As the Trump administration embarks on its second term, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division is poised to continue its aggressive criminal enforcement of antitrust laws. Building on the momentum from President Trump’s first term, the Antitrust Division is expected to maintain a strong focus on key areas such as technology, healthcare, labor markets, consumer products, and government procurement. These sectors have been at the forefront of antitrust enforcement under prior administrations, and the Antitrust Division is likely to uphold its commitment to vigorous enforcement while adapting to the evolving economic landscape.
The first Trump Administration embraced the Antitrust Division’s novel efforts to expand its criminal enforcement focus to anticompetitive practices in labor markets. In 2016, during the waning months of the Obama administration, the DOJ issued joint guidance with the Federal Trade Commission outlining—for the first time—a policy that they consider certain no-poach agreements and wage-fixing arrangements to be per se unlawful. This policy allowed the DOJ to bring criminal charges when they believed such agreements were not tied to a legitimate collaboration between employers.
Near the end of the first Trump administration, the DOJ charged several criminal antitrust cases that affirmed its commitment to prosecuting certain no-poach and wage-fixing agreements as criminal violations of the antitrust laws. In United States v. VDA OC LLC, the DOJ charged a healthcare staffing company with conspiring to allocate nurses and suppress wages of school nurses. The company pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a criminal fine and restitution totaling $134,000.
However, until recently and as discussed further below, judges and juries have disagreed with DOJ’s criminal labor market theories and acquitted 13 individuals and one company of antitrust charges across four trials. For example, in United States v. DaVita Inc., the DOJ indicted the company and its former CEO for allegedly entering into non-solicitation agreements related to certain types of employees. A federal jury acquitted the defendants of all charges. In United States v. Jindal, the DOJ charged two individuals for allegedly entering into a wage-fixing agreement for physical therapists and their assistants, but a jury again acquitted the defendants of the antitrust charges. Finally, in United States v. Patel, the DOJ indicted aerospace executives at several companies for allegedly agreeing to restrict the recruiting and hiring of engineers. Notably, the judge dismissed the case against all defendants under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 after the DOJ presented its case.
Despite these unsuccessful outcomes, at the conclusion of the Biden administration, the then-former head of the Division’s criminal antitrust program noted that the Division continued to have several active investigations in labor markets.
Taking Corporate Executives to Trial. The first Trump administration continued the Antitrust Division’s long history of seeking to hold corporate executives accountable. Aside from the several executives charged as part of the Division’s novel criminal labor market enforcement campaign (described above), the first Trump administration was successful in criminal antitrust trials against corporate executives in more traditional antitrust areas. For example, in early December 2019, after a four-week trial, a federal jury found former Bumble Bee Foods’s CEO Chris Lischewski guilty of participating in a price-fixing conspiracy involving canned tuna. He was sentenced in June 2020 to 40 months in prison and fined $100,000. And in November 2019, a former JPMorgan foreign exchange trader was convicted for his role in fixing prices and rigging bids in the foreign currency exchange market. In both trials, prosecutors presented multiple cooperating witnesses and broad documentary evidence to support the charged conduct.
In a third trial, the government obtained convictions against two former traders for participating in a LIBOR-related bid-rigging scheme, which the Antitrust Division charged as wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. As with the two other notable trials against executives, multiple cooperating witnesses testified against the defendants. However, in 2022, the Second Circuit reversed both convictions after finding that the government had not proved—and would not be able to prove—that the defendants made false statements, and therefore did not commit the offenses for which they were charged.
Focus on Healthcare Industry. The Antitrust Division made significant strides in criminal antitrust enforcement within the healthcare industry under the first Trump Administration. In addition to the labor market cases, most of which concerned the healthcare industry (see above), the Antitrust Division also pursued a long-running investigation into the generic pharmaceutical industry during the first Trump administration. In December 2016, the Division secured plea agreements with two executives from Heritage Pharmaceuticals. In March 2020, the Antitrust Division secured a $195 million penalty from Sandoz, Inc. as part of a deferred prosecution agreement—the largest criminal penalty for a domestic antitrust case. At the conclusion of the criminal investigation in 2023, the antitrust criminal investigation of the generic pharmaceutical industry resulted in more than $600 million in fines.
Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF). In November 2019, the Antitrust Division created the PCSF to expand its reach in investigating procurement fraud by formally partnering with dozens of federal, state, and local agencies. This initiative has currently trained more than 39,000 government personnel across inspector generals’ offices to identify and combat antitrust violations. Since then, the PCSF has opened over 145 criminal investigations and prosecuted more than 85 companies and individuals, which has resulted in more than 60 guilty pleas and trial convictions, as well as $65 million in fines and restitution.
