SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
As an official government shutdown looms, here is a brief tour through the wreckage wrought by Trump so far.
The media is reporting on the approaching government shutdown on September 30, due to an impasse between the two congressional parties. US President Donald Trump is threatening more mass firings of federal workers should this occur.
Der Führer Donald has already shut down vital government programs since he ascended to his elected dictatorship on January 20. The shutdowns of critical agencies, lifesaving programs, and law enforcement are uniformly illegal and constitute impeachable offenses. Under the Constitution, only Congress can terminate or limit many of the programs axed by the rampaging Monarch.
Here is a brief tour through the wreckage wrought by Trump, Elon Musk, and Trump’s lawless maniac, the clenched-jawed Russell Vought, director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget.
Many of the above-noted cuts in programs are to pay for more tax cuts to the under-taxed super rich and profit-glutted corporations. Note that Trump is NOT cutting hundreds of billions of dollars annually in corporate welfare—subsidies, handouts, giveaways, and bailouts. Nor is he going after huge fraud on the government in programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and military procurement. Trump is willing to overlook avaricious, entrenched corporate vendors and contractors bilking Uncle Sam.
Cracking down on corporate fraud and abuse would risk his own enormous self-enrichment schemes, would end his misuse of the office of the presidency and limit his use of the White House as business headquarters. Trump, regardless of his deeply phony “populism,” has always been a hardcore corporatist!
Trump, who is egomaniacal, ignorant, and often deranged with his daily blatant lies against reality, is a world-class, cunning personality. He secures the abject loyalty of his major appointees by nominating either totally inexperienced, incompetent people to run agencies and departments or turncoats who, once defiant, become obeisant.
The former are relishing their sudden unmerited upward mobility and are not about to make waves. The latter, like Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F.Kennedy Jr., feel they are under suspicion and double down on goosestepping with their boss. Neither recruitment category is likely to produce any whistleblowers. That’s how cunning Trump is with his widely criticized nominations.
Stay tuned. Let’s see how effective the Democratic Party’s polemics are to counter Trump, already blaming the Democrats for the Republican Party’s government shutdown. The Democrats can start by driving the point home to the American people about the terrible impacts Trump’s present government closures will quickly have on their health, safety, and livelihoods.
Dropping corporate cases en masse, as the Trump administration is doing, portends a return to recklessness and greed that fueled corporate catastrophes like Wall Street’s 2008 financial crisis.
“Corporations First.” That’s the slogan that would truthfully describe the Trump administration’s approach to law enforcement, not “America First.”
A new investigation by my organization shows that the Trump administration is dropping investigations and enforcement actions against corporations that showered money on Trump’s inauguration earlier this year.
Seventy-one big businesses, which were facing at least 102 ongoing federal enforcement actions at the time of Trump’s inauguration, collectively gave a whopping $57 million to the Trump-Vance inaugural fund, we found. And many may now be collecting special favors.
Time will tell whether the payments by other big corporate inauguration donors—like Amazon, Apple, Boeing, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Nvidia, and Pilgrim’s Pride—will see enforcement go away, too.
Trump’s inaugural haul from corporations facing investigations and lawsuits alone is comparable to the total amount raised for the inaugurations of former Presidents Barack Obama in 2009 ($53 million) and Joe Biden in 2021 ($62 million). And it’s just a third of the record-breaking $239 million Trump collected overall, $153 million of which came from corporate donors.
Regardless of president or party, private funding for the presidential inauguration poses a serious threat of corrupt influence buying by corporations and the wealthy. Unlike the vast majority of Americans, they can ingratiate themselves to an incoming administration with six- and seven-figure checks.
Donations by for-profit corporations are particularly suspect—corporations’ purpose, after all, is to amass wealth for private investors, an agenda that frequently pits them against laws and regulations that protect consumers, workers, and the broader public interest.
We may not know exactly what favors corporations might seek. But it’s reasonable to assume that getting rid of penalties or investigations for ripping off consumers, exploiting workers, polluting our environment, and engaging in illegal and unfair business practices would be high on the list.
Public Citizen has compiled a list of more than 500 enforcement actions against corporations that the Trump administration inherited from the Biden administration. During President Trump’s first 100 days alone, federal agencies halted or dropped at least 126 of these enforcement actions.
These include actions against 15 corporate inauguration donors whose cases were dismissed or withdrawn, plus six whose cases were halted. These 21 corporations collectively donated $18 million to the inaugural fund.
These include companies accused of violating consumer financial protections, such Bank of America, Capital One, JPMorgan, and Walmart; some crypto businesses accused of violating securities laws, such as Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kraken, and Ripple; private prison corporations that allegedly mistreated inmates, like CoreCivic and GEO Group; and businesses accused of engaging in illegal bribery schemes in foreign countries, including Cognizant, Pfizer, and Toyota.
Time will tell whether the payments by other big corporate inauguration donors—like Amazon, Apple, Boeing, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Nvidia, and Pilgrim’s Pride—will see enforcement go away, too.
