Antitrust panic helped kill an American robotics pioneer



Antitrust regulators claim to protect competition. Their decision to block Amazon’s acquisition of iRobot did the opposite. It helped drive an American robotics pioneer into bankruptcy last December and pushed it into the arms of a Chinese creditor.

Antitrust law is supposed to defend consumers and prevent monopoly abuse. In this case, regulators killed a deal that could have kept iRobot alive, preserved American jobs, and strengthened a U.S. company facing brutal Chinese competition. Instead, the collapse of the acquisition forced iRobot into a court-supervised restructuring in which Shenzhen Picea Robotics — its largest Chinese creditor and key supplier — will take the company’s equity and cancel roughly $264 million in debt.

Ultimately, the acquisition’s collapse pushed iRobot into a deal with its largest Chinese creditor.

iRobot began in 1990, founded by roboticists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The company built military and space exploration products before it introduced the Roomba in 2002, the device that turned home robotics into a household category. For years, iRobot stood as a rare American success story in consumer robotics.

Then the market shifted. Chinese manufacturers poured in with cheaper models, tighter supply chains, and rapid iteration. iRobot’s share price peaked in 2021, then slid hard over the next year. The company sought a lifeline and found one in Amazon, which agreed to acquire iRobot for roughly $1.7 billion.

That deal made strategic sense. iRobot needed capital, scale, and distribution power to compete against Chinese rivals such as Roborock, Ecovacs, Dreame, and Xiaomi. Amazon could have provided all three. Consumers likely would have seen faster innovation, deeper device integration, and lower prices, while iRobot kept more of its footprint and engineering talent intact.

Regulators saw a different story. The European Commission objected on antitrust grounds and signaled it would block the acquisition. The commission argued the deal could restrict competition in robot vacuum cleaners by allowing Amazon to disadvantage rival products on its marketplace. American critics piled on, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who framed the acquisition as an attempt to buy out competition, along with privacy fears about Roomba’s mapping technology.

Facing regulatory opposition, Amazon and iRobot terminated the agreement in January 2024. Amazon’s general counsel, David Zapolsky, warned that the decision would deny consumers faster innovation and more competitive prices, while leaving iRobot weaker against foreign rivals operating under very different regulatory constraints.

The warnings proved accurate. After the deal collapsed, iRobot announced deep cost-cutting, including a 31% workforce reduction. The company shifted more production to Vietnam to compete on cost. Chinese brands continued to eat the market.

By December 2025, iRobot filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and announced a restructuring deal that hands control to Shenzhen Picea Robotics. According to iRobot’s own announcement, Picea will acquire the equity of the reorganized company through the court process and cancel about $264 million in debt.

RELATED: Why Trump must block Netflix’s Warner Bros. takeover

Photo by Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

That outcome should haunt every regulator who claimed to defend competition. Regulators blocked an American acquisition and ended up delivering a storied American company to a Chinese creditor. They did not preserve a competitor. They helped bury it.

The iRobot collapse exposes a central problem with modern antitrust enforcement: Officials often substitute fear-driven hypotheticals for real-world consequences. They imagine a future in which Amazon squeezes competitors and consumers pay more. They ignore the present in which Chinese firms gain market power, American companies lose ground, and U.S. workers pay the price.

Markets discipline failure quickly. Regulators rarely pay for their mistakes. They can block a deal, watch a company fall apart, and declare victory because they prevented a theoretical harm.

This case produced the opposite of the intended result. Regulators killed a merger that could have strengthened an American company against Chinese competition. They weakened competition in the robot vacuum market by removing one of the few U.S.-based pioneers from the field. They also shrank the number of meaningful paths forward for iRobot until only one remained: a takeover by the company’s Chinese lender and supplier.

Policymakers should learn the right lesson. Antitrust action should not operate as a reflex against size or success. Regulators should measure outcomes, not slogans. If officials claim they protect competition, they should not celebrate decisions that end in bankruptcy and foreign control.

How do you solve a problem like Wikipedia?



