North America Antitrust Digest | July 2025

A quick look at the top headlines in Antitrust and Competition

1. House Advances Appropriations Package Boosting Funding for Antitrust

2. Recent Deal Clearances Raise Expectations of Greater Merger Activity

A breakdown of the latest news, moves and trends

House Advances Appropriations Package Boosting Funding for Antitrust

On July 15, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) advanced its title of the FY2026 funding package by a 9-6 vote along party lines. The measure now heads to the full Appropriations Committee for consideration.

Included in the package is $310 million in funding for the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, which the committee said would be offset by pre-merger filing fees. If enacted, the funding level would mean an increase of $77 million over current funding levels and the levels included in President Trump’s FY2026 budget request.

Next Steps: The legislation is now expected to go before the full Appropriations Committee for markup. If the House successfully passes its CJS appropriations bill, it would eventually have to be reconciled with the Senate’s version of the spending legislation. That Senate legislation got delayed last week over an impasse related to President Trump’s move to override a congressionally approved plan to relocate FBI headquarters to suburban Maryland. Slim margins in both the House and Senate and a charged political environment could also threaten passage of any FY26 appropriations legislation.

Essential insights and analysis

Recent Deal Clearances Raise Expectations of Greater Merger Activity

In the immediate aftermath of the November election, many expected a more lenient approach to mergers than what was seen in the Biden era — One enthusiastic banker even remarked that “the animal spirits will be unleashed.” At the time, however, we cautioned against assuming the new enforcers would take a drastically different approach, especially given that Vice President Vance had praised former FTC Chair Lina Khan, and the new Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Gail Slater, was his longtime counsel. Additionally, newly appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson endorsed the 2023 Merger Guidelines issued by former AAG Jonathan Kanter and Chair Khan.

Court activity seemed to reflect this; The DOJ rejected settlement offers from Google and pursued the remedy phase of its successful internet search case. Meanwhile, despite Meta’s intense lobbying efforts, the FTC proceeded with a stronger-than-expected case against the social media giant. The DOJ also challenged HPE’s acquisition of Juniper Networks, while the FTC acted to block GTCR Holdings’ purchase of Surmodics.

But soon, both agencies' leaders were signaling a potential shift in enforcement. At an FGS-sponsored forum in April, Chair Ferguson stated his intent “to quickly get out of the way if a merger presents no harm to competition.” AAG Slater echoed this sentiment, indicating a new openness to remedy proposals—marking a departure from the Biden era.

In the past two weeks, the Trump Administration’s divergence from previous enforcement patterns has become clearer. First, the FTC approved a merger between the third- and fourth-largest global advertising firms, Omnicom-Interpublic (IPG), with a highly unusual behavioral remedy, including a consent agreement prohibiting Omnicom-IPG from participating in publisher boycotts based on political affiliation. Then, the DOJ resolved its case with HPE just before trial. The remedy here was more structural: HPE agreed to divest its Instant On product and license source code tied to Juniper’s Mist product. Notably, no buyer was identified, and the licensing arrangement has a behavioral element—something this administration has previously been reluctant to endorse.

Are the "animal spirits" back?

For now, antitrust enforcement under the Trump Administration appears to follow multiple strands. Chair Ferguson and AAG Slater seem committed to stepping aside when deals are not deemed anticompetitive. Early termination procedures have returned, and some transactions that underwent second requests have closed without further conditions.

Additionally, there is a revived willingness to negotiate remedies. While Biden-era and even first-term Trump officials largely avoided these discussions, current enforcers appear more flexible. Interestingly, the Omnicom and HPE remedies didn’t precisely align with the initial complaints, suggesting that negotiations may now allow for more innovative solutions.

Despite these changes, both administrations share a broader view of antitrust enforcement; Chair Ferguson, Commissioner Mark Meador, and AAG Slater all frequently criticize a narrow, price-only, application of the “consumer welfare standard.” As the Chair noted at the FGS event, “The consumer welfare standard properly understood is not just about price. It includes quality, innovation, and choice—factors that directly affect consumers’ well-being.” In this light, the Omnicom remedy reflects a focus on preserving quality and enhancing choice—particularly for conservative consumers. The agencies have also retained the Biden-era Merger Guidelines as well as the more modern, and robust, HSR Form.

Both the FTC and DOJ also remain active outside the merger context. Meta continues to face litigation, and the FTC is preparing for two major actions against Amazon—one for consumer protection this September and an antitrust complaint next year. The DOJ has concluded the remedy phase of its search case against Google and is preparing for similar proceedings in its ad tech monopoly case. It also cleared a major hurdle by overcoming Apple’s motion to dismiss in a separate suit.

Finally, agency focus is shifting toward industry-specific issues. In June, the FTC and DOJ launched the first of several workshops on lowering drug prices. The inaugural session addressed tactics such as pay-for-delay, product hopping, and generic drug price fixing. Future sessions will focus on PBMs and other pharmaceutical market players.

So, is merger approval easier or harder?

In short, and unsatisfyingly, it is both. Trump’s antitrust officials are intelligent and firm, but they approach enforcement differently. Proposed mergers may face less initial skepticism, but scrutiny remains—and it's now more closely aligned with administration priorities than under quasi-independent predecessors. Deals today must be backed by strategic political, stakeholder, and communication planning.

This isn’t “lobbying” in the traditional sense. Rather, it’s an acknowledgment that the Trump Administration is holistic in its governance: what matters to the President also matters to the FTC Chair and AAG. Transactions must not only be non-anticompetitive—they must also align with the administration’s economic, foreign policy, or cultural goals.