The second Trump administration has reshaped U.S. merger control in its first year, with the retention, return, and introduction of several enforcement tools and priorities. The current federal antitrust enforcers appear to be taking a pragmatic, deal-friendly posture in merger control, while remaining committed to vigorously enforcing the U.S. antitrust laws.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have continued using the merger guidelines promulgated during the Biden administration in 2023. Chairman Ferguson’s memorandum to agency staff cited stability as a primary reason for the decision, stating that “[n]o business can plan for the future on the basis of guidelines they know are one election away from rescission.”
Return of Merger Remedies
Under the second Trump administration, federal antitrust regulators are more willing to use remedies to address concerns with proposed transactions instead of “costly and time-consuming litigation.” This is a drastic shift from the Biden administration, which consistently deployed a sentiment that “flimsy settlements often fail.”
The DOJ and FTC have already shown a renewed willingness to negotiate remedies with merging parties to resolve competition concerns. In April 2025, Chairman Ferguson noted that a “realistic approach” to merger remedies is to accept them when the reviewing agency is “quite confident that they will be successful, help … block more anticompetitive conduct, and protect more Americans.”
In June 2025, Commissioner Meador outlined guiding principles for the FTC’s evaluation of a proposed remedy package, stating that “[t]he FTC should, in all but extremely rare cases, insist on clean divestitures of standalone business lines when negotiating merger remedy packages.” The FTC has entered into numerous settlements that inform what the federal agencies’ approach to merger remedies will likely look like moving forward.
Examples of these settlements include Alimentation Couche-Tard/Giant Eagle, where the FTC agreed to a structural remedy to address potential anticompetitive effects, and Omnicom/Interpublic, where the FTC agreed to a purely behavioral settlement that imposed restrictions on the merged firm. The DOJ has also entered into settlements, such as Constellation/Calpine, which required the divestiture of six power plants without an upfront divestiture buyer being identified.
These settlements demonstrate the federal agencies’ renewed focus on merger remedies, which will likely be memorialized in reinstated guidelines. The return to merger remedies has also been accompanied by the restoration of the practice of granting early termination of the HSR waiting period, with nearly 400 requests granted in 2025 alone.
HSR Filing Rules
The new HSR Form, implemented by the FTC in February 2025, was vacated by a federal district court in February 2026. The DOJ and FTC are currently accepting HSR filings under the original 1978 HSR Form. In March 2026, the agencies launched a joint request for comments on potential HSR rulemaking, seeking to reduce the burden for non-problematic transactions while making necessary updates.
The current administration’s focus on pragmatism and predictability suggests that a new HSR Form will likely incorporate necessary updates from the 1978 HSR Form, while stopping short of the more burdensome requirements of the updated 2025 Form. As the federal agencies continue to refine their approach to merger control, companies must remain vigilant of the evolving enforcement environment at the federal and state levels.
Read Also: UK government announces new climate targets
For instance, the shift towards merger remedies has created opportunities for companies to negotiate with regulators and address competition concerns in a more pragmatic and predictable manner. However, this also means that companies must be proactive in devising a deal strategy that takes into account all affected stakeholders, including state antitrust enforcers, who have begun to play a more prominent role in merger control.
In the case of Alimentation Couche-Tard/Giant Eagle, the buyer acquiring the 35 divested gas stations will be able to “expand its geographic footprint as a new competitor in markets across Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania,” demonstrating the potential benefits of merger remedies for companies and consumers alike. The DOJ and FTC have granted nearly 400 early termination requests in 2025 alone, with the most recent request being granted on December 31, 2025.
As the federal agencies continue to refine their approach to merger control, the rise of state antitrust enforcement has become increasingly prominent. Since mid-2025, several states, including Washington, Colorado, and California, have enacted state-level premerger notification statutes, resulting in over 200 filings. These “mini HSR” bills have given state antitrust agencies a greater role in reviewing proposed transactions, and similar bills are pending in other states, such as New York, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, and West Virginia.
This shift towards state-level enforcement has created new challenges for companies. As state antitrust enforcers become more active in reviewing proposed transactions, companies must be prepared to address potential competition concerns at both the federal and state levels. This may involve devising a proactive deal strategy that takes into account the interests of multiple stakeholders, including state antitrust enforcers, who may have different priorities and concerns than their federal counterparts.
Focus on Key Industries
The current administration’s approach to merger enforcement has also focused on industries that are critical to U.S. consumers, such as technology, healthcare, and consumer-facing industries. Recent examples of merger enforcement in these industries include the review of wholesale energy transactions, such as Constellation/Calpine, and the examination of mergers in the retail gas station sector, such as Alimentation Couche-Tard/Giant Eagle. The federal agencies have also reviewed mergers in the high-speed internet testing equipment sector, such as Keysight/Spirent, highlighting the importance of these industries to U.S. consumers.
In addition to these industries, the federal agencies have also prioritized the intersection of antitrust and the First Amendment, with a focus on perceived censorship by technology platforms. The FTC has launched an inquiry into this issue, and concerns about censorship have already influenced merger enforcement, such as in the case of Omnicom/Interpublic, where the FTC required a behavioral remedy to address perceived efforts to steer ad revenue away from certain news organizations. They will likely remain committed to addressing censorship in their merger enforcement efforts, ensuring that companies are held accountable for their actions in this area.
The federal agencies’ commitment to addressing censorship is further evident in the Executive Order titled Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship, which prioritizes perceived censorship by technology platforms. This executive order has had a significant impact on the federal agencies’ approach to merger enforcement, and companies must be aware of this shift in priorities when working through the merger control environment. On December 31, 2025, the DOJ granted its most recent early termination request, marking a significant milestone in the agency’s efforts to streamline the merger review process.
As a result, the federal agencies will likely continue to focus on addressing censorship in their merger enforcement efforts, and concerns about censorship have already influenced their approach to merger control, ensuring that companies are held accountable for their actions in this area and that the rights of consumers are protected.