Wikipedia has recently come under the microscope. I take some credit for this, as a co-founder of Wikipedia and a longtime vocal critic of the knowledge platform.

In September, I nailed (virtually) “Nine Theses About Wikipedia” to the digital door of Wikipedia and started a round of interviews about it, beginning with Tucker Carlson. This prompted Elon Musk to announce Grokipedia’s impending launch the very next day. And a national conversation evolved from there, with left- and right-leaning voices complaining about the platform’s direction or my critique of it.

As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.

As its 25th anniversary approaches, Wikipedia clearly needs reform. Not only does the platform have a long history of left-wing bias, but the purveyors of that bias — administrators, everyday editors, and others — stubbornly cling to their warped worldview and vilify those who dare to contest it.

The “Nine Theses” are the project’s first-ever thoroughgoing reform proposal. Among the ideas:

  • Allow multiple, competing articles per topic.
  • Stop ideological blacklisting of sources.
  • Restore the original neutrality policy.
  • Reveal the identities of the most powerful managers.
  • End unfair, indefinite blocking.
  • Adopt a formal legislative process.

Such ideas were bound to be a hard sell on Wikipedia. It has become institutionally ossified.

Nevertheless, I was delighted that the discussion of the theses has been robust, without much further prodding from me. Following the launch, Jimmy Wales actually stepped into the fray on the so-called talk page of an article called “Gaza genocide,” chiding the participants for violating Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. I chimed in as well. But the criticism was thrown back in our faces.

This brings me to the deeper problem: Wikipedia is stuck in its ways. How can it possibly be reformed when so many of its contributors like the bias, the anonymous leadership, the ease of blocking ideological foes, and other aspects of dysfunction? Reform seems impossible.

Yet there is one realistic way that we can make progress toward reform.

Above all else, those who care should get involved in Wikipedia. The total number of people who are really active on Wikipedia is surprisingly small. The number editing 100 times in any given month is in the low thousands, and this does not amount to that much time — perhaps one or two hours per week. Those who treat it as a part-time or full-time job — and so have real day-to-day influence — number in the hundreds.

In interviews, I have been urging the outcasts to converge on Wikipedia. You might think this is code for saying that conservatives and libertarians should try to stage a coup, but that is not so. Hindus and Israelis, among others, have also complained of being left out in recent years. The problem is an entrenched ruling class. As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.

RELATED: Wikipedia editors are trying to scrub the record clean of Iryna Zarutska’s slaughter by violent thug

Photo by Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images

If you are a conservative or libertarian who is concerned about the slanted framing of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, get involved. If you are a classical liberal who is alarmed by the anti-Semitism within Wikipedia — like Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz — it is time to make your presence felt. Wherever you may fall on the ideological spectrum, I call on good-faith citizens to become engaged editors who take productive discourse seriously, rather than scapegoating “the other side.”

Even a dozen new editors could make a difference, let alone hundreds or thousands who might be reading this column. Given that Wikipedia attracts billions of readers, in addition to featuring prominently in Google Search, Google Gemini, and elsewhere, improving the platform will strengthen our collective access to high-quality information across the board. It will bring us closer to truth.

So how do we solve the Wikipedia problem? With you, me, and all of us — individual action at scale.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Killing drug ads won’t lower prices — it will kill innovation



The United States is one of the few countries that allows prescription drugmakers to speak directly to patients. That simple fact now fuels political calls to “ban the ads.” But restricting direct-to-consumer advertising would do more than change what runs during football games. It would shrink the flow of information to patients and push our system toward the bureaucratic throttling that has turned other countries into innovation laggards.

Advertising is part of a dynamic market process. Entrepreneurs inform consumers about new products, and when profits are high, firms have every incentive to improve quality and expand access.

The pattern is clear: The more Washington intervenes, the fewer cures Americans get.

New, cheaper treatments need to be brought to consumers’ attention. Otherwise, people stay stuck with older, more expensive options, and competition falters. Banning pharmaceutical advertising would hobble innovative firms whose products are not yet known and leave those seeking medical care less informed.

