The Federal watchdog agency of first resort for anti-trust issues is the Federal Trade Commission, and the FTC is becoming a political battleground as the Democratic majority peels back liberalizations from the Trump era.

The most recent skirmish involves the FTC reinstitution of a rule requiring companies which have entered into settlements of merger challenges to again require such companies to apply for approval of  future acquisitions.  Not only did the two Republican members object to substance, but also they objected to the manner of voting; former Commissioner Chopra voted just as she left the FTC to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  (If the vote were to occur today, there would be 2-2 deadlock as Commissioner-elect Alvaro Bedolya needs to be confirmed.)

There are a few limits on the new rule; it relates for example only to markets wherein a prior merger violation was alleged.  But the rule is categorical as it applies to deals clearly not anti-competitive.

Developments in the FTC/Department of Justice world have been trending towards tighter regulation, and that is consistent with the generally more activist bent of the Democratic administration.  My upcoming article in the November issue of InHouse (my column has run regularly in this newspaper directed to in-house counsel for almost two decades) does a deep dive into substantive developments in both the anti-trust and securities regulation fields as two case studies.  All of us are no doubt aware that in areas such as education, climate control, labor policy, financial regulation and myriad other theaters, the Democratic administration is systematically moving agencies into a more intrusive stance.