International Enforcement. The genesis of the PCSF can be traced back in part to a notable international investigation and enforcement action during the first Trump administration concerning fuel supply contracts for the U.S. military in South Korea. As part of that investigation, the DOJ secured guilty pleas from five South Korea-based fuel companies for their role in a decade long bid rigging conspiracy concerning these fuel supply contracts and, in total, the companies paid more than $150 million in criminal fines. The Division also charged seven individuals in connection with this scheme. One of the charged individuals, Young-Ho Yoon, has recently come to the United States to enter his guilty plea. He is pleading guilty to a misdemeanor under 15 U.S.C. § 24 and is expected to only receive minimal consequences—with the plea agreement recommending six-months unsupervised probation, 40 hours of community service, and a $5,000 fine.
Notably, DOJ’s resolutions with the companies included parallel civil claims. In additional to False Claims Act liability, the DOJ pursued civil claims under Section 4A of the Clayton Act, which permits the government to recover treble civil damages when injury is suffered because of an antitrust law violation. This resulted in civil settlements of an additional $200 million. Former AAG Makan Delrahim described Section 4A at the time as a “powerful yet historically underused enforcement tool” that would be revitalized going forward. Despite this result, the Biden administration did not make use of this tool as part of any of its resolution of government procurement cases.
Policy Updates. The first Trump administration also made significant changes to antitrust enforcement policy guidance. For example, in July 2019, the Antitrust Division announced that it would for the first time consider effective corporate compliance programs at the charging stage of antitrust criminal investigations. Potentially rewarding companies with strong compliance programs at the charging stage represented a significant policy shift for the Division. Previously, the Division had considered compliance programs only at the sentencing stage.
The July 2019 guidance provided detailed criteria for evaluating the design, implementation, and effectiveness of compliance programs. This included factors such as the company’s commitment to compliance, risk assessment processes, training and communication, and mechanisms for detecting and responding to violations. It also added that the Antitrust Division would consider an effective corporate compliance program in connection with determining whether reduced criminal exposure was appropriate at the charging stage; this included making Deferred Prosecution Agreements available as a potential resolution option for companies that had an effective compliance program.
In November 2024, the Antitrust Division announced important updates to its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations. Although the revised guidance largely directs prosecutors to follow the same analytic structure as the initial 2019 version, there are significant additions that tracked the September 2024 revisions to the DOJ Criminal Division’s guidelines on Evaluation of Corporate Compliance programs, as well as several antitrust-focused items. For example, the changes emphasize the importance of addressing risks related to electronic communications, ephemeral messaging, artificial intelligence, algorithmic pricing, employee reporting, nondisclosure agreements, multi-jurisdiction compliance, and antitrust-specific compliance training. The updated guidance also extended its reach to civil antitrust investigations.
Antitrust Division Personnel Changes. Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for the Antitrust Division, Gail Slater, brings a wealth of experience in telecommunications and cybersecurity issues. In prior positions as general counsel at Roku and general counsel for a technology trade association, she gained significant experience and insight into the technology industry, which provides her with a strong foundation to continue being tough on technology companies. She is also close to the White House. AAG Slater previously served as an economic advisor to Vice President JD Vance and also as a special assistant to President Trump during his first administration.
During her confirmation hearing on February 12, 2025, Slater emphasized the importance of vigorous and fair enforcement of antitrust laws to ensure competitive markets and to protect consumers. She highlighted her commitment to prioritizing the agriculture, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and technology industries. When asked by Senator Booker (D-NJ) about increasing criminal enforcement of white-collar crimes, Slater emphasized adherence to the Justice Manual’s requirements and standards without committing to specific actions. Overall, Slater’s confirmation hearing suggests a firm stance on antitrust enforcement, with a clear focus on maintaining competitive markets.
Shortly after her confirmation, it was announced that the Acting AAG—Omeed Assefi, a trial attorney from one of the antitrust criminal sections—would serve as AAG Slater’s Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) for Criminal Antitrust Enforcement.
With AAG Slater and Acting DAAG Assefi at the helm of criminal enforcement at the Antitrust Division, it seems likely that they will continue to focus on priorities from the first Trump administration, including government procurement collusion, labor market violations (no-poach and wage-fixing), information sharing through algorithmic technologies, consumer products, and a general focus on the healthcare and technology industries.
Attorney General Bondi’s Potential Influence on the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Enforcement Priorities. Attorney General Pam Bondi also may influence criminal enforcement at the Antitrust Division insofar as she identifies other Trump administration priorities, such as Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
AG Bondi issued several memos directing scrutiny of DEI and ESG programs. Following a series of executive orders from President Trump, AG Bondi directed the Civil Rights Division to investigate and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA (DEI and Accessibility) preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities. This includes proposals for both criminal investigations and civil compliance actions. These policies align the Trump administration’s focus on countering ESG efforts alongside House Republicans and certain state attorneys general, who have used antitrust laws as the basis for their investigation of similar conduct. Considering these parallels, it may not be long before the Antitrust Division begins to scrutinize DEI and ESG initiatives more closely.