Critics warn that “a growing proliferation of ads” drives demand for costly treatments, even when less expensive alternatives exist. Yet a recent study in the Journal of Public Economics finds that exposure to pharmaceutical ads increases drug utilization across the board — including cheaper generics and non-advertised medications. In short, advertising pushes people who need care to make better, more informed decisions.

A market-based system rewards risk-taking and innovation. Despite the many flaws in American health care, the United States leads the world in medical breakthroughs — from cancer immunotherapies to vaccines developed in record time. That success wasn’t created by government decree. It came from competition: firms communicating openly about their products, fighting for patients, and reinvesting earnings into the next generation of lifesaving discoveries.

Sure, some regulations are adopted with good intentions. But drug ads are already heavily regulated, and a full ban would create serious unintended consequences — including the unseen cost of innovative drugs that will never reach patients because firms won’t invest in developing treatments they are barred from promoting.

American health care is now regulated to the point of satisfying no one. Patients face rising costs. Physicians navigate a Kafkaesque maze of top-down rules. Taxpayers foot the bill for decisions made by distant bureaucracies. Measures associated with socialized medicine continue creeping into the marketplace.

Price controls in the Inflation Reduction Act are already cutting into pharmaceutical research and development. One study estimates roughly 188 fewer small-molecule treatments in the 20 years after its enactment. The pattern is clear: The more Washington intervenes, the fewer cures Americans get.

RELATED: Trump faces drugmakers that treat sick Americans like ATMs

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The answer to the problems in American health care isn’t more government. It’s less. Expected profitability drives investment in biomedical research. Imposing new advertising bans or European-style price controls would mean lower-quality care, higher mortality, and the erosion of America’s leadership in medical innovation.

The United Kingdom offers a warning. Once a global leader, it drove investment offshore through overregulation and rigid price controls. Today, only 37% of new medicines are made fully available for their licensed uses in Britain. Americans spend more, but they also live longer: U.S. cancer patients outlive their European counterparts for a reason.

Discovering new drugs is hard. Every breakthrough begins with the freedom to imagine, to compete, and to communicate. Strip companies of the ability to inform patients, and you strip away the incentive to develop the next cure. Competitive markets — not centralized control — will fuel tomorrow’s medical miracles.

Trump faces drugmakers that treat sick Americans like ATMs



President Donald Trump struck a second deal last month with the world’s largest drugmakers, promising lower costs for American patients. The industry claims cooperation, offering help for consumers and expanded domestic production. Yet those same companies have raised prices on nearly 700 prescription drugs since January.

Big Pharma hopes the most unconventional president will fall back on the most conventional policy: granting the largest firms regulatory advantages, taxpayer-funded promotion, and freedom to keep ratcheting prices upward.

Trumpshould expose the game Big Pharma has played for years and force the industry to compete in a real marketplace.

Trump’s instincts are right. Americans pay inflated prices, and he has confronted the industry’s excesses. But Big Pharma spent decades building cartel-level dominance. Few industries mastered regulatory capture more effectively. The pharma industry wins higher prices while concealing the system that keeps costs rising.

The industry’s tactics follow a predictable pattern. With its right hand, Big Pharma announces a partnership with the White House. With its left, it secures guaranteed government contracts, political protection, and federally promoted products. Independent analysts warn that rebate schemes encourage price hikes. The dynamic mirrors a retailer inflating list prices before Black Friday to create the illusion of deep discounts.

The federal government helps tip the scales. Regulatory frameworks favor the largest drugmakers and block smaller competitors, keeping profits high and patients in the dark.

Patients pay the price

What the industry calls reform resembles a shell game that protects profits and punishes patients. The Food and Drug Administration created an “accelerated approval” pathway to speed lifesaving treatments. In practice, the system advantages the largest corporations. A 2020 study found that increases in FDA regulations boosted sales for major firms while cutting sales for smaller companies by 2.2%. Smaller manufacturers cannot absorb substantial compliance costs, which means cheaper or more effective drugs never reach the market or arrive years late.

