The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice are shifting away from behavioral settlements, favoring structural divestitures to prevent dominant firms from stifling competition and harming small businesses.
The landscape of American commerce is currently defined by a quiet but consequential shift in how the federal government handles the concentration of corporate power. For decades, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) relied heavily on behavioral remedies—essentially a series of promises from merging companies to act fairly—to approve massive acquisitions. Recent enforcement trends, however, suggest that the era of the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ in antitrust law is coming to an end.
Regulators are increasingly signaling a preference for structural remedies, which require companies to sell off entire business units before a merger can proceed, or outright litigation to block deals that threaten the competitive fabric of the market. This change in strategy reflects a growing skepticism toward the idea that a dominant firm can be effectively regulated through oversight alone. From the perspective of free-market competition, a monopoly that promises to play nice is still a monopoly, possessing the inherent power to squeeze suppliers and dictate terms to consumers.
In the industrial heartland and across the digital economy, the impact of consolidation is felt most acutely by small business owners and independent innovators. When two major players in a sector merge, the resulting entity often gains a monopsony—or buyer’s power—that allows it to depress the prices paid to smaller vendors while simultaneously raising costs for the end-user. By moving toward structural enforcement, federal agencies are attempting to preserve the ‘exit ramps’ and ‘entry points’ that allow new, independent firms to challenge established giants.
Critics of this more aggressive stance argue that it creates uncertainty in the capital markets and may prevent efficiencies that could benefit the economy. However, evidence from past decades suggests that many promised efficiencies never materialize for the public, instead being absorbed as corporate profit or used to further entrench market position. The current regulatory pivot treats market structure as the primary safeguard of liberty, rather than relying on the shifting whims of corporate boards or the limited resources of government monitors.
This institutional shift also places a renewed focus on the labor market. Antitrust enforcers are now scrutinizing how mergers affect the bargaining power of workers and the mobility of talent. When a single employer dominates a regional industry, the fundamental right of an individual to take their skills to a competitor is effectively neutralized. By prioritizing competition over consolidation, the current enforcement trajectory seeks to restore a balance where merit and innovation, rather than sheer size, determine success in the American marketplace.
Greg Sanders serves as the Senior Correspondent for Corporate Power and Antitrust at Just Right News, where he brings a principled, conservative perspective to the complex intersection of big business, government regulation, and the American consumer. With a career dedicated to investigative depth and economic clarity, Greg has become a leading voice in examining how the consolidation of industry power impacts the foundational values of the free market and individual liberty.
Raised in Denver, Colorado, Greg’s reporting is deeply informed by the Western spirit of independence and a healthy skepticism of centralized authority. Growing up in the shadows of the Rockies, he witnessed firsthand the importance of local entrepreneurship and the vital role that small-medium enterprises play in sustaining vibrant communities. This upbringing instilled in him a belief that the American Dream is best preserved when the playing field remains level and when competition—rather than backroom deals between corporate lobbyists and federal regulators—dictates success. For Greg, the rugged individualism of his home state serves as a constant reminder that the economy should serve the people, not the other way around.
Now based in Chicago, Illinois, Greg operates from the heart of the nation’s industrial and financial crossroads. His location in the Midwest provides him with a unique vantage point to observe the real-world consequences of corporate overreach. From the boardrooms of the Loop to the manufacturing hubs that define the region, he tracks the movement of capital and the shifting tides of market influence. Chicago’s history as a center of trade and labor offers a rich backdrop for his work, allowing him to bridge the gap between high-level economic theory and the lived experiences of hardworking Americans who feel the squeeze of monopolistic practices.
At Just Right News, Greg’s beat focuses on the “new monopolies” and the rise of “woke” corporate culture. He argues that when corporations become too large, they often abandon their fiduciary duties to shareholders in favor of social engineering and political posturing. His reporting seeks to hold these “Titans” accountable, ensuring that the power of the purse is not used to silence dissent or bypass the democratic process. He is a firm advocate for the idea that true conservatism requires a vigilant defense of competition, preventing any single entity—public or private—from exerting undue control over the lives of citizens.
This mission is most clearly seen in his acclaimed feature series, “The Titans and the Toll.” In this ongoing project, Greg explores the human cost of market consolidation, from the erosion of consumer choice to the decline of local economies. Through rigorous analysis and boots-on-the-ground reporting, he documents how the concentration of power in sectors like tech, agriculture, and finance creates a “toll” paid by the average family.
Greg Sanders remains committed to the idea that a transparent, competitive market is the greatest engine for prosperity ever devised. Through his work at Just Right News, he continues to provide the essential oversight necessary to protect that engine from the encroaching influence of corporate giants and the bureaucratic structures that enable them.