Impact of Federal Employee Purge, Hiring Freeze, and Cost-Cutting Measures on Antitrust Division’s Enforcement Capacity. President Trump’s order freezing the hiring of federal civilian employees, instituted on January 20, 2025, has significant implications for the Antitrust Division. The freeze mandates that no vacant federal civilian positions may be filled, and no new positions may be created, except under specific exemptions. This order also led to the rescinding of offers to Honors Program employees and the firing of certain probationary DOJ employees. Although these termination decisions are still in contention in the courts, the Division may face challenges in having enough attorneys and support staff to maintain a rigorous pace of antitrust investigations and prosecutions. DOJ leadership also recently asked the Antitrust Division to consider closing several of its field offices, as well as to consider transferring certain functions, such as its advocacy and economic sections, to other parts of the larger department.
Moreover, the broader efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce, as directed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), could result in further budget constraints for the Antitrust Division. These financial limitations may impact the Division’s ability to invest in resources necessary to investigate and litigate cases.
Labor Markets. Given the first Trump administration’s significant focus on labor market enforcement—particularly targeting non-solicitation, no-hire, and wage-fixing agreements—we anticipate this will remain a key area of enforcement. Notably, at the conclusion of the Biden administration, the former head of criminal antitrust enforcement revealed that the Division had several open investigations into labor markets.
Although these theories have been rejected by juries and judges at trial over the past four years, the Division recently achieved its first victory at trial in a wage-fixing case, which will likely revitalize criminal enforcement efforts in labor markets. On April 14, 2025, a federal jury in Las Vegas convicted home health agency executive Eduardo Lopez of one count of conspiring to fix the wages of Las Vegas nurses and five counts of wire fraud. Lopez also fraudulently concealed the conspiracy and the government’s investigation in order to sell his company for over $10 million. Lopez is scheduled to be sentenced on July 14 and he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine for the antitrust violation, along with a 20-year prison maximum sentence for the wire fraud charges.
This victory suggests that labor markets will continue to receive antitrust scrutiny—particularly when coupled with charges of fraud or obstructing an investigation—especially now that DOJ has convinced a jury that wage-fixing conduct can be per se illegal and constitute a criminal violation. AAG Slater promised after the Lopez verdict that the Division “will zealously prosecute those who seek to unjustly profit off their employees,” strongly suggesting that labor market enforcement will continue to be a priority. Without this victory, the Division could have fairly been expected to more fully retreat from its efforts in this area.
Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms. The Antitrust Division is expected to continue its scrutiny of AI and the use of revenue management software and/or pricing algorithms. This expectation aligns with the Statements of Interests the Antitrust Division filed in several private class action lawsuits—including a recent filing on March 26, 2025. The DOJ has argued in their filings, among other things, that competitors’ use of a common pricing algorithm can constitute per se price fixing and violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Division also filed a civil antitrust action against RealPage in August 2024 for allegedly conspiring with other multifamily rental home owners to raise rents using revenue management software. The Division amended its complaint in January 2025, adding six additional landlords for allegedly participating in a pricing scheme with RealPage. At the same time the Division announced they had entered a civil consent decree with one of the named defendants, where the defendant would agree to cooperate in part with the Division, among other things.
The DOJ is likely to maintain a vigilant stance on alleged algorithmic collusion too, as they seek to protect market competition and consumer interests.
International Enforcement. After a recent lull in international enforcement, the current Trump administration is likely eager to investigate and prosecute international cartels, especially insofar as they have harmed U.S. businesses and consumers. Underscoring this point, the current Director of Criminal Enforcement at the Antitrust Division recently addressed a prosecution with international implications, and notes that “antitrust crime does not stop at our borders and that protecting US consumers and US markets requires that we root out collusion that takes on an international dimension.”
Consistent with that comment, on February 13, 2025, the Antitrust Division and FBI announced the launch of a new online portal to assist in the tracking and arrest of international fugitives charged with competition-related crimes in the United States and believed to be evading prosecution by remaining abroad. This portal provides specific identifying information for more than 70 individual fugitives, some of whom the Division charged more than 10 years ago in investigations that otherwise have long been closed. It also includes a short video recording by a former fugitive who “recently resolved his criminal charges by entering into a plea agreement with the Antitrust Division, negotiated approximately five years after being indicted.” These efforts build on an October roundtable between the DOJ, the FTC, and other international G7 enforcement partners to discuss the challenges of ensuring competition in AI. These developments signal that international conduct will remain a focus of the current administration.
