Antitrust experts say the new administration’s hands-off approach to tech regulation could gain the president the loyalty of tech executives in the short term, but could hurt the competitiveness of the American tech sector in the long run. (Photo by hapabapa/Getty Images)

Leaders in the tech industry have enjoyed more freedom to make business moves and an overall deregulatory attitude under the Trump administration, but antitrust experts say the administration’s hands-off approach could end up hurting American companies’ ability to innovate and compete on a global scale.

Antitrust laws protect fair competition, ensuring that no one company controls an entire market, price gouges for their products or controls the cost of labor. In the short term, a lax approach to these laws could mean the American people may see more big tech companies merge or acquire smaller competitors. 

In the long-term, it means the already small group of people running the country’s most powerful tech firms would gain even more control of the market, Illinois-based legislative attorney Maaria Mozaffar said.

“Traditionally, innovation in tech is inspired by how we can solve problems. And if there’s fewer people that are not invested in solving problems, but more invested in making profit, the innovation’s intent is going to be different,” Mozaffar said. “We’re going to get a repetition of the same models and the same products that are not actually solving problems, but just a faster way to make money.”

Trump’s approach to the FTC

Though Democrats and Republicans may have had different “philosophies” for antitrust rules in the past, it’s unusual to see wide swings in attitudes from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), said New Jersey-based antitrust attorney Nadine Jones. 

The independent regulatory agency, which protects consumer interests and anti-competitive business practices like price-fixing, illegal mergers and monopolization, has historically run with little influence from the president, Jones said, though it technically is housed under the executive branch.  

But recent moves by the Trump administration suggest he wants a much more hands-on approach, Jones said. Before taking office, Trump chose Andrew Ferguson as the FTC chairman, replacing Lina Khan, who fought Big Tech overreach during her tenure. Together with antitrust specialist Mark Meador, the pair have focused on issues of “censorship” by big tech, arguing that tech platforms have unfairly restricted conservative views.

Earlier this year, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners from the FTC, a decision that was recently supported by the Supreme Court, and set a precedent that gives more executive branch control over the independent agency.

And in August, Trump revoked a Biden-era executive order that called for enforcement of antitrust laws to promote more competition within industries and keep companies from monopolizing. 

All of it points to a central theme of deregulation for the tech industry, with a goal of growing the industry with as little government involvement as possible. Trump’s alignments with big tech leaders during the 2024 election were probably the first clue that he’d handle the FTC differently, Jones said. 

“I think if I were to try to read the tea leaves in past administrations, currying favor with the president was of less importance,” Jones said. “The DOJ, antitrust division, the assistant attorney general of the division was who you wanted to curry favor with, or the chair of the FTC. Whether or not you’re smiling nicely with the president was, I think, of less significance, because they typically left these technical areas of law to the experts.”

For California-based tech founder and author Mark Weinstein, The FTC holds a critical role in upholding democracy and free market capitalism. Trump’s attempts to fill the commission with Republicans is a threat to both concepts, he said. 

“It’s concerning, even when he appoints people who are inclined to be strong antitrust enforcers, because they’re still appointed by the president,” Weinstein said. “There’s a quid-pro-quo that’s clearly inferred there.”

Weinstein thinks that before his second term, Trump realized the immense power that information giants like Meta and Apple had in controlling content and shaping public opinion. Deregulatory policies could curry favor with the leaders of Big Tech, and help him control information, Weinstein said.

“If Meta bans him from their platform, then they have all the power,” he said. “And he wants to have all the power.” 

With influence over large tech platforms, Mozaffar said, Trump is more capable of spreading his ideas around diversity, equity and inclusion and past “censorship” of conservatives.

“When you see the tech giants behind Donald Trump, people think it’s just about making them richer,” Mozaffar said. “It’s really [Trump’s] ability to have control over how those tech platforms do their business, as far as content control.”

What does this mean for American tech companies? 

So far, the FTC has been continuing antitrust lawsuits from previous administrations against some tech giants, like Google, which is currently awaiting a decision on a trial alleging it monopolized its search engine, after being found liable in a separate advertising-related trial in 2024.

The commission is also awaiting an outcome on a six-week trial in a case it brought against Meta, parent of Facebook, alleging in 2020 — under direction from the first Trump administration — that the company created a monopoly by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp. 

Trump-appointed FTC commissioner Meador said at NYU’s Law Forum last month he believes most Americans support the scrutiny into big tech companies. 

