Where Are the “Free Market Advocates”?

While the Financial Times article offers some enlightening insights, it also raises a few bewildering points in its piece titled, “Trump Nominee Unites Right and Left with Tough Antitrust View” (March 7, 2025):

Among the loyalists handpicked by Donald Trump for his second term, Gail Slater distinguishes herself with a unique stance: she bridges the divide between the right and left through her critical stance on corporate power.

Unlike his other nominees, who typically champion traditional conservative free-market ideologies, Slater—chosen to head the Justice Department’s antitrust division—is anticipated to uphold the Biden administration’s vigorous enforcement policies, much to Wall Street’s dismay. …

Slater epitomizes the unexpected coalition of progressives advocating for stringent antitrust regulations and a rising cohort of populist conservatives.

However, who exactly are “the US president’s other nominees [who] tend to be traditional conservative free market advocates?” Finding such proponents within Trump’s circle is akin to searching for a needle in a haystack; they seem either absent or uncharacteristically silent. A genuine free-market advocate would hardly endorse the sort of trade restrictions that Trump and his associates have often promoted. As I have previously argued, the “unlikely alignment of progressives … and a new generation of populist conservatives” is not only comprehensible but has tightened and become more pronounced over time. Historically, populist leaders, regardless of their political orientation, have prioritized collective and political decisions at the expense of individual and private choices, as evidenced by the Latin American experience.

Antitrust laws, which bestow extraordinary power upon the state, serve as a prime example of this dynamic. One would expect that such power would be wielded by the ruling authorities to favor their chosen clientele while marginalizing those who do not conform to their economic ideals. It was merely a matter of time before this authority could be overtly employed against “enemies of the state” in advanced democracies—such as the United States. The Financial Times highlights this concern:

A senior investment banker noted that corporate leaders are apprehensive that under Trump, antitrust laws may be wielded as a tool to penalize adversaries and favor allies in unpredictable ways.

The recent investigation into rising egg prices by the Department of Justice seems to corroborate these fears; a convenient scapegoat is needed to justify the administration’s failure to deliver on promises to reduce food costs “from day one” (“Justice Department Opens Probe of Sharp Surge in Egg Prices,” Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2025).

This is not the first instance of political intervention in the justice system, but the fact that the DoJ now seemingly operates under the auspices of the president’s “vision” heightens the likelihood of politically motivated witch hunts (“Trump Tightens Grip on FBI and Justice Department,” Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2025). A decade ago, many Americans might have believed that the specter of governmental lawlessness had diminished since the eras of J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon. The Wall Street Journal notes:

Unlike previous FBI directors who have strived to maintain a respectful distance from the White House, the new Trump administration has opted to integrate the traditionally independent ethos of the FBI and Justice Department into the president’s domain.

Historically, one of the few areas of public policy where individual liberties appeared to have strengthened was in the gradual dissolution of the incestuous relationship between political figures and the judiciary. While the state continued to expand, individuals seemed increasingly shielded from blatant abuses of power.

Regardless of the commendable intentions and occasional flashes of insight from Mr. Trump—which he has expressed—they appear to be mere fleeting moments set against the backdrop of his expansive interventionist tendencies, his penchant for spectacle, and his shared affinity for collective choices with the opposing political party. His goal seems to involve imposing a distinct set of values on the 50.2% of voters who did not support him, and regrettably, also on many rationally unaware voters among his 49.8%. The true peril lies in the potential misinterpretation of this agenda as a defense of individual liberty.

******************************