Procurement. Given that the PCSF was a signature creation under President Trump’s first administration—one that has demonstrated proven results with more than 75 convictions and guilty pleas impacting more than $500 million in commerce—we expect enforcement activity to continue relating to government procurement. This is consistent with the administration’s current focus on rooting out fraud, waste, and collusion in government procurement.
The PCSF continues to be active. The Division recently charged six individuals for allegedly defrauding the government, rigging bids, and paying bribes and kickbacks relating to IT products and services sold to the federal government, resulting in overcharges of millions of dollars. The DOJ announced that four of the six individuals entered pleas of guilty in January 2025. This investigation demonstrates that the PCSF will spread its focus beyond antitrust laws, as in one of the charged cases, none of the 13 criminal counts were for alleged Sherman Act violations. We expect this type of activity to continue in 2025 and beyond.
Section 2 Enforcement. Under the first Trump administration, the Antitrust Division made a significant policy change by resurrecting criminal enforcement for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. In 2022, consistent with that shift, AAG Jonathan Kanter announced the DOJ’s new criminal monopolization policy and signaled the Antitrust Division’s intention to bring criminal Section 2 cases for the first time since the 1970s. This policy change marked a departure from the previous focus on traditional per se offenses like price-fixing and bid-rigging and expanded the scope of criminal antitrust enforcement to include monopolistic behaviors.
One of the first cases brought under this revitalization of Section 2 was United States v. Zito, in which the defendant owner of a Montana paving and asphalt company tried to persuade a competitor to divide territories in exchange for $100,000. Claiming it would improve margins and stabilize revenue, Zito proposed taking Montana and Wyoming, while the competitor would take South Dakota and Nebraska. The competitor declined the offer and, along the way, cooperated with the Division and recorded phone calls with Zito. Zito ultimately pleaded guilty to attempted criminal monopolization under Section 2, marking the first criminal conviction for monopolization or attempted monopolization in over 40 years. This case underscored the DOJ’s willingness to both pursue novel criminal charges against individuals and use aggressive investigative techniques.
Another notable case under Section 2 was United States v. Martinez, where Carlos Favian Martinez and his co-defendants were accused of using violence to monopolize the market for transmigrante forwarding agency services in and around the Los Indios, Texas Port of Entry and the Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas metropolitan area. This case was scheduled to go to trial in February 2025 and would have been the first modern criminal monopolization case of its kind to be litigated to a verdict. However, each individual charged with the conspiracy pleaded guilty. The case illustrates the DOJ’s broad approach to tackling monopolistic practices.
Although it is not clear whether this Trump administration will continue this aggressive approach to Section 2 enforcement, the fact that this policy shift began during the first Trump administration means that it likely will not be abandoned entirely. However, the groundwork laid by these initial cases suggests a potential for continued focus on criminal monopolization, particularly in industries where market dominance can lead to significant consumer harm.
The administration recently announced a new Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force. The task force broadly aims to eliminate certain federal and state laws and regulations that it believes undermine competition. This is the first significant initiative under new AAG Slater. The Task Force will initially focus on key sectors, including housing, transportation, food and agriculture, healthcare, and energy, and will include attorneys and economists from across the Antitrust Division as well as individuals from other agencies. There will be a 60-day public comment period to assist the Antitrust Division’s efforts in identifying laws and regulations that decrease competition.
The announcement of the task force suggests that its origins stem from a similar effort in the first Trump administration. There, following a DOJ report describing how some regulations can impact and harm competition, the DOJ submitted comments to certain agencies to address and remove what it believed were “unnecessary regulations.”
The potentially broad nature of the task force is notable, but we expect it to focus in priority areas for the administration.
A new administration typically seeks to leave its mark by identifying certain policies that it wishes to update or replace. There are several policies that new Division leadership may revisit, including the Leniency Program, Corporate Compliance Guidance, or International Enforcement priorities, among others. For example, we already have an indication that the Division’s Leniency Policy will undergo a review and potential revision. In a recent interview, Omeed Assefi, the new Acting DAAG, indicated that he wishes to take a “hard look and consider potential changes to the Division’s leniency program.” Assefi added, “I have a concern that it’s imbalanced toward the companies and the defense bar against the division . . . . I think there needs to be a rebalancing to ensure that the division and the department’s equities are protected.”
The DOJ will continue to prioritize its investigations and prosecutions across industries in an aggressive antitrust enforcement environment. Certain sectors at the forefront of the first Trump administration—technology, healthcare, labor markets, consumer products, and government procurement—will likely remain focus areas for the current administration. We expect that most current court cases will continue, and that the administration will seek to use the antitrust laws to advance its broad agenda.