“I don’t think this moment is a flash in the pan,” Meador said during the event. “I think that it is growing out of deeper sentiments and concerns about economic fairness and economic regulation and policy at a very broad level. And this is just one manifestation of it. I think that’s a generational thing. I think it’s only going to amplify. So, I don’t think it’s going away.”

But the current Trump administration has only brought one antitrust case against a tech merger, when it sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise from buying Juniper Networks for $14 billion earlier this year.

Trump is likely feeling out his options, Mozaffar said — he could fall in line with more traditional Republican action, aiming to enforce antitrust laws to promote competition. But he could also be using a framework FTC Chair Ferguson outlined, which criticises tech platform’s content moderation rules, as a way to rein in platforms that the GOP has long accused of censoring conservative viewpoints.

Mozaffar said she’s watching how the administration handles both horizontal and vertical mergers. Horizontal mergers, when two similar companies merge to create one company, are likely more familiar to the average American. But vertical mergers, which involve partnerships of companies across several layers of a supply chain, have the potential to have truly expansive power. 

One possible example is a recent $100 billion deal between AI giant OpenAI and computing powerhouse Nvidia. Nvidia’s investment into OpenAI includes the ability to build out its data center capacity and computing chip needs, tying the companies’ growth and success together. The deal immediately raised antitrust concerns. 

“How much control do you have over every piece of the process? To the point where there’s no innovation in product and competition leading up to that final product?” Mozaffar said.  “And then how much are you controlling as far as protecting labor rights and best practices, because you can always cut corners to be able to make sure that the final product serves the profit that it’s supposed to serve.” 

Amid conflicting federal antitrust cases, Jones advised corporate lawyers to pay attention to their state’s antitrust laws, as state attorneys general are some of the biggest enforcers of antitrust law in the country. 

She said although letting tech businesses operate unfettered may meet some of Trump’s short-term goals, a lack of enforcement will ultimately make the United States a less competitive, less innovative place. 

“Antitrust philosophy believes the only way to get genuine benefits for consumers, to get people to race to get to the finish line of your dollars — and you choosing them with your dollars — is to compete with each other,” Jones said.  “And then we, the consumers, enjoy the fruits of those competitions.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., joined by President Donald Trump, delivers an announcement on “significant medical and scientific findings for America’s children” in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sept. 22, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Federal health officials suggested a link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy as a risk for autism, although many health agencies have noted inconclusive results in the research. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans disapprove of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s job performance and the federal government’s evolving vaccine policy, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF.

In addition, the vast majority of those surveyed have heard the unproven claims made by President Donald Trump, Kennedy and others in late September that taking acetaminophen, also known as Tylenol, during pregnancy could be one possible environmental factor in a child later being diagnosed with autism.

A total of 77% of the people KFF polled said they knew of the statements, though whether people believe the claims, which have yet to be established by the medical community, varied.

Only 4% of those surveyed said it is “definitely true” that taking Tylenol during pregnancy increases the risk of the child developing autism, and 35% said the claim is “definitely false.” Thirty percent said it is “probably true” and 30% said it is “probably false.”

Combined, 65% said it’s either probably or definitely false to say that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy increases the chance of a child developing autism, a complex disorder that experts believe is the result of both genetic and environmental factors.

When broken down by political party, 86% of Democrats, 67% of independents and 43% of Republicans said the claims were either probably or definitely false.

The survey shows 59% somewhat or strongly disapprove of how Kennedy is handling his new role at the top of the country’s public health infrastructure.

The level of support changes considerably depending on political party affiliation, with 86% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 26% of Republicans disapproving.

A slightly higher number, 62%, either somewhat or strongly disapprove of the United States’ vaccine policy.A similar trend emerged when those polled were broken up by political parties. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, 67% of independents and 31% of Republicans somewhat or strongly disapproved of vaccine policy.

The survey shows a declining share of Americans have faith in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide trusted information about vaccines, compared with previous KFF polls in September 2023 and earlier this year.

A total of 63% of respondents two years ago trusted the CDC on vaccines, but that has declined to 50%.

Democrats’ faith in the CDC’s vaccine recommendations has dropped from 88% two years ago to 64%, independents have gone from 61% to 47% and Republicans have remained relatively steady, only going from 40% to 39%.

Across political parties, a person’s own doctor as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association remain broadly trusted for vaccine information.Eighty-three percent said they trust their doctor or health care provider, 69% believed information from the American Academy of Pediatrics and 64% had faith in the AMA.

The poll of 1,334 adults took place from Sept. 23 to Sept. 29 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full survey. Questions broken down by a person’s political ideology had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.