Patients pay the price. Follow-up studies for expedited approvals lag for years, and many drugs never show clear benefits. Harvard researchers found that nearly half of cancer drugs granted accelerated approval fail to improve survival or quality of life. The FDA withdrew one in four such drugs and confirmed substantial benefit for only 12% of the rest. The drugs generated revenue, but they offered little hope to patients who paid dearly for treatments that did not deliver.

RELATED: The hidden hospital scam driving up drug prices, coming to a state near you

Deagreez via iStock/Getty Images

Meanwhile, prices keep climbing. Since Trump left office after his first term, cancer drug prices rose faster than Biden-era inflation. Median list prices for new medicines more than doubled between 2021 and 2024, surpassing $300,000 a year. In 2023 alone, drug companies raised prices by 35%. The Rand Corporation found that Americans spent more than $600 billion on prescriptions in 2022 — almost triple what patients in other developed nations pay.

Competition, not cronyism

Families facing cancer now shoulder thousands more out of pocket while Big Pharma posts record profits. Trump deserves credit for recognizing how unfair practices and Democrat policies pushed drug costs beyond the reach of average households.

A better path is within reach. Real reform depends on competition rather than political connections. Trump can break the illusion by opening the market, lowering barriers to entry, and cutting regulatory burdens that keep smaller firms out. He should expose the game Big Pharma has played for years and force the industry to compete in a real marketplace.

Free markets don’t need federal babysitters



At a recent competition law symposium in Washington, the Trump administration’s antitrust chief, Gail Slater, made a welcome promise to keep markets open to new competitors and innovation.

That pledge comes at a critical moment. Too many politicians in both parties still believe government’s job is to engineer economic outcomes rather than let consumers decide. That mindset misunderstands what makes markets dynamic — and often locks in the very problems regulators claim they want to fix.

Republicans and Democrats alike have embraced ‘industrial policy’ when it serves their political interests. They call it leadership, but it’s just another form of central planning.

Cronyism takes many forms: subsidies for favored industries, tax breaks for politically connected firms, or lawsuits targeting companies for being too successful.

Take the Biden Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Visa. The administration said it “feared” Visa’s market share, even though the payments space is crowded with competitors — Mastercard, PayPal, Square, Apple Pay, and a swarm of fintech startups. Instead of protecting consumers, the Justice Department tried to punish one company for competing well and dictate the terms of an already vibrant market.

That’s not protecting competition — it’s manipulating it. When government intervenes this way, it distorts incentives, weakens confidence, and replaces consumer choice with bureaucratic preference.

Consumers always lose

When regulators overreach, consumers pay the price. Every dollar a company spends fending off groundless lawsuits is a dollar not spent on innovation. Every subsidy handed to a politically favored firm skews the playing field against smaller rivals. And every new dictate slows the experimentation that keeps markets alive.

Officials who justify these intrusions claim they’re “protecting competition.” But true competition doesn’t need Washington’s help. It needs Washington to step aside. Entrepreneurs, not regulators, create rivals. Consumers, not bureaucrats, decide who wins. The invisible hand disciplines firms far more effectively than any government lawyer.

Free markets need fewer meddlers

Government’s legitimate role is narrow: preventing fraud, enforcing contracts, and protecting property. That’s a far cry from deciding which companies are “too profitable,” which mergers are “too large,” or which industries deserve “strategic” subsidies. When officials cross that line, they stop refereeing and start playing the game themselves — badly.

This temptation spans parties. Republicans and Democrats alike have embraced “industrial policy” when it serves their political interests. They call it leadership, but it’s just another form of central planning that shackles consumers and businesses alike.

RELATED: Smash the health care cartel, free the market

File photo/Miami Herald/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

The cure is restraint

The best way forward is simple. Washington should stop punishing success and stop handing out favors to friends. It should let consumers and entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats and lobbyists, determine winners and losers.

