AI & Antitrust in the Second Trump Term

Trump Administration reverses course on AI regulation

On January 20, 2025, President Trump repealed¹ the Biden Administration’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (“Biden AI Order”)² on the basis that it “hinder[ed] AI innovation and impose[d] onerous and unnecessary government control over the development of AI.”³

The Biden AI Order had provided eight guiding principles and priorities, which highlighted—among other issues like national security, privacy, and intellectual property—several competition-related concerns pertaining to the AI industry.  In particular, the Biden AI Order had emphasized the potential for consolidation and reduced competition in AI-related markets, as well as the related possibility of harm to competition in other markets.  It directed each federal agency developing policies and regulations related to AI (not merely the DOJ Antitrust Division and FTC) to address potential risks related to “concentrated control of key inputs” and to work to prevent “unlawful collusion” that could allow dominant firms to disadvantage competitors.⁴

In its stead, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” (“Trump AI Order").⁵  Unlike the Biden AI Order, the Trump AI Order has no provision for a whole-of-government approach to antitrust enforcement in the AI sector, instead emphasizing the primacy of innovation—seeking to “sustain and enhance America’s dominance in AI to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.”⁶  Stating that the Biden policy “hampered the private sector’s ability to innovate” with “unnecessarily burdensome requirements for companies developing and deploying AI,” the E.O. directs the heads of any agency that took action under the Biden AI Order to “suspend, revise, or rescind such actions. . . .”⁷  Antitrust issues are not expressly mentioned in the Trump AI Order or associated press release; rather, it emphasizes the need to foster innovation and a concern about ideological bias in AI systems.

Vice President JD Vance articulated the administration’s approach to AI regulation during his February 11, 2025 remarks at the third AI Action Summit in Paris, France, stating that the Trump administration intends to make sure that the U.S. remains a leader in AI, and warning against “risk-averse” AI regulation that he believes “could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off.”  Vance also predicted that “the AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety.  It will be won by building.”⁸

Republican FTC leadership advocates for “careful and prudent balance” with respect to AI competition regulation

Although the Trump AI Order does not provide a clear roadmap for competition-enforcement in the AI space, recent enforcement developments and statements from agency leadership shed light on how AI competition issues may be addressed in the new administration.

Republican FTC leadership has been vocal on the topic.  On January 17, 2025 Chair Ferguson (in his prior role as a Commissioner) and Commissioner Holyoak issued a joint concurring and dissenting statement⁹ related to the FTC Staff Report on AI Partnerships and Investments 6(b) Study (“FTC AI Report”).¹⁰  The FTC AI Report was the product of a year-long market study launched in January 2024 that was intended to “scrutinize corporate partnerships and investments with AI providers to build a better internal understanding of these relationships and their impact on the competitive landscape.”¹¹  Ferguson and Holyoak voted in favor of approving the publication of the FTC AI Staff Report.  However, in their accompanying statement, they stressed the importance of “strik[ing] a careful and prudent balance”¹² with respect to FTC regulation of AI.   According to Holyoak and Ferguson, because AI has the potential to “be a driving force for innovation, economic growth, and increased productivity for American workers”, the Commission should be wary of “charg[ing] headlong to regulate AI” in order to avoid “strangl[ing] this nascent technology in its cradle, or mov[ing the development of the technology to foreign states hostile to our national interests.”  However, they also acknowledged the need to “remain a vigilant competition watchman,” to ensure that “Big Tech incumbents do not control AI innovators in order to blunt any potential competitive threats.”   Ferguson and Holyoak also cautioned against using the conclusions reached in the FTC AI Staff Report¹³—that AI partnerships may impact access to certain inputs, increase switching costs for the AI developer partners, and provide CSP partners access to sensitive technical and business information that may be unavailable to others —to draw “broad conclusions about the AI industry and its future. . . .”¹⁴

