Where Does Trump's Takeover of the FTC Leave the Regulation of Big Tech?

Megan Kirkwood is a Fellow at Tech Policy Press.

On March 18, 2025, President Donald Trump removed the two Democratic commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), jeopardizing the agency’s longstanding independence from the executive branch by placing it under exclusive partisan control and calling into question the agency’s future willingness to pursue enforcement actions against Big Tech. His actions have not only sparked a concerning debate about the rule of law in the US but also require policymakers in Europe and the UK to watch closely and weigh their own responses.

FTC Independence Under Threat

The FTC is organized as an independent agency from the executive branch, under the leadership of five Commissioners (including the chair), three of whom are from the same political party as the current President. The President can select a chair from acting Commissioners and nominate new Commissioners when the terms of existing members expire or there are vacancies, with the Senate in charge of confirming the President’s nominees.

The ousting of the Democratic Commissioners came despite a 1935 Supreme Court precedent that prohibited the President from dismissing commissioners “solely over policy disagreements.” Commissioner Bedoya has made clear that “this is corruption, plain and simple. I will see the president in court.” Slaughter has also issued a statement, writing that the “law protects the independence of the Commission because the law serves the American public, not corporate power. Removing opposition may not change what the Trump majority can do, but it does change whether they will have accountability when they do it.” Both have sued President Trump, accusing him of violating federal law.

The agency’s new chief, Andrew Ferguson, however, has “endorsed the president’s authority to remove members of the commission,” which now leaves the agency in the hands of just two Republicans, Chairman Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak. Reportedly, Trump has also selected Mark Meador for the third Republican seat.

To many, the move appears aimed at ending the FTC’s aggressive stance against Big Tech. Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Markets Institute, wrote that the president appears to have “chosen to put the interests of the oligarch and all-powerful corporation first, and the interests of every other American last.”

While Slaughter and Bedoya “consistently voted in favor of actions to rein in the power of the tech giants,” going forward the FTC may reflect Trump’s wish to “dramatically pare back the federal government’s reach, including by curbing what he called the “regulatory onslaught” from independent agencies like the FTC” and protect his tech-billionaire friends. Ferguson himself has previously stated that he “wrote hundreds of pages of dissents when I was a Republican commissioner under [ex-Chair of the Federal Trade Commission] Lina [Khan]. And we have big differences.” When asked if he would drop enforcement actions made under Khan, he pointed out that “it’s a 2-2 commission right now, so if I wanted to, it’s very difficult.” With that opposition gone, the work of the previous FTC is in jeopardy.

Current active investigations include FTC cases against Meta regarding its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, potential self-preferencing and price inflation by Amazon, as well as an investigation into whether Microsoft maintains an unfair advantage in the AI market. However, the direction those investigations will take is now uncertain. Advocates Craig Aaron and Jessica J. González argue, the FTC will likely “abandon[...] antitrust enforcement and instead focus[...] on combating ‘wokeness’” and investigating suspected censorship on social media.

As Meta’s case goes to trial next month, it will be a test to see if the authority takes any action or if, as Ferguson has previously promised, the new agency will indeed “[s]top Lina Khan’s war on mergers.” While Big Tech cases might not necessarily be dropped, the FTC may be more willing to accept settlements over tough structural measures like divestitures.

Will Europe Pick up the Mantle on Antitrust Leadership?

Meanwhile, across the pond, the European Union is advancing its enforcement of the Digital Markets Act, the bloc’s ex-ante digital rulebook, despite the risk of retaliation from the US president. On March 19, 2025, the Commission escalated an investigation into self-preferencing by Google and sent Apple the final specifications on how to increase its interoperability, meaning developers and hardware providers can gain more access to Apple's operating systems. In addition, the European Commission is set to hand out its final decisions in non-compliance investigations launched last year.

Competition chief Teresa Ribera said the EU is “not going to remain in a corner, [...] I think it is important that we respect ourselves when we take decisions.” The US administration has attempted to dissuade the EU from enforcing its tech laws through a variety of tariff threats. However, the EU seems set on “providing the predictability and stability that is lacking in Washington,” as Ribera said to Reuters in an interview in February. Europe has generally been clear that its democratically elected laws will be enforced, although there is some concern about the enforcement of the DMA’s sister regulation, the Digital Services Act.

