SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
corporate power
Anti-Monopoly Dems Say Proposed Airline Megamerger 'Should Never See Light of Day'
The heads of the congressional Monopoly-Busters Caucus warned that a future administration could "break up" a merger of United and American Airlines if it is approved by Trump regulators.
Apr 15, 2026
The Democratic leaders of the congressional Monopoly-Busters Caucus said Wednesday that a recently floated megamerger of two of the largest airlines in the US—United and American—would be so awful for consumers that it shouldn't even be considered, let alone approved by federal regulators.
"The rumored scheme to merge United and American should never see the light of day," said Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Pat Ryan (D-NY), and Angie Craig (D-Minn.). "This disaster of a merger would be illegal, consolidating more than a third of the US airline market, eliminating direct competitors on hundreds of routes across the country, and creating a near-monopoly on flights in many cities."
The House Democrats went on to say that if a United-American merger is formally proposed and approved by President Donald Trump's regulators, a future Democratic administration could break up the resulting airline behemoth.
"In a time when too many Americans just struggle to even go on vacation, much less afford their housing, childcare, and healthcare, these airline executives should not mistake the corruption of this administration as a green light to break the law," the lawmakers said. "They should also remember that there is no statute of limitations on breaking up bad deals."
"In case it is not crystal clear," they added, "that is absolutely a threat to break up this merger should it ever happen."
The lawmakers' statement came a day after Bloomberg reported that United Airlines (UA) CEO Scott Kirby floated the idea of merging his company with American Airlines (AA) "directly" to Trump during a meeting in late February. Kirby also pitched the merger idea to other "senior government officials," the outlet noted, without providing names.
"A combination would create the largest airline on the planet," Bloomberg observed. "As a result, any merger between the two aviation giants would pose serious antitrust concerns and likely face significant backlash from consumers, politicians and rival US airlines."
"That the United CEO raised the idea of a merger with American directly with Donald Trump suggests he thinks he might obtain direct approval from the president for a merger that would otherwise never be permitted.”
Contrary to claims of a "surging MAGA antitrust movement" in the early days of Trump's second White House term, the president's administration has proven friendly to corporate merger efforts, from Paramount-Skydance to UnitedHealth-Amedisys and more. Reuters reported Wednesday that "investment banking fees—earned from advising on mergers and acquisitions and underwriting deals—surged an average of 27% across six major US banks in the first quarter, with record dealmaking a key profit driver."
William McGee, senior fellow for aviation and travel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said Wednesday that "thanks to the federal preemption clause in the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act, states have virtually no airline oversight."
"So effectively the only sheriffs overseeing airlines are [the Department of Transportation] and [Department of Justice]," McGee observed. "Under Trump they've been derelict in policing competition."
"To be clear: A UA-AA merger is absurd," McGee added. "A monolith mega-mega-carrier operating 4 of every 10 domestic flights is so harmful that anyone favoring it doesn't understand airlines. Or is a regulator eager to please a president who 'loves to see big deals.'"
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement Tuesday that "it would be easy to dismiss the prospect of such a merger passing antitrust scrutiny—except that the Trump Department of Justice seems content to bless dangerously high levels of corporate concentration, so long as administration cronies, allies, or flatterers are in charge of corporate goliath."
"That the United CEO raised the idea of a merger with American directly with Donald Trump," Weissman added, "suggests he thinks he might obtain direct approval from the president for a merger that would otherwise never be permitted.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
How to Stop Tyson Foods from Destroying 3,200 Jobs in a Nebraska Town of 10,000
Dan Osborn, the independent US Senate candidate in Nebraska, needs a plan. And it's a plan that could and should be embraced in states and communities nationwide.
Apr 15, 2026
Here are some things to know about large corporations:
- Corporations in America are free to shut down facilities, whether profitable or unprofitable, with devastating effects on workers, their families, and their communities.
