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
mergers and acquisitions
Trump’s Lax Approach to Antitrust Helps Spur Banner Year for Corporate Mergers
"Trump’s new antitrust enforcers have demonstrated a willingness to facilitate dealmaking through an uptick in early terminations and settlements," said the American Economic Liberties Project.
Dec 26, 2025
Global corporate mergers surged to near-record highs in 2025, driven in part by US President Donald Trump's lax approach to antitrust enforcement.
The Financial Times reported on Friday that global dealmaking in 2025 topped $4 trillion, including 68 mergers worth $10 billion or more, highlighted by Netflix's $72 billion bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery and a proposed $85 billion mega-merger between railway giants Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern.
The US alone accounted for $2.3 trillion worth of mergers and acquisitions, which the Financial Times said highlighted the Trump administration's role in green-lighting corporate consolidation.
"Top dealmakers said that the Trump administration’s push to loosen regulation had encouraged companies to explore tie-ups that they might otherwise have been hesitant to pursue," the Financial Times explained.
Andrew Nussbaum, co-chair of the executive committee at law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, told the Financial Times that corporate leaders "see a willingness of the regulators to engage in constructive dialogue" under the second Trump administration, which has given them "a willingness to take on regulatory risk for transactions that are strategic."
The American Economic Liberties Project has also taken note of the Trump administration's role in shepherding through big mergers, and created a Trump Merger Boom tracker earlier this year to document the massive wave of corporate consolidation.
In its analysis of the administration's lax approach to antitrust enforcement, the American Economic Liberties Project said that "Trump’s new antitrust enforcers have demonstrated a willingness to facilitate dealmaking through an uptick in early terminations and settlements."
"Despite pro-enforcement rhetoric early on from Trump’s heads of the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division," the American Economic Liberties Project added, "it’s becoming increasingly clear that agency leadership is having trouble making their decisions in a vacuum—with a quiet tide of deals granted to companies that have been friendly to the White House."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn of ‘Catastrophic’ Threat If Netflix Acquires Warner Bros.
"The threat of this merger in any form is an alarming escalation in a consolidation crisis that threatens the entire entertainment industry, the public it serves, and—potentially—the First Amendment itself," warned actress Jane Fonda.
Dec 05, 2025
Netflix announced a deal Friday to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery’s film studio and streaming business for $83 billion, a merger that—if approved by the Trump administration—would create a media behemoth that critics say threatens industry competition, higher costs for consumers, the rights of entertainment workers, and democracy.
Netflix, the largest streaming company in the world, and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), owner of the third-largest streaming platform HBO Max, unveiled the proposed agreement after a closely watched bidding war that included Paramount Skydance, the company that the Trump administration reportedly favored to acquire WBD. Paramount is owned by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison—a close ally of President Donald Trump.
David Ellison reportedly met with Trump administration officials on Thursday to "press his case" against Netflix's pending acquisition of WBD. An unnamed senior official told CNBC on Friday that the Trump administration is treating the Netflix-WBD deal with "heavy skepticism."
While some expressed relief that Paramount appears—at least for now—to have lost the bid for Warner Bros., antitrust advocates argued such a view overlooks the much broader and more serious threat of corporate consolidation.
"Does anyone think Netflix won’t do what Trump wants to get their deal through?" asked Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project. "The threat to democracy isn’t the Ellisons, it’s media consolidation."
The American Prospect's David Dayen expressed a similar sentiment, writing on social media: "Keeping WBD out of Paramount's hands is good. Putting it in Netflix's is still unlawful consolidation though. This is the #1 streamer merging with #3. State enforcers should speak up."
"If we don’t speak now, we may have no industry—and no democracy—left to defend."
In a newsletter post following news of the merger agreement, Stoller argued the Netflix-WBD deal is plainly illegal under the Clayton Antitrust Act and "a recipe for monopolization."
"The ideal scenario now is a trial that puts the secrets of Hollywood executives and financiers on display, and crushes the financiers who think mergers are the only move in business," Stoller wrote. "Then Hollywood can get back to the business of making good TV shows and movies."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said that "this deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare."
"A Netflix-Warner Bros. would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market," said Warren. "It could force you into higher prices, fewer choices over what and how you watch, and may put American workers at risk."
"Under Donald Trump, the antitrust review process has also become a cesspool of political favoritism and corruption," the senator continued. "The Justice Department must enforce our nation’s anti-monopoly laws fairly and transparently—not use the Warner Bros. deal review to invite influence-peddling and bribery."
Ahead of the announcement, major figures in the entertainment industry sounded alarm over the possibility of a Netflix takeover of WBD. In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, a group of film producers warned that Neflix would "effectively hold a noose around the theatrical marketplace" if it acquired WBD.
The Writers’ Guild of America, which represents film and TV writers, has said it would oppose WBD merging with any "major studio or streamer," warning it "would be a disaster for writers, for consumers, and for competition."
"Merger after merger in the media industry has harmed workers, diminished competition and free speech, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars better invested in organic growth," the union said in a recent statement.