America’s prosperity was built on open competition and voluntary exchange — not government micromanagement. Crony capitalism is just socialism by another name, and it breeds the same stagnation and corruption.

President Trump’s team understands that prosperity comes from freedom, not favoritism. If policymakers truly care about fairness, they should start by doing the hardest thing in politics: stepping aside.

Trump’s tariffs are a tool, not a temper tantrum



Debate over Donald Trump’s tariff doctrine has turned toxic for one simple reason: Critics keep mistaking the tool for the target. The tariffs aren’t the policy. They’re the lever.

The real goal is to dismantle anti-competitive market distortions, which have strangled global growth for decades. According to a recent paper from the Growth Commission, which I chair, roughly 80% of the world’s economic drag from trade barriers doesn’t come from tariffs at all. It comes from domestic distortions that tilt markets toward protected incumbents and away from new entrants.

Trump’s trade doctrine is not a rejection of free trade. It’s a correction.

If Trump’s doctrine succeeds in forcing other nations to roll back those distortions, U.S. tariffs will fall — and global growth will surge.

Hidden barriers

What counts as an ACMD? The test is simple and pro-market: Does a policy block voluntary exchange and weaken efficiency? If it does, it’s distortionary.

These distortions take many forms: subsidies that protect national champions, licensing rules that freeze out competition, or “harmonization” regulations that entrench advantage under the guise of fairness. We propose a clear diagnostic: measure the GDP loss per capita caused by these distortions. We found three pillars that predict income performance: international competition, domestic competition, and property rights.

The results are striking. A one-point gain in domestic competition correlates with an 11.2% rise in GDP per capita. Strengthening property rights adds about 7%, and boosting international competition adds roughly 4%.

The conclusion is obvious: the fastest path to prosperity isn’t another tariff round. It’s aggressive pro-competition reform.

Where globalization went wrong

The failure of the modern trading system didn’t come from liberalizing at the border — it came from stopping there.

Since the 1990s, global institutions have trimmed tariffs but tolerated an explosion of industrial policy, subsidies, and regulatory frameworks that quietly cripple competition.

Look at the U.S. trade representative’s annual National Trade Estimate report. The latest edition runs 397 pages cataloging barriers to global growth. Fully 80% aren’t tariffs. They are behind-the-border distortions — ACMDs — doing the real damage.

Trump’s trade doctrine is not a rejection of free trade. It’s a correction. It uses America’s market access as leverage: Reduce your distortions and our tariffs go down. Refuse and face penalties. The measure of success isn’t political theater — it’s income growth. How much GDP per capita can be restored by real reform? That’s the metric that aligns incentives at home and abroad.

RELATED:Trump nails China with massive tariffs after ‘extraordinarily aggressive’ action

Photo by Dilara Irem Sancar/Anadolu via Getty Images

Reform by incentive

Future deals should include an ACMD chapter requiring competitive neutrality, limits on subsidies, and mutual recognition between trading partners. This turns tariff negotiations into something productive: a race to open markets, not close them.

The doctrine also turns inward. The Trump administration has directed federal agencies to identify and eliminate domestic rules that block competition. That matters both for credibility and growth. If America expects others to reduce distortions, it must show the same resolve at home — in health care, licensing, and sectors riddled with protectionist rules.

What companies should do

Business leaders should treat this as a once-in-a-generation opening. First, expose distortions. Identify anti-competitive market distortions and report them to the U.S. trade representative.

Second, de-risk supply chains. Avoid jurisdictions that refuse to reform. Tariffs will make them unviable.

Third, coordinate with allies. Work with like-minded firms to propose reforms where tariff relief can follow.

The incentive is powerful: Reform your markets, gain access to ours.

The strategic payoff

Reducing market distortions isn’t just about economics. Ultimately, it’s about power. State-backed distortions — especially in economies built around state-owned enterprises — fuel geopolitical coercion. They channel wealth into non-market dominance. Linking market access to ACMD reduction forms a “coalition of the willing” that ties prosperity to liberty.

