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



In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Robert Bork Jr. attacked Gail Slater, President Trump’s new assistant attorney general for antitrust.

I remember watching with sadness and dismay in 1987 as Mr. Bork’s father, the late Judge Robert Bork, endured a malicious and unfair confirmation process that ended with the Senate rejecting his nomination to the Supreme Court. Now, to my regret, his son has “borked” Slater in much the same way.

The heart of Trump’s America First antitrust agenda: Protect markets before they grow too big to regulate. Break up monopolies so Washington doesn’t have to control them.

Rather than engaging with Slater’s actual record, Bork resorted to baseless claims. He suggested her antitrust philosophy boils down to a simplistic belief that “big is bad, little is good.” That isn’t her philosophy, she’s never said that, and it’s dishonest to imply otherwise.

The Trump administration’s antitrust team isn’t capitulating to monopolies. It’s doing the opposite — charting a course that breaks from the status quo of the last four years of Joe Biden and eight years under President Obama.

Monopolies rightly understood

Bork claims that Gail Slater and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson “discarded the consumer welfare standard,” the long-standing antitrust principle that limits government action to cases where consumers suffer harm. But Bork sets up a straw man. Slater never said anything of the sort — not in her speech, not even by implication.

In fact, Slater made her position clear: She supports “respecting the original public meaning of the statutory text and the binding nature of Supreme Court and other relevant precedent.” That’s not a rejection of the consumer welfare standard.

Bork also misrepresented Slater’s concern over monopolistic control by tech platforms. He mocked her for saying these companies “control not just the prices of their services, but the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication.” Bork scoffed: “What prices? Facebook, Instagram, Google, LinkedIn, and YouTube don’t charge consumers a penny.”

RELATED: YouTube deserves its own antitrust scrutiny

Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Image

Slater might have spelled out more clearly how these platforms profit through exploitative practices and suppress conservative voices through debanking, shadow-banning, and viewpoint discrimination. But her time was limited. Bork’s refusal to acknowledge the damage done to conservatives by monopolies that dominate the flow of information is not just blind — it’s disgraceful.

I, for one, applaud a Justice Department finally willing to confront monopolies not just over dollars, but over speech. Americans deserve protection whether the cost of control impinges upon their wallets or their freedom.

This isn’t Biden 2.0

Calling Slater a continuation of Biden’s antitrust policy is the coup de grâce of Bork Jr.’s “borking” campaign. The claim doesn’t hold up. From day one, Slater made clear her intention to restore objectivity and restraint to antitrust enforcement — anchored in law, not ideology. Biden’s FTC and Justice Department had weaponized antitrust, targeting deals that posed no real threat to consumers, often on laughably flimsy grounds.

Bork, in another op-ed, pointed to the Biden administration’s lawsuit against Visa over razor-thin fees as an example of legitimate enforcement. But Visa wasn’t harming consumers. The lawsuit looked more like an effort to strong-arm a private firm into acting as another weapon in the administration’s anti-conservative arsenal — just as it had done with major banks and social media platforms.

The Biden administration even blocked the merger of Spirit and JetBlue, smaller carriers that offered real competition to the Big Four airlines. The move led to bankruptcy, obviously hurting consumers. Had Democrats won last November, the Big Four likely would have been expected to repay the favor politically.

But those were Biden’s decisions — not Slater’s. She has already made clear she intends to reverse course. She’s not in office to weaponize antitrust law. Her aim is to enforce the law and uphold precedent.

In an April interview with Sohrab Ahmari, Slater didn’t mince words: “If you’re doing a merger that’s benign, we’ll just get out of the way.” In her first public address on April 21, she pledged to give economists a stronger role in enforcement and criticized regulation that “saps economic opportunity by stifling rather than promoting competition.”

That doesn’t sound like central planning. It sounds like a welcome return to sanity.

Deregulation by prevention

So why is Bork trying to paint her as Chairman Mao? Probably because Slater understands what many in D.C.’s think-tank class still miss: Big Business isn’t always Big Government’s victim. More often, they work together. Corporate giants gain dominance, then lobby for regulations that kneecap smaller competitors.

Bureaucrats play along because it’s easier to deal with one entrenched firm than a dozen fast-moving upstarts. That’s not capitalism — it’s cartel economics. And for once, a president is pushing back.

