Antitrust at the Agencies: Vacaturs and Vacancies Edition

In this piece for Truth On The Market, author Daniel J. Gilman discusses the abrupt departure of Gail Slater after less than a year leading the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice. While the exact circumstances remain unclear, Gilman notes that public tensions between the Antitrust Division and DOJ leadership had surfaced months earlier, including the dismissal of senior officials amid controversy surrounding the proposed Hewlett Packard Enterprise–Juniper Networks merger. The episode raised questions about political influence over merger enforcement decisions traditionally handled within the division.

Gilman reflects on Slater’s tenure and the broader policy direction associated with the “big-is-bad” or neo-Brandeisian approach to antitrust, particularly toward large technology firms. Although he acknowledges that large companies can violate antitrust law, he argues that the sweeping campaign against major tech platforms has often relied on thin evidence and unclear policy objectives. The uncertainty surrounding the concept of “America First Antitrust,” combined with leadership conflicts inside the DOJ, has created concerns about how the division will function going forward and who will succeed Slater.

The article also reviews recent litigation setbacks for the Federal Trade Commission. In February 2026, a federal judge vacated the FTC’s revised premerger notification form under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act in a case brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The court concluded that the agency failed to adequately justify the significant compliance burdens imposed by the new reporting requirements, finding that the FTC had not demonstrated that the additional information was “necessary and appropriate.”

Gilman argues that the decision reflects broader procedural weaknesses in recent FTC rulemaking. While the ruling focused on administrative process rather than the substance of the rule itself, it highlights the importance of cost-benefit justification in regulatory actions. Looking ahead, he suggests the agency may be better served by reassessing which reporting requirements are truly justified and building a stronger evidentiary record, rather than pursuing aggressive litigation or policy initiatives without sufficient procedural grounding…

CONTINUE READING…