Doomsday or a New Day?

Recent actions by DOGE to reduce the size of the federal workforce and decrease the number of federal programs has sparked intense debate among Americans, revealing significant partisan divides. FGS Global’s Insights team canvassed our community of news-attentive Americans—TrendSpotters—to tell us what they really think about DOGE. 

Here are the key findings:

• TrendSpotters are split down the middle on DOGE.   

  • 48% say what DOGE is doing is mostly bad for America.

  • 45% say it’s mostly good for America.

• Not surprisingly, views of DOGE and Musk are intensely held and highly partisan.  

  • 72% of Republicans say DOGE’s actions are good for America. Most Republicans say the federal government has been too large for too long, and DOGE’s goals align with longstanding concerns about waste and overspending, eliminating corruption and reducing the deficit. Though in the minority, some Republicans worry Musk is moving too quickly.

  • 75% of Democrats say DOGE’s actions are bad for America. Democrats acknowledge there is some government waste but are highly frustrated with the process and are deeply concerned that key programs like social security will fail. They say a lack of understanding has led to haphazard slashing of critical programs – especially when they don’t believe DOGE has the authority from Congress to make these changes.  

• The take on Elon Musk is equally divided: Republicans think Musk sits outside of politics and has nothing to personally gain from unpaid work with DOGE. In contrast, Democrats are shocked Musk has so much power as an unelected official and see him as incapable of being objective due to his extensive government contracts.

For more information, please reach out to insights@fgsglobal.com.

Bluesky has quickly gained traction as a popular alternative to X (formerly Twitter). FGS Global’s social media experts offer their insights on how the innovative platform is positioned to be a major player within the social media landscape and what we can expect regarding the platform’s trajectory:

• Bluesky’s unique appeal lies in its decentralized design, built on the open-source AT Protocol, which offers users greater control over their content and the algorithms they interact with. Unlike Twitter/X, Bluesky’s community-driven approach allows for tailored moderation policies and user autonomy – a core reason for its swift adoption.

• Bluesky has gained a reputation as a left-wing platform, attracting users who are disillusioned with the political direction of X under Elon Musk's leadership. Its popularity notably surged after the 2024 U.S. presidential election, with many users migrating from X due to concerns about political bias and content manipulation. High-profile endorsements from progressive figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders have further solidified Bluesky’s image as a space for like-minded, left-leaning individuals.

• Despite its rapid growth, Bluesky faces challenges in maintaining its momentum. Its success largely hinges on retaining users beyond its political appeal and appealing to a broader audience in the long term. Additionally, Bluesky has yet to fully attract major brands, as the platform remains hesitant about integrating advertisements, which could limit its financial growth.

• Looking ahead, Bluesky must navigate the fine line between political appeal and long-term innovation to ensure it doesn’t become just another fleeting trend in the ever-evolving world of social media.

For questions about our approach to emerging platforms, contact social@fgsglobal.com.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson recently announced in a series of posts on X that the 2023 Merger Guidelines will serve as the analytical framework for merger review at the FTC – a surprising move that means the standards of the Biden administration will continue into the Trump era.

The implications are profound for M&A activity and economic policies. Our colleagues at the NA Antitrust Digest Newsletter offer their insights below:

• Central to Biden administration policy: The Guidelines were crafted by former Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter and FTC Chair Lina Khan, who received criticism from traditional conservative economists and the antitrust defense bar for abandoning the “consumer welfare standard” as the central tenet of review.

• Focused on more than price: The 2023 Guidelines brought a broader analysis than a simple examination of prices, instead looking at competitive effects across the economy, labor concerns and other non-price issues like those in technology markets.

• Indicative of a skeptical stance: After the election, FGS predicted that antitrust and competition policy would depend on the personnel chosen for the FTC and DOJ. One month into the administration, it is clear that Vice President Vance and his pro-enforcement posture has largely won out over the laissez-faire “Chicago School” wing of more traditional Republican administrations.

Merger Guidelines are not law – they are merely an analytical framework the agencies use to assess the competitive implications of a proposed transaction. They do, however, influence the judiciary where antitrust trials happen.

To subscribe, email antitrust@fgsglobal.com.