The second Trump administration has spent its first year reshaping U.S. merger control by balancing predictability for businesses with continued antitrust enforcement. Federal regulators have adopted a more practical, deal-friendly stance while retaining some policies from the previous administration. They have also revived merger remedies and restored procedural efficiencies, including early termination of waiting periods.
Guidelines stay, but remedies return
The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission kept the 2023 Merger Guidelines, a move FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson described as an effort to provide stability. In a February 2025 memo, he stated that businesses cannot plan for the future if guidelines might change with each election. While the agencies left room for future revisions, they committed to maintaining the same transparency and careful consideration that shaped the guidelines.
This approach differs significantly from how the agencies handled merger remedies. During the Biden administration, officials like DOJ Antitrust Chief Jonathan Kanter and FTC Chair Lina Khan had dismissed settlements as weak and favored litigation. The current leadership changed direction, opting for negotiated solutions to prevent lengthy and expensive court battles.
Related: User Blocked from Online Service
In April 2025, Ferguson called the shift a realistic strategy, arguing that remedies should be accepted when agencies are confident they will succeed, block anticompetitive behavior, and protect consumers. By June, the FTC formalized its position in a statement on the Alimentation Couche-Tard/Giant Eagle deal. Commissioner Mark Meador outlined principles for evaluating remedies, stating that structural divestitures should be standalone, self-sustaining, and fully resolve competitive concerns in nearly all cases.
The agencies have since approved multiple settlements, offering insight into their evolving standards. In his June 2025 statement, Commissioner Meador emphasized that the FTC should insist on clean divestitures of standalone business lines when negotiating merger remedy packages to fully and durably resolve competitive concerns.
The renewed openness to remedies is not just about avoiding litigation. It reflects a broader philosophy: if a deal’s competitive issues can be resolved, regulators are more willing to approve it. This practical approach extends to process improvements. In 2021, the Biden administration had suspended early termination of the Hart-Scott-Rodino waiting period. The current agencies reversed that policy.
States step in as federal enforcement softens
The shift toward settlement-friendly federal enforcement has created an enforcement gap that state attorneys general are now filling. Since mid-2025, Washington, Colorado, and California have passed state-level premerger notification laws. Similar bills are pending in New York, D.C., Hawaii, Indiana, and West Virginia. When federal agencies decline to challenge a deal, state enforcers are prepared to act on their own.
Related: Types of Damages You Can Recover in a Personal Injury Case
This dual-track system introduces new challenges for businesses. A merger might clear federal review but still face state-level scrutiny, or the reverse could occur. The varying state laws, each with different thresholds and procedures, add complexity. Firms in healthcare, technology, and energy—where state regulators have been particularly active—must now manage overlapping jurisdictions with differing priorities.
The federal agencies remain focused on consumer-facing sectors. A March 2026 DOJ speech described these as priorities affecting everyday Americans.
One emerging issue is the relationship between antitrust and free speech. The administration’s Executive Order 14149, issued in January 2025, directed agencies to address what it called federal censorship by technology platforms. The FTC launched an inquiry into whether companies had silenced or intimidated Americans for expressing their views.
HSR form overhaul scrapped, but reform looms
The administration’s practical approach is also reshaping the HSR filing process. In 2024, the FTC under Chair Lina Khan had overhauled the form, calling it a major upgrade to improve antitrust investigations. The new requirements took effect in February 2025 but proved so burdensome that a federal court struck them down a year later. The Fifth Circuit denied the FTC’s request to stay the ruling, forcing the agencies back to the original 1978 form.
Related: Gemstone Ring Redesigns: Breathing New Life into Vintage Coloured Jewels
In March 2026, the DOJ and FTC opened a public comment period on potential HSR reforms. They aim to reduce the burden for straightforward transactions while incorporating lessons from the past year. The request suggests a balanced approach: updates to the 1978 form without the sweeping changes of the 2025 version. Given the administration’s emphasis on predictability, any new rules will likely prioritize clarity.
The changes signal a broader adjustment. The Biden-era agencies often treated mergers as harmful by default, but the current leadership evaluates them individually. That does not mean enforcement has disappeared. Instead, the tools have changed: fewer court battles, more settlements, and a willingness to approve deals if competitive concerns are addressed.
For businesses, the message is straightforward. Federal agencies are open to deals, but only if they meet regulatory standards. The era of automatic litigation is over, but so is the era of automatic approvals. Companies planning transactions should engage early, prepare for state-level scrutiny, and design remedies regulators can accept. The rules may be more predictable, but the stakes remain high.