Critics call tariffs blunt instruments. They’re right. But they may be the only tools sharp enough to cut through the web of distortions that standard trade talks have ignored for 30 years. If America can use its market power to unlock true competition abroad while cleaning up its own regulatory excess at home, the result will be stronger wages, higher productivity, and renewed global leadership.

That’s the promise of the Trump doctrine — not a wall of tariffs, but a bridge to freer markets and faster growth.

America First means knowing when to drop a lawsuit



President Trump’s second-term antitrust message couldn’t be clearer: Corporate monopolists who rig markets against working families, small businesses, and American interests have no place in a free economy.

That message found an early test last week — not through a bold new initiative, but by killing off a weak, leftover lawsuit from the Biden administration that threatened to derail Trump’s strategic antitrust agenda before it gained traction.

The Trump administration sent a clear message: America’s antitrust vision defends free markets and strong competition — not bureaucratic box-checking.

On Friday, the Trump Justice Department moved to dismiss the government’s misguided attempt to block the merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks. The lawsuit, filed in the final hours of the Biden administration, posed risks far beyond its narrow legal merits.

Had it gone to trial, it likely would have been dismissed — not because antitrust enforcement is unimportant, but because the case itself rested on flimsy legal grounds. That kind of early defeat would have undercut the Justice Department’s credibility just as Trump’s new antitrust team gets to work.

As a former state attorney general and an America First-minded lawyer, I know the value of strong antitrust enforcement. But strength requires discernment. Pursuing a weak case does more harm than good. It invites judicial setbacks, undermines future enforcement, and wastes political capital needed for tougher fights ahead.

The lawsuit was also strategically reckless. I dealt with the threat posed by Chinese state-controlled telecom giant Huawei during my time at the Department of Homeland Security. Huawei, closely tied to the Chinese military, aims to displace U.S. firms and infiltrate global infrastructure. That’s why the U.S. banned the company, and our allies followed suit.

The HPE-Juniper merger would strengthen America’s ability to counter Huawei’s dominance. Blocking it would have weakened two U.S. companies trying to compete globally — and handed a gift to both Huawei and entrenched domestic players like Cisco.

Even viewed narrowly under U.S. antitrust law, the case faltered. The merged company wouldn’t control even 25% of the relevant domestic market and would still trail Cisco in key sectors like wireless local area networks. Analysts found no credible evidence of future price hikes or innovation slowdowns. On the contrary, the merger could spur real competition — especially against Cisco, whose dominance persists despite lackluster performance.

The European Union, no friend to large corporate combinations, approved the deal. EU regulators found widespread agreement among competitors, distributors, and customers that the merger posed no anticompetitive threat. Cisco would remain twice the size of the new entity in WLAN, with at least seven other players still in the market — and recent entries showing the sector’s low barriers to entry.

RELATED: America First antitrust isn’t ‘socialism’ — it’s self-defense

Photo by Ying Tang/NurPhoto via Getty Images

That context matters. Cisco’s market power, despite inferior performance, reflects broader integration advantages — not consumer preference alone. Importantly, WLAN sales represent just one-sixth of the merged company’s total revenue.

Antitrust should focus on competitive strength across the industry, not just the size of the firms involved. As FTC Commissioner Mark Meador argued in his recent paper, “Antitrust Policy for the Conservative,” the key question is whether other firms can still compete — and they can. Market analysts agree this merger would promote, not stifle, competition and innovation.

The Justice Department should never have filed this case. That it came from the Biden team, just before Trump’s leadership arrived, makes its dismissal all the more welcome.

Had it gone forward, the lawsuit could have weakened America’s antitrust credibility, emboldened foreign adversaries like China, and limited future enforcement under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” Judges don’t forget weak cases.

The consumer welfare standard still matters — and by that measure, the merger passes easily. Consumers surveyed by European regulators expressed no concerns about pricing or choice. The Biden Justice Department’s complaint contradicted the very principles now guiding Trump’s antitrust revival.

