In a notable shift within the Washington political landscape, recent developments signal a resurgence of corporate deal-making, particularly following the departure of Justice Department antitrust chief Gail Slater. Her ousting highlights a pivot toward a more business-friendly environment under the current administration, moving away from the previous populist instincts represented by figures such as Vice President JD Vance and MAGA advisor Steve Bannon, who have expressed skepticism regarding corporate consolidation.
Just a year ago, the atmosphere for corporate transactions was markedly different. Legal advisors were preoccupied with recalibrating client communications to address the strong populist rhetoric that characterized the campaign trail, particularly from then-candidate Donald Trump. His criticisms of major players in tech, defense, and healthcare industries as barriers to competition fostered an environment of trepidation among companies contemplating mergers and acquisitions. However, the political narrative has since evolved, adopting what observers characterize as a “long-leash Republicanism.” This new approach, while perhaps expected with a dealmaker in the Oval Office, has disheartened progressives and hardline populists, leaving legal experts to adapt their strategies accordingly.
With Slater’s exit, remedies have re-emerged as a viable option for corporations seeking approval for their mergers. Companies are now encouraged to come prepared with negotiations in mind, as they navigate the approval process amidst a newly emboldened group of lobbyists aligned with the MAGA movement. Antitrust lawyer Tim Cornell of Debevoise & Plimpton emphasized the importance of readiness, stating, “the advice to clients that have transactions likely to face scrutiny is to come ready with something to offer.”
The focus of big tech has transitioned away from concerns over online censorship to more pressing issues surrounding artificial intelligence, where there appears to be greater alignment between industry stakeholders and the White House. Vance, previously seen as a potential strong influence in steering antitrust decisions, has shifted his focus to other political priorities, avoiding direct involvement in disputes between the antitrust division and higher-ups at the Department of Justice.
Cornell noted the surprising degree to which Vance has not leveraged his political capital in these matters, the implications of Slater’s removal suggesting a clear redirection in presidential priorities. “I think we all thought Vance would be more influential,” he remarked, adding that Slater’s status as an appointee serving at the pleasure of the president indicates a noteworthy shift in administrative direction.
As companies recalibrate their strategies in light of these developments, the overarching sentiment among legal advisors and corporate leaders rests on the looming potential for renewed deal-making avenues in the changing landscape of Washington politics.
