"One Agency Act": FTC's Antitrust Powers Shift to DOJ, Raising Concerns About Enforcement and Political Influence

The "One Agency Act" is a significant overhaul of how the U.S. handles antitrust enforcement. The bill's core action is to move all antitrust authority from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the Department of Justice (DOJ). This means the DOJ, headed by the Attorney General, will be solely responsible for investigating and prosecuting anti-competitive behavior, a job currently shared with the FTC. The stated goal is to streamline enforcement and eliminate redundancy (SEC. 2, Findings). The changes kick in at the start of the first fiscal year that begins at least 90 days after the bill becomes law (SEC. 6).

Centralizing Power: What It Means

This bill essentially shuts down the FTC's Bureau of Competition and transfers all its cases, staff, and resources to the DOJ's Antitrust Division (SEC. 4). Think of it like a company merger, but instead of two companies, it's two government agencies, and one is completely absorbed by the other. The Attorney General gets broad authority to reorganize the Antitrust Division and decide how to handle existing FTC cases (SEC. 4). For example, if the FTC was investigating a tech giant for monopolistic practices, that investigation would now be entirely in the hands of the Attorney General. The FTC is barred from starting any new antitrust investigations or enforcement actions without the Attorney General's explicit approval (SEC. 5).

Real-World Ripple Effects

The biggest concern here is the consolidation of power. Instead of two independent agencies keeping an eye on corporate behavior, it's all down to one, directly under the control of the Attorney General, a political appointee. This raises the risk of political influence in antitrust decisions. Imagine a small business owner who feels a larger competitor is unfairly driving them out of business. Their recourse is now solely through the DOJ, which could be influenced by political considerations. The bill does require the Attorney General to "minimize disruption" during the transition (SEC. 4), but there's a lot of room for interpretation. The "transition period" itself could last up to a year and a half, or longer, giving the Attorney General considerable leeway (SEC. 3). The bill states a definition of 'trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information' could be used to shield anti-competitive practices from public scrutiny.

The Bigger Picture: Efficiency vs. Oversight

While the bill's proponents argue for efficiency, the shift raises questions about checks and balances. The FTC has specialized expertise in consumer protection and antitrust, built up over decades. Losing that institutional knowledge could weaken enforcement. The bill also gives the Attorney General sole authority over existing FTC consent decrees (SEC. 4), which are agreements companies reached to settle antitrust charges. This means the Attorney General could potentially alter those agreements. It's also worth noting that the bill prohibits the FTC from hiring any new antitrust employees or opening new investigations during the transition period (SEC. 4) – effectively freezing a major part of the government's antitrust machinery.