Dropping the case is both sound policy and smart politics. The Trump administration avoided a legal embarrassment, protected national security interests, and sent a clear message: America’s antitrust vision defends free markets and strong competition — not bureaucratic box-checking.

Kudos to the Trump Justice Department for making the right call.

Congress just saved your credit card rewards — for now



Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) just failed — again — in their bid to ram through the Credit Card Competition Act, a sweeping regulatory proposal that would overhaul the U.S. credit card system to resemble Europe’s heavy-handed financial regime. Their latest attempt to sneak the measure into a stablecoin bill collapsed under scrutiny, marking yet another setback for legislation that critics say would harm consumers, weaken data security, and empower retail giants.

This outcome is welcome but unsurprising. The bill is wildly unpopular with consumers — for good reason. As written, it’s a thinly veiled giveaway to big-box retailers at the expense of virtually everyone else. Its sponsors claim it would inject competition into a noncompetitive market.

Senate leadership clearly got the message. Americans don’t want to fix something that isn’t broken.

In reality, the CCCA would allow retailers to continue accepting name-brand credit cards while processing payments through lesser-known networks — all without consumer knowledge or consent. Lawmakers should stand firm against any future efforts to resurrect this awful proposal.

The central premise of the bill — that the credit card market lacks competition — is unfounded. As of 2025, 152 companies in the United States issue credit cards. Between 2020 and 2025, market entry has grown at an average annual rate of 8.1%. This kind of steady growth does not indicate a broken market, but rather a dynamic and competitive system that continues to serve consumers well.

Kiss rewards goodbye

If passed, the CCCA would jeopardize that progress. Fraud rates, already on the rise, would skyrocket. Unvetted payment processors would be handed vast troves of sensitive consumer data. The only beneficiaries of using these cheaper alternatives are the retailers, who lack a vested interest in cardholder safety. Meanwhile, smaller institutions — including community banks and credit unions — would see revenue streams dry up.

RELATED: SCARY: President of European Central Bank admits 'digital Euro' is ready for launch

dem10 via iStock/Getty Images

Retailers insist these alleged “cost savings” would trickle down to their customers. That’s about as likely as the claim that businesses absorb tariffs or taxes without raising prices. History suggests otherwise.

Worse still, the bill would also end the ability of banks and credit unions to operate popular credit card rewards programs. These programs are funded largely by the interchange fees charged by payment processors. When Durbin succeeded in passing his debit card price controls, consumers lost card benefits and experienced no savings. A Wall Street Journal article highlighted this history:

Debit-card rewards programs have nearly disappeared since the Durbin amendment, part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that cut retailers’ fees nearly in half. Stores didn’t pass the savings to customers, while the banks that issue the cards found other ways to recoup revenue.

A failed Trojan horse

Like a one-trick pony, Durbin and Marshall have not given up — despite the bill neither gaining traction nor receiving a committee markup. As they have done previously, the senators once again tried to tuck their proposal into a “must-pass” bill. Their first target in the 119th Congress was the GENIUS Act, a bipartisan bill focused on stablecoin regulations. Thankfully, Senate leadership saw right through this ploy.

Polling confirms that Americans are largely content with the current credit card marketplace. In fact, 77% of respondents trust credit card companies to handle key responsibilities, such as fraud prevention. Three-quarters of respondents trust that their private payment networks will handle the protection of personal data. The poll also showed that 79% of cardholders use rewards cards, and more than half (58%) use those rewards regularly. Rewards are a tool many families and businesses rely on to make purchases while also earning cash back.

Senate leadership clearly got the message. Americans don’t want to fix something that isn’t broken — which is why they rightly rejected the addition of Durbin’s credit card mandates to the GENIUS Act.

Consumers can breathe easier

It is a relief the bill didn’t slip in as an amendment with no opportunity for debate. Any legislation with sweeping financial implications deserves full congressional scrutiny — and the voices of constituents must be heard. Still, Durbin and Marshall are reportedly eyeing the National Defense Authorization Act as their next legislative vehicle.

