President-elect Donald Trump has selected Andrew Ferguson to lead the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a decision that marks a notable shift in the agency’s regulatory approach. Ferguson, a Republican commissioner at the FTC, will replace Lina Khan, who has been known for her vigorous stance on antitrust enforcement against major technology companies.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump praised Ferguson’s ‘proven record of standing up to Big Tech censorship’ and expressed confidence that he would be ‘the most America First, and pro-innovation FTC Chair in our Country’s History.’
What Ferguson’s Appointment Means for Big Tech
As a former solicitor general of Virginia and a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Ferguson’s background suggests a lean towards a more business-friendly FTC. His prior dissenting opinions on Khan’s regulatory initiatives, such as proposed bans on non-compete clauses, hint at a potential softening of the FTC’s approach to tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Apple.
Despite Ferguson’s reputation, experts indicate that the Trump-era FTC may still pursue antitrust actions against major tech firms. His appointment comes at a time when significant investigations are already underway, including lawsuits against Google, Meta, and Amazon, a trend that began during Trump’s first term.
Moreover, Trump has also appointed Mark Meador as another FTC commissioner, further influencing the agency’s trajectory. Under Ferguson’s leadership, the FTC might revive merger discussions that were previously halted during the Biden administration. However, the actual regulatory changes will depend on the political dynamics within the five-member commission, which currently includes three Democrats and two Republicans.
Ferguson’s stance on protecting online conservative viewpoints may reshape how the FTC engages with social media platforms and their moderation practices. He previously stated, ‘We must vigorously enforce the antitrust laws against any platforms found to be unlawfully limiting Americans’ ability to exchange ideas freely and openly.’ Thus, how this leadership change influences the ongoing judicial matters and the overall regulatory landscape remains to be seen.
