discussions around antitrust, they do not change the foundational legal principles that govern enforcement. The article discusses the future of merger enforcement in antitrust law, emphasizing the importance of adhering to both old and new legal precedents. It highlights the need for enforcement decisions to be based on a careful interpretation of the law and economic data, rather than straying from established legal texts. This approach aims to protect workers by ensuring competition in labor markets, as demonstrated by a recent case involving wage-fixing among home healthcare nurses in Nevada.

For competition law advisors, this means that businesses should be aware of the potential for increased scrutiny on practices that may restrict competition in labor markets. The enforcement stance suggests that any actions perceived as harming worker competition could lead to legal challenges. Additionally, the article advocates for a preference for litigation over regulation, indicating that aggressive antitrust enforcement could serve as a deterrent against monopolistic practices and reduce the need for government intervention. Advisors should prepare their clients for a more rigorous enforcement environment that prioritizes competition and worker rights. The article discusses the shift towards increased regulation in concentrated markets, particularly following the 2008 financial crisis, which led to the emergence of "too big to fail" financial institutions. It raises concerns about how these institutions became so large and whether antitrust laws could have prevented this concentration. The author references Robert Jackson, a historical figure in antitrust enforcement, who believed that antitrust laws should maintain competition to avoid heavy government regulation. The article emphasizes that antitrust enforcement is a precise tool (a "scalpel") to address issues like monopolies and collusion, while broad regulations (a "sledgehammer") can distort markets for all businesses indefinitely. 

For competition law advisors, this highlights the importance of understanding the balance between antitrust enforcement and regulation. Advisors should be aware of the implications of market concentration and the potential for regulatory scrutiny, especially in industries where large players dominate. They should also consider how antitrust laws can be used strategically to address competitive harms without triggering broader regulatory measures that could impact all businesses in the sector. The article discusses the challenges posed by anti-competitive regulations that can be manipulated by monopolies and their lobbyists, ultimately harming free markets and innovation. It highlights the concept of regulatory capture, where industries influence regulations to benefit themselves at the expense of consumers and smaller businesses. To address this issue, the Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force has been established, aiming to identify and eliminate laws that hinder competition and negatively impact consumers, workers, and businesses. This initiative aligns with the Trump Administration's focus on deregulation and seeks to prioritize the interests of average Americans, particularly in the Midwest. 

For competition law advisors, this signals a shift towards a more aggressive stance against regulations perceived as anti-competitive. Advisors should be aware of the potential for increased scrutiny of existing regulations and the possibility of changes that could favor smaller businesses and consumers. They should also consider the implications of this task force's work on their clients, particularly those in industries that may be affected by deregulation efforts. Engaging with policymakers and understanding the evolving regulatory landscape will be crucial for navigating these changes effectively. The article discusses recent executive orders aimed at reducing regulatory barriers and promoting competition in the U.S. economy. Notably, Executive Orders No. 14,266 and No. 14,267 focus on modifying tariff rates and reducing anti-competitive regulations, respectively. These changes could significantly impact businesses involved in international trade and those facing regulatory hurdles. 

Competition law advisors should pay close attention to these developments, as they may alter the competitive landscape for various industries. Companies that rely on imports or exports may need to reassess their pricing strategies and compliance with new tariff structures. Additionally, businesses that have been hindered by regulatory barriers might find new opportunities for growth and innovation. 

Overall, the implications of these executive orders suggest a shift towards a more competitive market environment, which could lead to increased scrutiny of anti-competitive practices and a potential rise in enforcement actions. Advisors should prepare their clients for these changes and consider how to navigate the evolving regulatory framework. The article discusses key legal principles and historical cases relevant to competition law, emphasizing the importance of maintaining fair competition and preventing monopolistic practices. J.D. Vance's keynote address at RemedyFest 2024 highlights ongoing concerns about the impact of restrictive trade practices on both businesses and consumers. 

Competition law advisors should note the implications of recent legal precedents, such as the conviction of a home health agency executive for wage-fixing, which underscores the legal risks associated with collusion and anti-competitive behavior. The article also references foundational cases like Standard Oil and FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers, which illustrate the judiciary's stance against practices that restrain trade and harm public welfare.

Advisors should be aware that contracts or agreements that generally restrain trade are prohibited, as they can lead to monopolies and negatively affect market dynamics. The historical context provided by figures like Justice Story and Robert H. Jackson reinforces the necessity for businesses to comply with antitrust laws to avoid legal repercussions and promote a competitive marketplace. The article discusses recent developments in U.S. regulatory policy that may impact businesses and competition law. Notably, two executive orders from January and February 2025 focus on deregulation and improving government efficiency. These initiatives aim to reduce regulatory burdens on businesses, potentially fostering a more competitive environment. 

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice has established an Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force as of March 2025. This task force will likely scrutinize regulations that may hinder competition, which could affect various industries. 

For competition law advisors, these changes signal a shift towards a more lenient regulatory framework, but also an increased focus on identifying and addressing anticompetitive practices. Businesses should stay informed about these developments to navigate the evolving regulatory landscape effectively.

Gail Slater's Antitrust Vision: A Conservative Approach to Market Power

Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater delivered her first formal address at Notre Dame Law School, focusing on the importance of conservative principles in antitrust enforcement. She highlighted values such as American patriotism, textualism, and a commitment to law enforcement as guiding factors in the Antitrust Division's approach.

Slater referenced Indiana's historical significance in shaping antitrust principles, particularly the Sherman Act, and expressed gratitude for the bipartisan support during her confirmation. She reiterated her commitment to protecting Americans from market power abuses, signaling a potential shift towards more aggressive antitrust enforcement against large corporations.

The address suggests that competition law advisors should prepare for increased scrutiny of market practices, particularly in light of the administration's focus on conservative legal principles. Businesses may need to reassess their compliance strategies to align with this new enforcement landscape, which aims to ensure that the American economy serves the people rather than external influences.

Slater emphasized the role of antitrust as a tool for fostering a resilient economy, particularly in states like Indiana that have faced manufacturing declines. She warned against the dangers of neoliberal policies that have favored large corporations at the expense of local businesses and the middle class.

The speech introduced the concept of 'America First Antitrust,' which aims to empower consumers, workers, and small businesses. Slater outlined three key conservative values guiding this strategy: protection of individual liberty, respect for legal foundations, and caution against overregulation.

Advisors should note the historical context of antitrust laws and their role in protecting individual rights from monopolies. The address also highlighted the need to reassess current antitrust frameworks to address challenges posed by digital monopolies and the evolving landscape of market dominance.

Slater's remarks indicate a potential increase in scrutiny of large corporations and a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement, prioritizing consumer protection and market competition. Advisors should prepare for a regulatory environment that emphasizes traditional legal principles and historical context in antitrust matters.



Gail Slater's Antitrust Vision: A Conservative Approach to Market Power

In her inaugural address, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater outlined a conservative framework for antitrust enforcement, emphasizing individual liberties and historical principles to combat corporate monopolies.