One of the many complaints the free market right had with Lina Khan’s performance as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was her use of federal antitrust and consumer protection laws to advance progressive goals. For example, one of the pillars of Khan’s “neo or hipster Brandeisian” approach to antitrust was focusing on how a merger or acquisition would affect workers as part of the FTC’s approval process.
In practice, this meant the FTC would claim that a merger or acquisition would harm workers by decreasing wages, worsening working conditions, and increasing unemployment. Khan’s FTC rarely, if ever, considered how workers could gain from a merger or acquisition that would make their employer more competitive or allow them to stay in business—and thus keep their workers employed. In fact, there are least two incidences during Khan’s tenure as FTC Chair in which her refusal to approve a merger led to one of the parties laying off a substantial part of their workforce.
Khan also used her power as FTC Chair to help conceal the Biden Administration’s efforts to “persuade” social media companies to censor Americans sharing information dissenting from the “official” narrative regarding Covid. Then-Chair Khan had the FTC send Twitter “requests for information” of the names of journalists and other members of the media communicating with Twitter after Elon Musk took control of the company. The request even named certain journalists who were involved in publishing the Twitter Files. These were the leaked emails showing how Biden Administration officials pressured Twitter to censor Americans.
The departure of Khan was one reason stocks rose following Trump’s 2024 victory. Unfortunately, while Andrew Ferguson, Trump’s pick to replace Khan as FTC Chair, has been an improvement—he takes an approach similar to his predecessors when it comes to certain industries and issues. Thus, he can be labeled what some call a “Khanservative.”
Specifically, Chair Ferguson seeks to use government power to punish “woke” corporations and businesses—particularly big tech—that he (or his allies) believe are working to advance a progressive agenda. Last year, the FTC launched an investigation into, and held a workshop on, whether physicians that provide “gender affirming care” for minors are engaging in “unfair or deceptive practices.” Doctors who perform gender reassignment surgery on minors may be engaging in deceptive practice, however, this seems like an issue that should be handled by state medical licensing boards and/or law enforcement—not the FTC.
Now the FTC is taking on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). On January 30th, 2026, Chair Ferguson sent a letter to 42 of the nation’s top law firms informing them that they may be violating federal law by participating in the Diversity Lab’s Mansfield Certification Program. In the letter, Ferguson expressed “serious concerns” over the law firm’s participation in the Mansfield program. The Mansfield program requires participating firms to follow Diversity Lab’s DEI-based employment standards. These standards suggest that at least 30% of the talent pools used by firms should consist of members of underrepresented groups. The certification program also requires law firms to participate in monthly knowledge sharing calls with other participating firms. These meetings allow the law firms to apply the 30% standard to all hiring and promotions.
According to Chair Ferguson, these meetings may violate federal law designed to protect workers from agreements amongst employers that weaken competition in labor markets—similar to how federal law prohibits agreements that inhibit competition for consumer goods. Therefore, the FTC has a bias for an investigation into whether the “knowledge sharing” calls create a cartel that harms employees.
While a federal court has already found that participation in the Mansfield Certification process does not violate federal law—participation in knowledge sharing calls still might be illegal. In January 2025, Ferguson referred to DEI as a “scourge on our institutions.” Thus, it is not surprising that he is using his power as FTC Chair to attack this “scourge.” Progressives tempted to criticize Chair Ferguson focusing his position to advance a political agenda should remember that Chair Ferguson is following the precedent set by Lina Khan’s neo-Brandesian approach to antitrust.
The only way to protect against an FTC Chair using their power to advance a personal or political agenda is to limit the FTC’s power—and maybe even consider whether the modern economy needs an FTC at all.
