FTC Chair Lina Khan Isn’t Scared of Billionaire Bullies
Billionaire donors are pressuring Kamala Harris to fire Lina Khan, whose term as FTC chair has seen aggressive antitrust actions against tech giants. David Sirota interviewed Khan about her anti-monopoly agenda and the corporate efforts to shut it down.
Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission, testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on May 15, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)
- Interview by
- David Sirota
On Wednesday, billionaire tech tycoon and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman called on Vice President Kamala Harris, if she becomes president, to oust Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Lina Khan, who’s taken an aggressive approach to enforcing antitrust laws — and is currently scrutinizing a merger involving two of Hoffman’s companies. On Friday, another media tycoon called Khan “a dope.” Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Harris herself has remained silent on the issue.
What does Khan think about all this? And what would an administrative shake-up — by way of former president Donald Trump’s reelection or Harris’s potential staffing changes — mean for antitrust enforcement, consumer protection, and monopoly power in the United States? David Sirota spoke with Khan to learn her thoughts.
What are things that you haven’t been able to do yet that you want to do?
We have a whole set of work underway that we need to see through. We proposed a rule to ban junk fees that we got sixty thousand comments on. We’re reviewing those, and we’ll look to see how we can finalize that.
We proposed a rule that would require that companies make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for one. We’ve seen all of these companies do these subscription traps where you can sign up with one click — and then to cancel, you have to phone somebody, but nobody ever picks up so you have to send an email. And that really adds up for people, right? Hundreds of dollars a month stuck in subscriptions they want to escape.
We have proposed and we have finalized a rule to ban noncompete clauses that’s now being litigated, and we’re going to see that litigation through because we think it’s critical that American workers have freedom and are not trapped in jobs through these coercive contracts.
So that’s just some of the work on the rulemaking front. We have a whole bunch of cases underway right now against Amazon for illegal monopolization and against this firm for doing an illegal roll-up of anesthesiology practices in Texas.
We’ve shared publicly that we’re scrutinizing pharmacy benefit managers; we worry they may be inflating drug costs for Americans and squeezing independent pharmacies. So that’s all work underway that we’re excited to see through.
How much of that work can be unwound if the administration changes? We’ve been trying to talk about the stakes of all that.
So once the rulemakings are final, you have to go through a process if you actually want to undo it that can be challenged in court as well. Cases, in theory, could be yanked from the courts. But historically, cases have continued across administrations. Of course, if somebody comes in wanting to tear it all down and undo all the protections we’ve gotten for working people, there are ways to do that.
What do you make of the Reid Hoffman comment about how you’ve got to go in the next administration?
I mean, look, the FTC is focused on delivering for working people and standing up for them against corporate abuse. We think that’s good for our country, that’s good for our economy. And it makes sure people feel free rather than bullied in the marketplace. So I think that’s work that everybody should be able to get behind. Unless you’re one of the monopolies or abusive corporations.
J. D. Vance has said nice things about you — do you think the election is necessarily a pivot point for the FTC? Or in the sense of the old paradigm, if the Republicans get in, will they just sort of not want to do anything? Has that changed in your mind?
There’s no doubt that there is deep bipartisan agreement that when you allow illegal monopolies to run amok, that hurts working people. And if you want to protect working people from corporate abuse, you need to have an aggressive and assertive FTC.
You know, I’ve had the privilege of testifying before Congress a few times. And each time, I’m just struck by how there is deep bipartisan concern about how unfair methods of competition and these coercive practices can really hurt people. It means that they’re paying more, earning less, entrepreneurs have less of an opportunity to compete on a level playing field, and our economy and democracy are weaker because of that. So we’re just focused on continuing our work.
One last quick question. Are you ever surprised or did you always expect to get the pushback?
Look, the FTC has embedded within it a mandate to fight illegal monopolies. We’ve long known that monopolies not only have economic power, but use that power to buy political power. That was one of the reasons that the lawmakers passed the antitrust laws and our founders were deeply concerned that unlawful economic power can corrupt not just our economy, but also our democracy.
And so embedded within the FTC’s DNA is when it’s doing its job standing up for consumers, workers, and small businesses against corporate abuse, that’s going to trigger pushback.
Thanks so much.
Thank you. Thanks for all your great work. Really appreciate it.