Jane Fonda, the renowned actress and activist, wrote Thursday that "the threat of this merger in any form is an alarming escalation in a consolidation crisis that threatens the entire entertainment industry, the public it serves, and—potentially—the First Amendment itself."
"Consolidation at this scale would be catastrophic for an industry built on free expression, for the creative workers who power it, and for consumers who depend on a free, independent media ecosystem to understand the world," Fonda wrote. "It will mean fewer jobs, fewer opportunities to sell work, fewer creative risks, fewer news sources, and far less diversity in the stories Americans get to hear."
"If we don’t speak now, we may have no industry—and no democracy—left to defend," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ousted DOJ Lawyer Says Bondi Appointees Let Corporate Lobbyists 'Rule' Over Antitrust Enforcement
Roger Alford, who was fired over his objections to a corrupt tech merger last month, said MAGA lobbyists and DOJ officials are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves."
Aug 19, 2025
An antitrust lawyer fired from the US Department of Justice last month accused Attorney General Pam Bondi's underlings on Monday of giving MAGA-aligned corporate lobbyists the ability to "rule" over antitrust enforcement.
Roger Alford, formerly the deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ's antitrust division, was ousted in July, reportedly for "insubordination" after he objected to the involvement of politically connected lobbyists in the $14 billion merger between Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks.
The DOJ had sued in January to block the merger, arguing that HPE's acquisition of Juniper would unlawfully stifle competition, raise prices for consumers, and harm innovation, since the two entities control over 70% of the wi-fi relied on by large companies, hospitals, universities, and other entities.
But that suit was resolved in June in what the Capitol Forum described as a "highly unusual settlement" in which Bondi's chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, overruled the DOJ's antitrust chief, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, to allow the deal to settle.
At the time, left-wing consumer advocates, like Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, argued that the deal was "a corrupt and politically rigged merger settlement," which came after political operatives tied to Trump lobbied on behalf of the company.
Despite still describing himself as a staunch MAGA loyalist, Alford likewise feels that the settlement was a "scandal."
In a speech delivered Monday at the Technology Policy Institute in Aspen, Colorado, he said senior DOJ officials "perverted justice and acted inconsistently with the rule of law" by allowing "corrupt lobbyists" to hijack the process.
According to disclosures from HPE, it hired multiple top Trump allies as lobbyists to advocate for the merger. These included MAGA influencer Mike Davis—a right-wing critic of Big Tech and a notorious legal operative responsible for many of Trump's judicial nominations—and Arthur Schwartz, a close adviser and confidante to Donald Trump, Jr. and JD Vance.
According to reporting from the conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari in UnHerd last month, which cites one unnamed senior official, the DOJ's merger settlement was the product of "boozy backroom meetings between company lawyers and lobbyists, on one hand, and officials from elsewhere in the Department of Justice, on the other."
As Ahmari explained:
"Boozy backroom deal" here isn't a figure of speech, by the way. It captures what literally took place, according to the former official, who described a meeting between government officials and lobbyists that took place at one of Washington's "private city clubs" over cocktails.
In an essay for UnHerd adapted from his speech, Alford berated these "MAGA-in-name-only lobbyists and the DOJ officials enabling them," who he said are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves as long as their friends are in power."
The current DOJ, Alford continued, has allowed for the "rule of lobbyists" to supplant the "rule of law." While he says this was not true of those idealists serving with him in the antitrust division—including his embattled former boss, Slater—he says that others in the DOJ showed "special solicitude" to lobbyists they perceived to be on the "same MAGA team."
"Too often in the current DOJ," he said, "meetings are accepted and decisions are made depending upon whether the request or information comes from a MAGA friend. Aware of this injustice, companies are hiring lawyers and influence-peddlers to bolster their MAGA credentials and pervert traditional law enforcement."
Alford makes a distinction between these corrupt officials and those he calls "genuine MAGA reformers" who "strive to remain true to President Trump's populist message that resonated with working-class Americans."
While he does not group Bondi in with the officials he deems corrupt, he does blame her for having "delegated authority to figures—such as her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, and Associate Attorney General-Designee Stanley Woodward—who don't share her commitment to a single tier of justice for all."
"Some progressives may blanche at Alford's praise for [US President Donald] Trump's populist messaging, and insistence that it has been subverted by top DOJ officials selling out to lobbyists," writes David Dayen in the American Prospect.
But Dayen notes that Alford's audience is not progressives and that he is instead "attempting to reach the president and his inner circle by playing on Trump's demand for total loyalty."
The merger between HPE and Juniper can still be stopped under the Tunney Act, which requires it to be reviewed by a federal judge to determine whether settlements brought in federal "antitrust" cases are in the "public interest."
While the Capital Forum says this process is typically a "rubber stamp," they wrote that "given the settlement's atypical substance and process, plus third parties who may be motivated to intervene and a judge who may be inclined to approach the review skeptically, what's normally a quick judicial signoff could turn into a fraught process with wide-reaching implications."
"Indeed, the court should block the HPE-Juniper merger," Alford said. "If you knew what I know, you would hope so, too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular