On August 13, 2025, President Trump formally revoked Executive Order 14036, the 2021 Executive Order on promoting competition in the American economy. That Order, issued under President Joe Biden, marked a watershed moment as it directed more than a dozen federal agencies to take concrete steps to rein in monopolistic behavior and restore competition across sectors of the economy. By revoking it, President Trump removed a clear policy framework that empowered agencies to act in coordination to craft regulation that protects consumers and fosters innovation.
What President Biden’s 2021 Executive Order Aimed To Accomplish
Former President Biden’s Executive Order was a bold effort to restore fairness and consumer choice in markets that had become increasingly consolidated, especially digital markets. It called on agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission to tackle monopoly power in online platforms, curb the overreach of surveillance and data consolidation, restore net neutrality, protect the public’s right-to-repair, and ensure affordability in broadband nationwide. The Order also directed agencies to issue rules preventing unfair competition in digital marketplaces and emphasized the need for vigorous antitrust enforcement across the board. In many ways, it provided an important strategic anchor for a stronger, whole-of-government approach to competition policy. Public Knowledge praised the Order for promoting competition broadly in order to deliver quality choices for consumers, support innovation, raise wages, and lower prices.
Why This Revocation Matters for Competition Enforcement
This revocation comes at a time when the integrity of antitrust enforcement is already in question. At the Department of Justice, the proposed Hewlett Packard Enterprise–Juniper Networks merger triggered an internal clash in the Antitrust Division. Career staff warned that the merger would harm competition in networking equipment and criticized the terms of the DOJ’s proposed settlement, while executive leadership appeared more inclined to approve the deal. The dispute culminated in a wave of firings. Among those dismissed was Professor Roger Alford, who – only months earlier – testified in a U.S. Senate hearing that the Trump administration would carry forward the Biden administration’s commitment to robust antitrust enforcement, aimed at lowering prices for working Americans. Since leaving the DOJ, Professor Alford has sharpened his critique. In a recent speech at the Tech Policy Institute Aspen Forum, he alleged that lobbyists are improperly influencing the DOJ’s decision-making. Specifically, he states, “The cost to the country of this new pay-to-play approach to antitrust enforcement is enormous. For thirty pieces of silver, MAGA-In-Name-Only lobbyists are influencing their allies within the DOJ and risking President Trump’s populist conservative agenda.” Professor Alford’s remarks suggest that the forces shaping antitrust priorities may be less interested in protecting competition and more interested in responding to political and corporate pressures.
Against this backdrop, DOJ Antitrust Division Chief Gail Slater has retained President Trump’s support. This support could be beneficial for robust antitrust enforcement. On the one hand, she has voiced support for structural remedies as a way to resolve competitive concerns cleanly, which could indicate a continued desire for robust enforcement. On the other hand, she has emphasized predictability and pragmatism, supporting the idea of consent decrees and settlements over drawn-out litigation (a possible pathway for high-profile mergers to go through). This approach has been on display in recent merger settlements such as UnitedHealth–Amedisys and Keysight–Spirent.
However, the controversy over the HPE–Juniper settlement casts doubt on Slater’s authority inside the Antitrust Division. Although she formally leads the office, the perception that political leadership overruled staff concerns and forced through a settlement raises questions about whether Slater truly directs enforcement strategy or is constrained by decisions made above her.
This uncertainty about who truly sets enforcement priorities at the DOJ makes President Trump’s revocation of former President Biden’s Executive Order even more consequential, as it signals a broader shift away from coordinated, strong competition enforcement and toward a more politically managed approach. Other key officials in the current administration have expressed their support for President Trump’s revocation of former President Biden’s Order: FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson applauded the revocation, describing the original Order as a flawed exercise in “top down competition regulation” and affirming his preference for market-driven enforcement. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President for Antitrust Sean Heather also praised the move, framing the revocation as a return to free enterprise and a rejection of so-called “government overreach.”
Big Tech Litigation and Future Antitrust Direction
For Big Tech antitrust cases already in motion, the litigation will continue in court. But the robust enforcement philosophy that once supported these efforts may now be diminished. Without a unified executive directive on competition, the DOJ and the FTC may prioritize back-door negotiated resolutions and incremental remedies, rather than structural interventions against firms like Google, Meta, Amazon, or Apple. Professor Alford’s allegations about lobbyist influence raise further doubts about whether enforcement will remain rooted in protecting consumers and markets, or whether it will bend to political whims. In any case, the revocation means that courts, not the executive branch, may become the final determinants of whether our antitrust laws can rein in concentrated power.
But progress on competition requires more than just judicial decisions. It demands sustained enforcement, independent regulation, and a commitment from Congress to strengthen our antitrust laws. Without those elements, consumers and workers will continue to pay the price for concentrated economic power. We’ve seen bipartisan support for antitrust enforcement in Congress. Moreover, several senators have called for transparency given reports of DOJ infighting surrounding the HPE-Juniper merger. However, to date, Congress has not held an oversight hearing for DOJ or the FTC. In the face of accusations by former DOJ insiders that our nation’s law enforcement has been tainted by special interest lobby groups, the American people deserve answers. Congress must do their job and conduct an oversight hearing of DOJ to ensure the HPE-Juniper merger, and future transactions, are evaluated with the best interests of the American people, not corporations, in mind.