The U.S. Capitol on the evening of Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025, just hours before a federal government shutdown. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The vast majority of Americans, including Republicans and those who identify as strong supporters of President Donald Trump, want Congress to renew the enhanced tax credits for people who buy their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, according to a poll released Friday. 

More than 78% of people surveyed by the nonpartisan health organization KFF in late September said they want lawmakers to keep the enhanced credits. Their extension has become a major linchpin in debate about the government shutdown. 

When broken down by political party, 92% of Democrats, 82% of independents and 59% of Republicans supported renewing the credits.

Within the Republican Party, 57% of people who identified as supporting Trump’s Make America Great Again policies and 70% of GOP voters who identified as non-MAGA supporters want to see the tax credits extended, according to the poll.  

Spending bill held up over tax credit debate

The ACA tax credit expansion was created by Democrats in a coronavirus relief bill approved during the Biden administration and set to expire at the end of the year. 

Democrats have repeatedly called on Republicans to negotiate an extension of the enhanced tax credits and have held up a stopgap spending bill to force those talks to happen now, rather than later in the year. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Thursday the discussion should happen during the next few months and that GOP lawmakers will press for “major reform.” 

“That’s not a simple issue. That’s going to take weeks to deliberate and discuss and debate, but that’s the beauty of the process. We have three months to do that. That is not an issue for today,” Johnson said. “Today the only issue is whether they’re going to vote to keep the government operating for the people.”

Democrats strongly disagree, saying a bipartisan accord must be struck before the open enrollment period for ACA plans begins on Nov. 1, when consumers will see large cost increases for next year. 

“We can’t accept an empty promise, which is, ‘Oh, we’ll deal with this later,’” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said on a call with reporters Thursday. “The fact is that this crisis is in front of us now. People are getting this month their premium increases if the Senate does not act.”

Murray said she finds it “ironic” that Republican leaders are saying they’ll negotiate with Democrats on health care once the government reopens after they “refused to negotiate with us during that entire time when government was open.”

The House voted mostly along party lines in mid-September to approve a seven-week stopgap spending bill that has since stalled in the Senate, leading to the shutdown.

The upper chamber, where major legislation needs at least 60 votes to advance, is set to vote again Friday to try to advance Republicans’ short-term government funding bill, though it’s unlikely to move forward amid the stalemate.  

Many of those polled knew little about shutdown debate 

The KFF poll looked at public knowledge and understanding about the enhanced tax credits for ACA Marketplace health insurance plans, finding 61% of respondents knew nothing or only a little about the issue. 

Another 32% of those surveyed said they know some about the policy debate and 7% said they know a lot. 

The poll of 1,334 adults took place Sept. 23 to Sept. 29 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for a full survey. Each political affiliation question has a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.

The government shutdown began on Oct. 1, just after the poll wrapped. 

Concern about the ramifications of letting the enhanced tax credits expire fluctuated when KFF asked the question in different ways, though those who said they were “very concerned” never dipped below a majority. 

Fifty-six percent were very concerned and 30% were somewhat concerned when told “health insurance would be unaffordable for many people who buy their own coverage” if the enhanced tax credits weren’t extended. 

The number of people who would be very or somewhat concerned was high among Republicans, 78%, and MAGA supporters, 76%. 

Respondents who were very concerned rose to 60% when told “about 4 million people will lose their health insurance coverage” if they do not keep receiving the enhanced credits. An additional 26% said they were somewhat concerned and 10% said they were not too concerned, with the rest of those polled saying they were not concerned at all. 

When broken down by political party, the number of people very or somewhat concerned remained high, with 76% of Republicans and 73% of MAGA supporters citing worry. 

Small business staff, self-employed people

Fifty-one percent of those polled said they were very concerned when told “millions of people who work at small businesses or who are self-employed would be directly impacted as many of them rely on the ACA marketplace.”

Another 33% said they were somewhat concerned, 11% said they were not too concerned and the remainder said they were not concerned at all. 

Seventy-five percent of Republicans and 72% of MAGA supporters responded they would be very or somewhat concerned when asked that question. 

The poll showed that Congress extending the enhanced tax credits as they exist now comes with some trepidation about the price tag. 

When asked how concerned people would be if they heard “it would require significant federal spending that would be largely paid for by taxpayers,” 27% said they would be very concerned, 36% somewhat concerned, 28% not too concerned and 8% not at all concerned. 

Forty-one percent of Republicans said they would be very concerned, with another 41% responding they would be somewhat concerned. An additional 15% said they would be not too concerned with the rest saying they were not concerned at all.