The Spring Meeting is the largest gathering of competition, consumer protection, and data privacy profes­sionals globally, with lawyers, academics, economists, enforcers, journalists, and students from around the world. During the 2026 Spring Meeting, Axinn associates attended thought leadership panels to capture key insights. Their report of the takeaways from four panels discussing trends in federal antitrust enforcement and policy appears below. It covers the panels, “Regulation Rollback and Market Competition,” “Enforcement Priorities Under Trump 2.0,” “Chair’s Showcase: Competition Enforcement: Getting It Just Right,” and “Enforcers Roundtable.”

To read all the articles in the series, click here.

Four panels at the 2026 ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting focused on the interplay between regulation (i.e., statutes and rules delineating what is permissible) and enforcement (i.e., actions to ensure those statutes and rules are followed). In large part, discussions centered on recent efforts to modify or remove regulations that may be seen as outdated or otherwise holding back competition in favor of flexible and, in some cases, increased enforcement.

Regulation Rollback and Market Competition

The “Regulations Rollback and Market Competition” panel recognized that the Biden and Trump Administrations have taken starkly different approaches to regulation. Panelists explained that, while the Biden Administration used executive orders to shape tech and healthcare markets (e.g., the “Promoting Competition in the American Economy” Executive Order), the current Trump Administration has focused on identifying and removing regulations that it believes distort markets (e.g., the “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” Executive Order). The bulk of the discussion focused on how regulators are navigating an increasingly complex policy landscape where intra-governmental objectives often conflict. The discussion highlighted how both regulatory and deregulatory efforts can shape competition. 

• The Executive Branch’s centralized regulatory review process has the potential to help or hinder prioritization of competition policy in federal regulation. Agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and, at least under the Trump Administration, independent regulatory agencies including the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), promulgate and review rules through an Executive Branch multi-agency process led by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) within the Office of Management and Budget. Panelists discussed how DOJ and the FTC can use the OIRA process to take several “bites of the apple” on competition policy by suggesting their preferred policy changes to other agencies’ regulations, including those that might not otherwise address competition. But the process works both ways. Those other agencies, in turn, might advocate a “public interest standard” that prioritizes safety, reliability, and environmental impacts over competition. 
• The states are experimenting with novel competition-related regulation. States continue to be “laboratories of experimentation,” advancing competition-related legislation and regulation on targeted subjects of interest, such as algorithmic pricing and rent transparency. Nevertheless, internal conflicts over regulatory policy exist at the state level, but often with less opportunity for agencies to influence each other’s regulations than at the federal level. State regulatory processes often lack centralized review bodies, and states may not have an agency with a significant focus on competition policy, in any event. Accordingly, state regulation, sometimes more so than federal regulation, can end up prioritizing other policies and protecting the entrenchment of incumbents. Even so, as one panelist explained, enforcement continues. State enforcers “take the market as [they] find it” and will enforce competition law against incumbents, even when regulation otherwise protects their market position.
• Even the best-intended legislation and regulation can stifle competition. Panelists explored the ways that regulation can create anticompetitive conditions, either inadvertently by leaving loopholes around which incumbents may design their business models to their advantage, or directly by favoring incumbents. With pharmaceuticals, for example, the Hatch-Waxman Act was designed to speed up generic entry. But panelists noted that, in some cases, the Act may have inadvertently encouraged product-hopping by brand manufacturers, allowing them to perpetuate their exclusive position in the market. Panelists also observed that Certificate of Need laws—which require healthcare facilities to gain permission before entering or expanding—are gaining critics who believe the laws help incumbents maintain market power. 

Enforcement Priorities Under Trump 2.0 

Panelists for “Enforcement Priorities Under Trump 2.0” offered their views on the current Administration’s approach to antitrust enforcement. Highlights from the panel’s discussion follow. 

• Negotiated remedies are back on the table. Panelists described what they called a notable shift in federal antitrust enforcement under the second Trump Administration toward a more pragmatic and flexible approach, particularly in merger review. One key development is an increased willingness by agencies to engage in negotiated settlements, often favoring targeted structural remedies (i.e., divestitures) over litigation. This reflects both a resource-conscious enforcement philosophy and a view that antitrust can function as a “scalpel,” preserving procompetitive aspects of transactions while addressing specific competitive concerns. At the same time, panelists emphasized that agencies remain focused on traditional head-to-head competition and high market concentration, suggesting that core enforcement triggers have not fundamentally changed.
• The White House is in control. Another important trend that panelists identified is a more “top-down” approach to enforcement, with greater alignment between agency decision-making and Executive Branch priorities. Panelists noted that White House policy considerations, including national security and the Administration’s broader economic goals, are increasingly influencing enforcement outcomes. This marks a departure from prior efforts to emphasize agency independence in enforcement decisions, and it has implications for how businesses assess deal risk. In particular, merger risk may no longer turn solely on traditional metrics such as market shares and concentration, but also on whether a transaction aligns with broader policy priorities. As a result, outcomes may be less predictable, and companies may need to place greater emphasis on government engagement and developing a policy-friendly transaction narrative.
• States are playing a larger role in enforcement. Panelists also observed growing complexity in the enforcement landscape due to increased involvement by state attorneys general, who may challenge deals where federal enforcers do not, continue litigation after federal enforcers settle, or seek different or additional relief than what federal enforcers sought. This dynamic can prolong deal timelines and introduce additional uncertainty, even where federal agencies are inclined to resolve matters through settlement.
• Predictions. Looking ahead, panelists expect the Administration to continue to emphasize deregulation and to place greater reliance on negotiated remedies. In addition, panelists expected there to be further debate over the appropriate role of agency guidance—particularly related to competitor collaborations and emerging technologies. Overall, panelists said, the enforcement environment is likely to remain active, but increasingly shaped by agency resource constraints, political priorities, and evolving dynamics between federal agencies and state enforcers.