- Corporations are also free to use their cash to repurchase their own stock shares, driving up their price without increasing the company’s value—a pure and simple case of stock manipulation that enriches top corporate executives and Wall Street investors.
- And corporations in the US enjoy the benefits that come from receiving taxpayer-funded government contracts, while retaining the right to destroy the jobs of taxpayers, if they see fit.
Dan Osborn, the Nebraska independent senatorial candidate, knows all this. It’s a good part of the reason he’s running for office, and he needs a plan. He knows this is a travesty, a disaster, a case of the rich and powerful trashing working people. As he puts it, “This isn’t left and right anymore, this is big versus little,” and he wants to do all he can to stop Tyson from killing 3,200 jobs in Lexington, Nebraska.
Osborn has called for the enforcement of the 1921 federal Packers and Stockyards Act, which was designed to promote competitiveness in the livestock, meat, and poultry industries and prohibit deception and fraud. He claims Tyson broke the law by closing its Lexington, Nebraska, plant instead of selling the facility to a competitor. The closure was “destroying 5 percent of America’s beef processing capacity,” Osborn argued, which will drive up prices instead of maintaining a competitive market.
In just the last quarter of 2025, Tyson conducted more than $200 million in stock repurchases which did nothing to improve production and nothing at all to protect the workers.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer joined the fight by demanding that Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollings use the authority she has under the Act to block the Lexington closure. But, on January 21, 2026, the plant shut down anyway. In fact, no plant closing has ever been stopped by this act.
If the law is not enough to protect these devastated workers and communities, where can Osborn find leverage to help them?
It is really hard to stop a plant closing in the United States of America. Of the millions of mass layoffs over the past three decades, I’m having trouble finding any that have been reversed (although my friends at the Teamsters Union say they have been successful on occasion.) There have been at least a handful of worker buyouts of facilities scheduled for shutdowns that kept them open for a time, but all I know about soon went under.
There is one point of leverage, however, that has yet to be used—federal contracts.
Large corporations love to dine at the federal trough, gobbling up as much taxpayer money as they can through federal grants and contracts. Tyson is no exception. It’s got its hands all over our tax dollars. In 2025, it received 170 federal awards for a total of $234 million. It also received, from 2018 to 2020, $727 million from the Pentagon to supply beef to the military. And those contracts have been renewed through today.
Mass layoffs are a heartless tool that ignores how critical stable employment is to families and communities.
What if Osborn promised that as senator, he would fight for a new federal regulation like this:
All corporations of 500 or more employees that receive taxpayer-funded federal contracts shall not be permitted to conduct compulsory layoffs of taxpayers. All layoffs must be voluntary based on financial incentives.
Wouldn’t that be fair and just? After all, voluntary financial incentives to leave a job are commonplace for executives. And it’s not just severance. The idea is that no one should be forced to leave. The financial incentive would need to be high enough to attract voluntary departures.
Is this proposal too radical for Nebraska?
No doubt, corporations and their political handmaidens would vigorously attack the proposal. Isn’t the key to a free society the right of business owners, large and small, to manage their own enterprises as they see fit? When the government intervenes to control hiring and firing, isn’t it stepping towards socialism, which history has shown is both a failure economically and a path towards totalitarianism? Wouldn’t such a proposal harm jobs, our economy, and democracy?
Osborn’s response could be simple: Corporations would be totally free to hire and fire at will—but not if they are taking taxpayer money. If they want our money, then they can’t force us out against our will. No compulsory layoffs!
We tested this idea and the corporate attacks in our survey of 3,000 Midwestern voters across Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. About half of those voters supported the idea, with very low percentages opposed, even after being introduced to corporate attacks against the policy.
If they want our money, then they can’t force us out against our will. No compulsory layoffs!
Where would the money come from?