To be fair, some cases against corporate inauguration donors do appear to be proceeding unhindered. The antitrust cases against Google and Meta are proceeding, the FTC’s case against Uber for deceptive billing practices has been filed, and Gilead Pharmaceuticals is being required to pay $202 million to settle allegations of paying illegal kickbacks to doctors.
These signs of ongoing enforcement are a good thing. But among the more than 100 cases being dropped and halted, they’re exceptional. Because of the mass firings of federal workers at enforcement agencies, they likely represent the conclusion of past enforcement efforts, not the continuation of an ongoing trend.
Dropping corporate cases en masse, as the Trump administration is doing, is a greenlight for corporate lawlessness. It portends a return to recklessness and greed that fueled corporate catastrophes like Wall Street’s 2008 financial crisis, the Oxycontin-fueled opioid crisis, BP’s oil spill disaster, and Boeing’s deadly 737 Max crashes.
It is the definition of “corporations first.”
Khan’s FTC has scored historic victories for consumers and workers—even as she’s faced powerful industry opposition and obstruction from right-wing judges.
In June 2021, just months into the Biden era, Zephyr Teachout argued that Lina Khan’s appointment to the Federal Trade Commission “may be the best thing Joe Biden has done” in office. With a firm reputation as a leader in the anti-monopoly movement, her nomination to the FTC was a clear victory for progressives in an administration otherwise primarily staffed by moderates.
Three years on, it’s clear that this optimistic outlook about a Khan-run FTC has been vindicated. In her position, Khan’s FTC has scored historic victories for consumers and workers—even as she’s faced powerful industry opposition and obstruction from right-wing judges.
Understanding the significance of Khan’s tenure means understanding how antitrust enforcement has been sabotaged in recent decades by right-wing ideologues. The federal government adopted antitrust laws beginning in 1890, which would become a crucial tool for reining in corporate abuses for decades to come. But beginning in the 1970s, federal courts would embrace a right-wing reimagining of antitrust law under the guise of promoting “consumer welfare.” Unsurprisingly, this hands-off approach helped create an economy defined by extreme corporate concentration, leading to fewer and worse choices for American consumers.
While the leadership of both agencies are set to change under President-elect Donald Trump, the new merger guidelines mean that Khan’s pro-competition vision will help shape FTC decision-making well past her tenure.
While still in law school, Khan rose to prominence in 2017 for her critique of laissez-faire antitrust enforcement. Given her reputation, observers were quick to speculate on how she’d be able to put her principles to action at the FTC. For one, the commission in recent decades has built a track record of being deferential to the very monopolies it’s tasked to regulate. Additionally, the commission has long suffered from inadequate funding, which has hindered its capacity to police monopolies. But despite these institutional constraints, Khan’s FTC has secured major wins for American consumers, all while facing down hostile corporate actors and their allies in the judiciary.
Monopolistic behavior in the food industry over the past few decades has robbed consumers of choice while increasing grocery costs. Two years ago, grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons announced a massive merger deal that quickly raised alarms among consumer advocates. While such a merger may have gone through unscathed a decade or so prior, the Khan-led FTC filed suit to block the deal. Last month, the FTC won one of its biggest victories in recent years by blocking the merger in court. This victory, along with the FTC’s successful effort to block Tapestry’s acquisition of Capri, shows that Khan’s view of antitrust is increasingly finding support in court.
Sharing jurisdiction on antitrust matters with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, the two agencies successfully modernized merger guidelines to help identify illegal mergers in their tracks. Observers have credited both the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division’s aggressive enforcement efforts with a recent decline in merger efforts. And while the leadership of both agencies are set to change under President-elect Donald Trump, the new merger guidelines mean that Khan’s pro-competition vision will help shape FTC decision-making well past her tenure.
These developments, of course, only scrape the surface of the FTC’s accomplishments under Khan. The commission notably blocked an effort by Nvidia to acquire Arm, which was set to be the biggest merger deal in semiconductor industry history. The ultimate failure of Amazon to acquire iRobot, which caused concern among various international antitrust regulators, has been at least partially credited to the FTC’s scrutiny. Among the most meaningful impact of renewed FTC antitrust scrutiny may be felt on private equity firms, a welcome development given said firms’ harms to competition and American society at large.
The Khan-led FTC’s ability to build bipartisan support for efforts such as recent rulemaking on junk fees, as well as on merger guidelines, should be seen as a model for Democratic governance. Moreover, the Khan-led FTC should be applauded for using long-neglected tools at the commission’s disposal, such as its ability to police price discrimination as interlocking directorates.
With Khan set to be succeeded by Andrew Ferguson, Trump’s pick to lead the FTC, it's likely that the FTC will soon shift its approach on antitrust and consumer protection. Nevertheless, it’s clear that Khan will leave behind a legacy that will influence antitrust enforcement for decades to come. And in doing so, Khan will also leave behind a track record that shows what successful progressive governance looks like.