President Donald Trump’s second term presents a critical opportunity to correct the trajectory of
antitrust enforcement in the United States. During the Biden administration, antitrust policy drifted away from its foundational principle—the consumer welfare standard—toward a more punitive “big is bad” philosophy. Under this misguided approach, companies achieving significant market share face scrutiny, not because they harm consumers, but because of their sheer size. Visa’s current legal battles with the Department of Justice epitomize this shift, but similar overreach can be seen in cases involving LiveNation/Ticketmaster and the rent revenue management software RealPage. Attorney General-nominee Pam Bondi and Assistant Attorney General-nominee Gail Slater must seize the opportunity to restore antitrust enforcement to its roots, preserving competitive markets while avoiding policies that inadvertently harm consumers and stifle innovation.

The Visa Case

The DOJ’s lawsuit against Visa, alleging monopolization of the debit card market, typifies the current antitrust overreach. Visa’s critics claim the company leverages its size to dominate payment processing, yet the evidence suggests otherwise. Consumers enjoy a diverse range of payment options. These many alternatives to Visa debit cards indicate a competitive marketplace, not one suffering under monopolistic control. Furthermore, Visa’s actions do not align with traditional definitions of anticompetitive behavior. The DOJ’s reliance on speculative harm, rather than concrete evidence, undermines the case. Visa’s market share reflects efficiency and innovation rather than coercion or consumer harm. Regulatory measures like the Durbin Amendment—requiring debit cards to support at least two processing networks—have already created significant barriers to market consolidation, casting doubt on the DOJ’s monopoly claims.