Where the EU might previously have been willing to cooperate with the US in pursuing its “antitrust revival” under the previous administration, the two are increasingly hostile towards each other. Additionally, the EU, seeing the US as incredibly volatile, also seeks to become technologically independent from the US. The DMA, which seeks to make digital markets fairer and more competitive by lowering the barrier to entry and creating new opportunities for developers, will likely be considered one step toward Europe’s mission to cultivate a homegrown tech sector.

That said, because the DMA mostly fosters “competition on and around a platform” rather than between them, many developers may remain dependent on gatekeepers. Therefore, the Commission’s prior commitments to impose structural remedies through mandated divestiture will remain relevant here, although it is unclear how far Europe will be willing to go under the threat of Trump. The Commission is reportedly lowering DMA non-compliance fines in the upcoming decisions as a direct result of tariff threats. While the Commission is set to focus more on mandating effective remedies over high fines, without real threats, what leverage will the Commission have to force gatekeepers to comply?

The decisions of the Commission going forward will hold a higher position on the world stage as the US looks set to move away from enforcing antitrust action against Big Tech. The bloc’s enforcement of its laws will hold significance for other nations who might want to follow the European path in regulation, but may be dissuaded by the US threatening “economic and security alliance[s]” if nations take action against US tech. Gunn Jiravuttipong and Haeyoon Kim wrote for Tech Policy Press that nations are “[c]aught between the competing influences of the Brussels Effect and the Trump Effect,” and “must now navigate the risks of US retaliation, including potential tariffs.” Going forward, all eyes will be on Europe.

The UK Struggles to Walk a Tightrope

The UK is attempting to position itself as a bridge between the two approaches in competition policy. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), its competition and consumer regulator, has expressed that it remains committed to cooperation with the European Commission as well as other jurisdictions that are also adopting new digital ex-ante rules. With the new UK Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA) taking force, the CMA has stated that “cooperation with other authorities is front of mind, particularly in relation to the EU Digital Markets Act.” Though the UK’s rule book differs in substance and procedure from the EU’s, there will likely be an alignment in outcomes sought in the UK’s process of designation and conduct requirements drafted.

That said, the independence of its competition authority is being continuously undermined. The UK government has been clear that UK regulators must come into line with the new pro-growth agenda, which seeks to dramatically grow the UK economy, and the CMA is not exempt. To encourage business growth, the chair of the CMA, Marcus Bokkerink, was fired and replaced by ex-Amazon boss Doug Gurr. The change reflects the new business-friendly mandate, particularly in mergers, where the agency has been asked to adopt far more leniency.

Sarah Cardell, the CMA’s chief executive, has insisted that the authority “is no less independent today than in the past,” and that while the agency is working on internal coherence, it has not entered a “state of erratic uncertainty.” Meanwhile, ex-chair Bokkerink has explicitly “called on the government to decide whether or not it wants the agency to be independent.”

I have previously made the point that the UK’s ability to regulate Big Tech will be undermined if the UK government prioritizes Big Tech investment over its independent regulator's ability to apply the law. Particularly as the UK aims to be the global center of artificial intelligence through attracting the investment of Big Tech from companies like Oracle and Microsoft, it will be increasingly difficult for the CMA to investigate them.

Indeed, Cardell has already publicly stated that the new ex-ante regime will still allow “[o]pportunities for the largest firms to continue investing and innovating in a stable, predictable and proportionate regulatory environment” to avoid scaring the Big Tech firms away. Rather than going the European, pro-tech sovereignty route, the UK seems set on furthering its dependence on US tech companies to foster the growth of the economy. The UK’s Secretary of State Peter Kyle made that clear in his speech at the 2025 Nvidia GTC conference, where he appealed to Silicon Valley investors that the UK “is a country that is ready for investment, and ready for change [...]. Not just an opportunity to invest in Britain but a chance to form a new kind of partnership.”

As the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer comes increasingly under the thumb of President Trump if the UK wishes to avoid tariffs, being urged not only to drop millions in digital services taxes charged to tech giants but also make a “deal on artificial intelligence and other critical technologies,” the government may make further concessions to the US and ensure that UK regulators continue to follow suit. While the UK has not gone as far as the US in unabashedly stripping away the independence of its authorities, the nation sits in a dangerous place between enforcing its laws while bowing to the deep pockets of Big Tech and staying in Trump's good graces.

The tests for the UK here will be its enforcement of the DMCCA. By the end of the year, we will have a clearer picture of how far UK antitrust is willing to go and whether it will allow its historically strong antitrust agency to enforce the law, or if other political priorities will undercut the agency’s independence.