Commissioner Holyoak’s recent remarks at the 2025 GCR Live conference also reflect a preference for a less aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement in the AI sector.   She reiterated her belief that the agency needs to avoid “slowing innovation in artificial intelligence through misguided enforcement actions” or “pursuing unclear regulations.”¹⁵ But the Commissioner did not entirely dismiss perceived competitive risks.  Discussing the FTC’s approach to regulating AI in the new administration, she remarked that the “stakes with AI are high,” and that regulators need to consider that, while AI has the potential to “unleash innovation and expand efficiency” across the economy, it also may be “concentrated in the hands of a small number of firms, forestalling or dampening benefits to consumers.”¹⁶ Given her belief that AI is “critically important to America’s economic and national security,” Holyoak cautioned that the FTC should be “circumspect when policing AI”, and should focus on “stopping fraudulent conduct” and further developing the agency’s understanding of the AI industry.¹⁷ And like the Trump AI Order, Commissioner Holyoak expressed a concern about ideological bias.

In addition, Gail Slater, the nominee to become the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division at DOJ, is no stranger to antitrust issues in tech.  She previously served as a special assistant to the president in the first Trump term, focusing on tech, telecom, and cybersecurity issues.  In his announcement of her nomination to run the Antitrust Division, President Trump took aim at large tech firms, asserting that “Big Tech has run wild for years, stifling competition in our most innovative sector and . . . using its market power to crack down on the rights of so many Americans, as well as those of Little Tech.”¹⁸  Although it remains to be seen how Slater would address AI competition issues at DOJ, the context of her nomination suggests a likely focus on perceived consolidation and ideological concerns similar to those raised by her FTC colleagues.

New areas of enforcement focus: consumer protection against “lopsided censorship” and fraud

One enforcement priority supported by Chair Ferguson and Commissioner Holyoak is pushing back against the purported suppression of conservative viewpoints by large technology companies that they argue have engaged in “lopsided censorship¹⁹ on their platforms.  Commissioner Ferguson has been vocal about what he perceives to be the threat of collusion among Big Tech platforms seeking to suppress “speech inconsistent with progressive orthodoxy.”²⁰ Similarly, Commissioner Holyoak has outlined how the Commission may “protect Americans from wrongful censorship by large technology companies.”²¹ The issue of free speech and the perceived censorship of conservative views by Big Tech is a significant priority of President Trump in his second administration:   on the day of his inauguration, he issued an Executive Order lambasting perceived limits on “Americans speech on online platforms . . . [u]nder the guides of combatting ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation’ . . .”²²

Holyoak advocated for the FTC to employ a regulatory scheme with respect to AI that is focused on “ensuring that AI development is done in a manner that promotes competition, avoids entrenching dominant large technology companies, and mitigates fraudulent practices in the AI ecosystem.”²³ She praised recent agency actions focused on targeting “AI-related law violations” that deceive consumers, a potential indication that the FTC’s enforcement efforts with respect to AI may be concentrated in its Bureau of Consumer Protection.²⁴

Key takeaways

As the administration’s competition priorities for the AI sector come into focus, businesses should be aware that a more relaxed regulatory environment does not mean that competition enforcement is a thing of the past.  Although the agencies’ priorities have shifted with the White House transition, the regulators are still keeping a close eye on perceived dominance in AI—including putative barriers stemming from control of inputs such as chips, data, and compute power.  AI-industry firms may have more leeway to conduct business now than in the previous administration, but they should still carefully consider antitrust risks.  And given the new political landscape, these risks may be heightened when they converge with other administration priorities.

The Hogan Lovells antitrust team is closely following developments in the new Trump Administration and in the AI sector.  For more insights into this changing landscape, please join us for an upcoming webinar on March 13 at noon ET:  Antitrust Under Trump 2.0 – What We Know and What to Expect.

Explore the Hogan Lovells Global Elections & Government Transitions Hub for in-depth insights, interactive tools, and legal updates. Monitor key policy shifts with our Executive Order Tracker, providing real-time analysis on the latest executive actions and their business impact.

Authored by Chris Fitzpatrick and Jill Ottenberg.