A Smarter FTC for a Stronger Economy: Why Trump’s Return to Traditional Antitrust Enforcement Is Good for Growth and Consumers
A Shift from Politics to Principles
For the last several years, America’s business community has operated under a cloud of uncertainty. From unprecedented antitrust actions to sweeping regulatory reinterpretations, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the previous administration blurred the line between oversight and ideology. The result was predictable: delayed mergers, frozen investments, and a chilling effect on growth.
Now, the Trump administration’s FTC appears to be steering back toward a more balanced approach — one rooted in evidence, consumer outcomes, and the rule of law.
Its first major action, the lawsuit to block private equity firm GTCR’s $627 million acquisition of medical device company Surmodics, signals a return to traditional antitrust enforcement. The case still defends competition, but it does so through data-driven analysis, not through the politicized lens that defined the prior era.
Enforcement Based on Facts, Not Fear
The Biden FTC often focused on the identity of the buyer — particularly private equity firms or large, vertically integrated companies — rather than on whether a transaction would actually harm consumers. By contrast, the Trump FTC’s complaint in GTCR–Surmodics makes almost no mention of private equity as a problem in itself. Instead, it relies on classic antitrust reasoning: market share, concentration ratios, and barriers to entry.
That’s a critical distinction. Because markets don’t care about ideology — they care about incentives, investment, and outcomes.
Under this new framework, the FTC is returning to what it does best: protecting competition without punishing scale. It’s an approach that gives companies clear rules of the road and restores confidence that the government will evaluate mergers on their merits, not on political optics.
Why Predictability Matters for the Economy
Investment thrives on certainty. Over the past few years, companies across industries — from healthcare to manufacturing to technology — have faced moving goalposts when it comes to merger review. Rules were rewritten mid-process. Traditional thresholds were ignored in favor of aggressive new “presumptions of harm.” Deals that would have passed scrutiny for decades suddenly became political lightning rods.
This unpredictability didn’t just slow mergers; it stifled innovation. When businesses can’t predict how regulators will interpret competition law, they stop investing in growth altogether. That’s bad news for workers, consumers, and the broader economy.
The Trump FTC’s “back-to-basics” approach helps fix that. It re-anchors enforcement in objective market analysis — making it easier for companies to plan, partner, and expand with confidence. That predictability isn’t just pro-business; it’s pro-consumer. Because when businesses invest, consumers benefit through better products, lower costs, and stronger supply chains.
Scale Still Serves the Public
In the modern economy, size often equals stability. Large, vertically integrated firms can lower costs through economies of scale, streamline logistics, and maintain consistent pricing even in volatile markets. They can also fund the research and infrastructure investments that smaller competitors simply can’t.
Yet in recent years, “bigness” itself became a political target. That rhetoric might play well on cable news, but it ignores a simple truth: scale drives affordability and access.
Breaking up companies for ideological reasons — or blocking partnerships that enhance efficiency — doesn’t make markets fairer. It makes them fragmented, inefficient, and expensive. Consumers ultimately pay the price through higher costs and less reliable service.
By contrast, a more pragmatic FTC recognizes that not all consolidation is harmful. When firms can achieve scale responsibly, the benefits flow downstream to American families.
Healthcare Enforcement Should Prioritize Access, Not Optics
It’s no accident that the Trump FTC’s first major case involves the healthcare sector — one of the most heavily scrutinized industries in antitrust law. Ensuring that patients have access to affordable care and medical innovation is vital. But antitrust enforcement must walk a fine line: protecting competition without discouraging the collaboration and investment that make new treatments possible.
Hydrophilic coatings — the product at the center of the GTCR–Surmodics case — are a small but essential component of lifesaving devices like catheters and guidewires. The FTC’s complaint focuses on whether this deal would reduce direct competition in that niche market, not on political narratives about corporate power. That’s an encouraging sign.
If the Trump FTC continues applying this kind of fact-based scrutiny — targeting only mergers that genuinely risk consumer harm — it could strike the right balance between vigilance and vitality in healthcare markets.
Private Equity Is Not the Enemy
Under the previous administration, “private equity” became a loaded term — synonymous in Washington with greed and consolidation. But the reality is far more nuanced.
Private equity often provides the capital that allows mid-sized firms to scale, modernize, and compete. It helps distressed companies recover and re-enter the marketplace stronger than before. And it’s a key driver of job creation, particularly in regional economies that rely on investment to sustain local industries.
The Trump FTC’s treatment of GTCR as just another market actor — not as a villain by default — represents a long-overdue correction. It sends a message that all capital should be judged by its conduct, not its category.
By restoring neutrality toward private equity, regulators can help ensure that the flow of investment capital continues to power innovation across sectors — from healthcare and clean energy to manufacturing and technology.
The Broader Economic Impact
This shift in tone at the FTC comes at a critical moment. Inflationary pressures, supply-chain realignments, and global competition all demand an environment where American businesses can operate efficiently and scale quickly.
A regulatory system that views every merger with suspicion undermines that goal.
A system that evaluates deals based on facts and consumer outcomes — as the Trump FTC appears to be doing — strengthens it.
When enforcement agencies stick to clear, traditional standards, they preserve both competition and confidence. Businesses can invest without fear of arbitrary political backlash. And consumers benefit from lower costs, more choices, and steady innovation.
AGIF’s View: Growth and Competition Can Coexist
At the American Growth and Innovation Forum, we believe strong markets and strong oversight are not mutually exclusive. America’s economy depends on both. The FTC’s evolving posture under President Trump suggests a more mature balance — one that recognizes the value of scale, rewards responsible competition, and avoids overreach that slows growth and innovation.
The path forward isn’t deregulation for its own sake. It’s smart regulation — enforcement guided by data, not dogma.
That’s how America continues to lead:
By empowering companies to build, hire, and innovate — and by ensuring that consumers reap the rewards of a dynamic, competitive marketplace.
Bottom Line
After years of uncertainty, the message from the Trump FTC is clear:
It’s time to get back to basics — protecting competition without punishing success.
That approach will help restore confidence in the marketplace, attract investment, and strengthen the foundation of American economic leadership.
Because when policy is predictable and pro-growth, everyone wins — businesses, workers, and consumers alike.