Taxpayers must remain vigilant to hold their representatives accountable. Policymakers must also be vigilant in defending the interests of their constituents. But for now, millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief.

Trump’s UK tariff deal exposes the global free trade lie



President Trump on Thursday announced a new tariff deal with the United Kingdom — the first major agreement to follow the “Liberation Day” tariffs that forced 90 countries to come crawling back to the negotiating table.

Earlier in the week, India offered a zero-for-zero tariff deal — free trade on pharmaceuticals, steel, and auto parts. Trump declined.

America doesn’t just need tariffs to protect jobs and industries. It needs them to defend its sovereignty.

Predictably, the free-trade faithful slammed the U.S.-U.K. deal as “managed trade” that would harm consumers. They rushed to embrace India’s offer instead. They’ve got it backward.

Trump’s “managed trade” with the U.K. will do more to strengthen America’s economy — and serve American workers — than any so-called “free trade” agreement with India. Why? Because developed and developing nations operate in fundamentally different economic worlds. One-size-fits-all trade policy doesn’t work.

Free trade is a myth

This may offend professional economists who worship the rational-consumer model, but it must be said: Different countries are different. These aren’t surface-level quirks. They reshape the entire trade equation and make real free trade — not just difficult — but impossible.

Start with wages. In 2024, the median American worker earned $61,984. The median Briton earned $47,162 — both figures in U.S. dollars for easy comparison. The U.K. lags behind but not by much. If the U.K. were a U.S. state, it would rank somewhere in the middle. Free trade with the U.K. won’t trigger mass offshoring because our labor markets are comparable.

India is a different story. The median Indian worker earned just $3,925 last year. For the price of one American, a company could hire 16 Indians. That wage gap makes offshoring to India almost inevitable in labor-intensive industries. Cheap labor wins.

But wages aren’t the only issue. Legal systems, tax regimes, geography, infrastructure, language, climate, cultural norms, business ethics, and demographics all create market asymmetries that domestic policy can’t overcome.

Take China. American companies operating there face rampant intellectual property theft. Westerners assume legal systems deter crimes like fraud and theft. In reality, cultural norms prevent most bad behavior long before the courts get involved.

China doesn’t share America’s cultural regard for property rights — especially when it comes to outsiders. Since 2001, China has stolen an estimated $5 trillion in American intellectual property. Chinese courts have refused to hold anyone accountable. This isn’t an exception. It’s standard practice.

Doing business in China isn’t like doing business in America, Canada, Australia, or Europe — where common values and legal recourse create a relatively level playing field.

Free-trade advocates can slash tariffs and harmonize regulations all they want, but they can’t fix these deeper, structural imbalances. They can’t rewrite culture or eliminate corruption. These asymmetries make truly free trade impossible.

Spot the differences

In my book “Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream,” I argue that American workers are among the most productive in the world — more productive than their counterparts in Germany, Mexico, or almost anywhere else.

That’s why the U.S. typically runs trade surpluses — or small deficits — with developed countries like the Netherlands, Australia, and the U.K.

So why do highly productive American factories shut down and relocate to China, Mexico, or India — where it takes more labor to produce the same output?

Because productivity doesn’t equal price.

The price of a good reflects more than just labor. If a Chinese manufacturer steals its technology instead of inventing it, it can undercut American competitors who spent years funding research and development.

That’s not a free market. It’s rigged.

Tariffs defend more than jobs

Global free trade is a myth. Nations can’t trade freely while market asymmetries persist. The only way to achieve true parity would be to unify the world’s economies, legal systems, cultures, and political structures. That’s the goal of the European Union, World Trade Organization, and World Economic Forum. Coincidence? Hardly.

America doesn’t just need tariffs to protect jobs and industries. It needs them to defend its sovereignty. Globalism doesn’t level the playing field — it sells it to the lowest bidder.

Why Is The U.S. Lending $5 Billion To An American Natural Gas Competitor?

The Export-Import Bank approved a $5 billion loan to a French energy company to build an LNG pipeline in Mozambique, competing with the U.S.