That’s where stock buybacks come in. In just the last quarter of 2025, Tyson conducted more than $200 million in stock repurchases which did nothing to improve production and nothing at all to protect the workers. They chose to pad the bonuses of Tyson executives and the portfolios of large Wall Street shareholders. It might have made instead a nice start on a worker buyout fund.
The proposal may sound radical, but nothing about this is pie in the sky. The Siemens Corporation in Germany agreed to a no-compulsory layoff proposal with its union, IG Metall, after it announced the layoff of 3,000 workers. As the result of negotiated settlement with the union, the workers could take voluntary financial buyout packages. But, none of the workers were forced to leave. And instead of the scheduled shutdown of five facilities, the company agreed to put in new products to keep the plants open.
Large corporations like Siemens and Tyson have enormous flexibility. They can rearrange production in countless ways. Unless pressured by the workers through their labor unions, they serve corporate needs first and subordinate those of workers. Mass layoffs are a heartless tool that ignores how critical stable employment is to families and communities. These companies have the financial power to fulfill the needs and interests of their employees, but they choose not to. But for Tyson, and so many companies today, all that matters is shoveling as much money as possible into the pockets of their wealthy executives and Wall Street investors. The workers be damned!
At this point, the Tyson workers and Dan Osborn know that the plant is not going to be reopened. But Osborn’s campaign could commemorate those workers by becoming the first politician in the nation to offer a realistic and potentially popular solution to this recurring nightmare:
No Compulsory Layoffs at Corporations That Receive Taxpayer Money!
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Labor Official Who Used to Represent Amazon Is About to Give the Company a Huge Gift
Crystal Carey, general counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, represented Amazon during her time at one of the biggest management-side law firms in the country.
Apr 13, 2026
National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Crystal Carey proposed a settlement on Sunday that would unwind a major case against the e-commerce behemoth Amazon—a company that Carey represented when she worked in the private sector for corporate clients.
Carey, whom President Donald Trump nominated after firing the Biden-era NLRB general counsel last year, sent her proposed settlement terms to the judge overseeing the labor agency's case against Amazon, which originated in the final year of the Biden administration. According to Bloomberg, Carey proposed that Amazon provide two weeks' worth of pay to dozens of drivers who were previously employed by Battle-Tested Strategies (BTS), formerly one of Amazon's delivery service partners (DSPs).
Amazon, in turn, would not be required to admit to unfair labor practices or be "found liable as a joint employer." The Biden-era NLRB argued that Amazon was a joint employer of the BTS delivery drivers and thus required to recognize and collectively bargain with their union—something Amazon has refused to do.
Bloomberg noted that, if decided against Amazon, the case Carey wants to settle "could have led for the first time to an agency judge, the NLRB members in Washington, and, eventually, federal appeals court judges ruling that Amazon was the joint employer of drivers for one of its delivery service partners."
"Amazon contracts with thousands of such partners to manage hundreds of thousands of delivery workers," Bloomberg observed.
Before Trump nominated her to replace labor champion Jennifer Abruzzo as general counsel of the NLRB, Carey was a partner at Morgan Lewis, one of the biggest management-side law firms in the country. The Economic Policy Institute noted following Carey's Senate confirmation last year that Morgan Lewis "represents corporations known for violating workers’ rights, including Amazon, SpaceX, Apple, and Tesla."
"Morgan Lewis is also pursuing the legal challenge that the NLRB is unconstitutional, despite several former NLRB members being employed at the firm," EPI noted. (Amazon has also argued in court that the labor board is unconstitutional.)
Amazon donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund, and the company's founder, mega-billionaire Jeff Bezos, attended the inauguration ceremony alongside other big-name tech executives.
Despite her ties to Amazon via her tenure at Morgan Lewis, Carey argued that she was not required to recuse herself from the case she's working to settle. According to Bloomberg, Carey said in an interview that "because a year had passed since she herself represented Amazon and because Morgan Lewis wasn’t representing the company in the [ongoing joint employer] case, she didn’t need to recuse herself."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular