Harris vows pragmatism, signaling a potential change for Lina Khan at the FTC

Will Kamala Harris uphold her vow of pragmatism or let ideology take precedence at the FTC?

In a critical moment for antitrust enforcement in the U.S., the future of Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan hangs in the balance. Khan, whose tenure ended on September 26, has been a polarizing figure since President Biden appointed her. As she embarks on a contentious path against large tech companies, the question arises: will Harris, who made a public commitment to being “pragmatic” during her recent speech at the Economic Club of Pittsburgh, take action to distance herself from Khan’s aggressive regulatory approach?

Khan, only 35 years old, represents a new breed of Democrats intent on reigniting trust-busting efforts. Under her leadership, the FTC has targeted heavyweights like Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Amazon while also challenging a range of corporate mergers—from handbag companies to grocery chains. These actions underscore a significant shift in the agency’s mission, distancing itself from traditional consumer protection to a more confrontational stance against business practices perceived as monopolistic.

However, Khan’s approach raises eyebrows. Her focus on stifling corporate mergers has led some to argue that she has created a “corporate tax” on business transactions. Recent high-profile court defeats, particularly the setback against Microsoft related to its planned merger with Activision-Blizzard, reflect a shift away from protecting consumer interests. Instead, Khan’s FTC seems intent on testing the boundaries of its authority, leading to a climate where legitimate business activities are met with skepticism.

Khan’s recent appearance on “60 Minutes” highlighted her tenure’s contradictions. While she insists on strictly enforcing the law, concerns grow that her strategy creates an environment where businesses hesitate to innovate or expand due to the threat of litigation. Responding to questions from Lesley Stahl, Khan acknowledged that a company opting not to proceed with a merger could be considered a victory for her agency. This philosophy contrasts sharply with Harris’s promise of a government that is responsive to the middle class.

As Harris campaigns for the presidency, she is likely to find herself at a crossroads. Should she choose to retain Khan, it could jeopardize her commitment to a more practical and consumer-centric regulation. Khan has already experienced a drop in internal support, with surveys indicating reduced confidence in leadership integrity at the FTC. If Harris disregards her pledge for pragmatism and opts for the status quo, she risks alienating a voter base that values results over ideology.

If Donald Trump wins the election, Khan would almost certainly be dismissed, but Harris could face an uphill battle if she attempts to reappoint her. Given Khan’s contentious record and the shifting political landscape, even reconfirming her would be fraught with challenges, possibly leading to intense scrutiny during Senate hearings.

In conclusion, Harris’s leadership could redefine the FTC’s role. By stepping back from Khan’s extreme measures, she could emerge as a pragmatic leader devoted to addressing the real concerns of the American public. This potential pivot might not only salvage her political credibility but also set a new course for antitrust policy in the U.S. The choices made in the coming months will reveal whether ideology or pragmatism will guide Harris’s administration.