Chair’s Showcase: Getting Competition Enforcement Just Right 

The “Chair’s Showcase” panel featured an open-ended discussion about the appropriate role and level of antitrust enforcement by DOJ, FTC, and respective agencies abroad to best nurture competition—as opposed to regulations or non-antitrust solutions. Panelists also discussed recent deregulation trends. Takeaways are below.

• Competition law around the world is diverging. For decades, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) and the International Competition Network (“ICN”) brought together enforcers, private practitioners, and businesses around the world to consult and collaborate on competition enforcement policy. In the 1990s, for example, OECD and ICN were vital to helping countries develop policy that would protect competition yet still nurture the growing digital economy. The political realignments of the 2010s, however, have caused governments to more often look inward when setting policy, causing potential divergence among countries that historically have been aligned.
• U.S. and Canadian authorities continue to favor deregulation and enforcement, while other countries continue to turn to regulation. U.S. and Canadian authorities continue to review regulations that may have held back competition or tied enforcers’ hands. Panelists noted that there have been recent pushes to identify and potentially rescind regulations viewed as counterproductive to increasing competition. Regulations can, for example, create barriers to entry in dynamic industries. In 2025, pursuant to an Executive Order, DOJ and FTC began to analyze federal and state regulations that could be viewed as anticompetitive. Panelists noted that removing such regulations could unleash growth. Meanwhile, other jurisdictions appear poised to continue to keep their regulations in place, such as the United Kingdom. The new artificial intelligence (“AI”) economy may be shaped by how countries handle these choices. The presence or absence of regulation could, for example, influence the barriers to entry for new AI companies and the growth of the industry as a whole.
• Remedies sought by enforcers—especially for monopolization cases—will continue to have a significant impact on competition. Panelists noted that the remedies fashioned to cure anticompetitive conduct can have a significant impact on competition and growth. The AT&T breakup of the 1980s, for example, has been credited by some as supercharging the growth of wireless technology. Likewise, injunctions put into place against Microsoft in the 2000s may have been a catalyst for the Internet’s growth. More recently, DOJ has pursued remedies against Google that have yet to be judicially determined. Analyzing this throughline, panelists expect the remedies of today to shape the competition landscape of tomorrow for emerging industries like AI.

Navigating Political Uncertainty and Upheaval at the 2026 Enforcers Roundtable

The 2026 ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting concluded Friday with the “Enforcers Roundtable,” which was made up of an international panel of enforcers from the European Commission, the United Kingdom, France, and Mexico. The central theme was uncertainty and upheaval in competition policy stemming from growing international political instability. Panelists focused in particular on policy in the United Kingdom, Europe, and Central and South America. Below are key takeaways:

• Politics will likely continue to influence competition policy. Panelists acknowledged that enforcement could not exist in a vacuum divorced from political realities. They emphasized, for example, that to them, politics can and should play a role in determining enforcement discretionary policy as well as the tools and remedies available. On the other hand, panelists also argued that it is important that politics not unduly influence the technical application of competition law in specific cases or investigations. Panelists noted that, in Europe, many jurisdictions are aligned on the goals of competition policy but diverge as to the choice of tool and remedy.
• “Sectoral” regulations are here to stay, but expansion beyond digital markets is not imminent. Panelists observed that enforcers in the United Kingdom and Europe seemed pleased with the early results of special competition regulations such as the United Kingdom’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act (“DMA”). For proponents of these novel regulations, existing competition policy lagged the pace of innovation in digital markets, necessitating their enactment. But, panelists observed, even accepting these regulations’ benefits, it would remain important that sectoral regulations not be expanded so far as to add unnecessary complexity. For example, the DMA and General Data Protection Regulation, while largely complementary, must in some cases be reconciled.
• International cooperation and public-private collaboration are of paramount importance to non-U.S. enforcers. Panelists observed that for many competition regulators and enforcers, it appeared that interagency collaboration through the OECD and ICN remains paramount. Panelists also expressed their view that dialogue between enforcers and private parties must be fostered to build trust between them, which would help achieve strong support for the rule of law and help regulators learn about complex markets from private parties. 

The Enforcers Roundtable concluded an exciting and informative 2026 ABA Spring Meeting. Participants in this panel and the many others from this year’s Spring Meeting offered valuable insights into the antitrust enforcement landscape.