Andrew Harnik/AP Photo
President Joe Biden listens as Attorney General Merrick Garland, left, speaks during a virtual meeting with family and independent farmers and ranchers, January 3, 2022.
The Revolving Door Project, a Prospect partner, scrutinizes the executive branch and presidential power. Follow them at therevolvingdoorproject.org.
The Biden administration is threatening new anti-monopoly enforcement actions against the Big Four meatpacking companies, in part to counter inflation at the grocery store and in part to address decades of exploitation of small farmers. On Monday, the president dispatched Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Attorney General Merrick Garland to hear grievances from small ranchers, while the White House builds a new web portal to gather complaints. While the White House’s proposals for funding small meat processors to increase competition are rather unsatisfying, the enforcement piece could have a real impact.
This initiative has caused the usual grumbling from neoliberal economists, and the usual corrections to the usual grumbling. But no one has yet explained how Biden plans to actually follow through on his threat—a problem for which Garland is partly to blame.
As The Information’s Josh Sisco reported on Tuesday, there are currently just two deputies trying to manage the entire DOJ Antitrust Division (ATR) alongside Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, who was confirmed only two months ago. ATR typically has at least 12 deputies and top advisers in the “front office” who oversee about 700 career staffers. And that was under past administrations, which didn’t have nearly as ambitious an antitrust agenda as Biden’s. Reversing four decades of Borkian antitrust sloth requires a cohesive and energetic senior leadership team.
Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission, the executive branch’s other main antitrust enforcer, remains in a 2-2 partisan deadlock, as Senate Republicans blockade Biden nominee Alvaro Bedoya from being confirmed as a commissioner. He has a path to 51 Senate votes, but arcane (and unnecessary) procedural hurdles have slowed the process to a crawl, hindering the other avenue to antitrust action.
Biden can only do so much to move Bedoya’s nomination. But in theory, nothing prevents him from hiring whomever Kanter personally trusts to help execute their shared agenda. The deputies at ATR are not Senate-confirmed positions. So what’s causing the chaos?
Read more from the Revolving Door Project
The problem isn’t procedural; it’s political. In addition to diversity concerns, Sisco reports that “ideological divisions” about anti-monopoly enforcement within the Biden administration are causing fights over any potential selection for the ATR deputies.
These divisions should be familiar to anyone who followed the initial fight over antitrust nominees during the Biden transition last year. While Biden himself seems sold on the benefits of a strong anti-monopoly agenda, Garland testified last year that he sees no problem with hiring big corporations’ preferred defense attorneys to oversee their former firms and clients. Garland and other anonymous voices floated a slew of names to run ATR throughout last year—anyone but Kanter, whom progressives favored.
While Garland lost that initial fight, he seems content to starve Kanter of resources as a work-around, even if it means sabotaging his own president’s agenda. Garland, after all, appears to consider it core to his job to throttle the better parts of the Biden administration for the sake of an imagined apolitical comity. He rushed to the Trump administration’s defense over the objections of the White House many times over the last year, and continues to undermine environmental action wherever he can. It’s perfectly in keeping with his priorities to undermine antitrust enforcement too.
The corporate revolvers and pro-monopoly hacks Garland boosted also haven’t gone anywhere. Again according to Sisco, Sonia Pfaffenroth is now in the mix for one of those coveted jobs in the ATR “front office.” Pfaffenroth revolved from Arnold & Porter into the Obama ATR and back over the last two decades. In private practice, she’s defended pharmaceutical firms, fossil fuel companies, and mining companies from class actions, price-fixing cases, and of course antitrust lawsuits.
One should look to Pfaffenroth’s record from her past stint at ATR to get a sense of what a second go-around might look like. Under the Obama administration, Pfaffenroth blessed tie-ups between Virgin America and Alaska Airlines, as well as US Airways and American Airlines. Today, just four mega-airlines control 80 percent of U.S. air traffic.
Pfaffenroth even approved the $107 billion merger between Anheuser-Busch InBev and SABMiller, allowing 30 percent of the world’s beer market volume and 60 percent of the world’s beer market profits at the time to be controlled by one firm. Today, AB InBev has essentially hacked the multitiered regulatory system that kept the alcohol market competitive for decades. In some cases, AB InBev’s distributors only allow craft brewers to distribute their drinks to retailers if they keep overall production low. This bottlenecking, alongside the pandemic, has been devastating for craft brewers.
Pfaffenroth’s record at ATR reveals someone whose poor judgment has harmed major American industries. But her judgment is reflective of the failed antitrust status quo, and in antitrust and everything else, Garland sees maintaining the status quo as inherently salutary. Where you or I might see bad calls, Garland likely sees jurisprudence executed according to a well-worn book. Whether the book is right or wrong is immaterial, in his eyes.
To state the obvious, Biden ought to reject Pfaffenroth and empower Kanter with deputies ready to throw that book aside, or else his antitrust agenda on meatpacking and everything else will get tossed on the growing pile of broken promises that are cratering his approval ratings. Doing so, however, will require standing up to Garland.
Thus far, Biden has appeared reluctant to do so, for fear of threatening the attorney general’s independence. There’s a kernel of truth here, after the Justice Department was turned into the president’s personal law firm under Trump. But there is a big difference between deploying the DOJ’s resources to help friends and target enemies and ensuring the DOJ has the staff and leadership necessary to execute its policy agenda. One is a blatant abuse of power, the other a clear presidential prerogative.
It’s an awkward situation for a president, but Biden must recognize that achieving his goals—especially the ones that improve working people’s economic fortunes—does far more for the health of the nation than sticking to a failed principle for its own sake. The president badly needs to remember that the buck stops not at Main Justice, but the Oval Office. Biden can demonstrate his commitment to fulfilling his promises and vision by empowering those of his appointees who are showing the necessary courage.