Slater has made it clear that monopolies don’t just crush competition — they endanger core American freedoms. She watched Big Tech silence dissent during the 2020 election. Her response? Use antitrust to reduce the need for government, not expand it.

That’s the heart of Trump’s America First antitrust agenda: Protect markets before they grow too big to regulate. Break up monopolies so Washington doesn’t have to control them. Call it what it is — deregulation by prevention. It’s the opposite of socialism. In truth, restoring power to the people, not the government, is exactly what the founders envisioned. Just read the 10th Amendment.

A seismic shift

FTC Commissioner Mark Meador, a Trump appointee, points out that “consumer welfare” doesn’t just mean cheap products. It also means protecting Americans from economic overlords who silence dissent, distort democracy, and punish disfavored speech. Sound familiar?

Meador rightly rejects the progressive notion that “bigness” is always bad. But he also rejects Bork-style libertarianism that shrugs at monopolies unless they raise prices. That view ignores what consumer welfare really demands — fair markets, not just cheap goods.

The 2024 election wasn’t just a political win for Trump. It marked a seismic shift in what the Republican Party stands for.

Democrats now serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and multinational conglomerates. Trump’s GOP champions the working American — the factory worker, the tradesman, the small business owner.

Too often, well-meaning but outdated Republicans cry “socialism” when anyone dares challenge corporate power. But they’re not defending capitalism. They’re defending a rigged system. And voters finally noticed.

Trump wasn’t sent back to Washington to coddle monopolies or rubber-stamp mergers. He was sent to drain the swamp — including the one where corporate lobbyists and bureaucrats make backroom deals to preserve their government-aided monopoly grip. If that makes the old guard nervous, they can always file a complaint — with one of their apps.

America’s housing crisis needs real answers, not Biden’s scapegoating



The economic law of supply and demand dictates that if the supply of goods or services outpaces demand, prices fall. Most politicians understand this and commonly invoke that law in response to public discontent about high consumer costs.

When it comes to housing, however, leading Democrats are offering lip service to supply, while simultaneously engaging in counterproductive schemes to deflect responsibility for rising costs.

Instead of addressing the true sources of inflation and economic instability, the administration’s go-to response is to take cheap shots at the private sector.

Addressing the national housing shortage will require an estimated 1.7 million new homes each year, on average, until 2030. As its response to this crisis, the Biden-Harris administration has chosen a desperate, partisan approach by scapegoating private-sector technology through litigation.

The Department of Justice is suing rental industry software company RealPage Inc., alleging it played a role in raising rents for apartments and multifamily dwellings. Blaming a single data analytics company for the nationwide housing shortage and inflationary pressures may seem bizarre — and it is. We need real solutions.

What is RealPage? In addition to providing property management tools like IT support platforms and renter verification systems, RealPage offers assessments of rental asset metrics such as vacancy rates, leasing term trends, projected occupancy, and anticipated consumer demand.

Property managers need quick analysis to set prices appropriately within the market. Setting prices too low risks financial disaster by failing to capture fair market value in a market with razor-thin margins. Setting them too high, however, discourages consumers, leading to empty units and daily losses.

Without evidence from the Justice Department showing where rents have risen excessively, the claims of market power against RealPage appear dubious at best. Leasing companies with about 3 million units nationwide use RealPage’s market price assessment tools. If the government’s accusation held merit, it could point to plenty of examples to support the charge.

Unwarranted attacks on data analytics tools represent the latest effort by a Biden-Harris administration that frequently makes baseless claims of misconduct across industries struggling to survive under the challenging economic conditions this administration has created.

Last year, for example, the Justice Department sued to block JetBlue’s acquisition of Spirit Airlines. Biden-Harris central planners attempted to dictate travelers’ options while fostering an environment that stifles innovation and limits airlines’ ability to reduce fares.

In another troubling example, the Biden-Harris administration targeted the grocery sector. When Kroger sought to acquire Albertsons, the Federal Trade Commission quickly challenged the acquisition, citing unfounded competition concerns and potential price hikes. This stance ignores the steep price increases driven by administrative policies and unchecked government spending, which have cost taxpayers over $2 trillion.

Instead of addressing the true sources of inflation and economic instability, the administration’s go-to response is to take cheap shots at the private sector — companies that aim to innovate and create market efficiencies that benefit consumers.

Improving the housing market starts with lawmakers overhauling the nation’s notoriously burdensome construction codes and regulations. Rising material costs due to tariffs, lengthy permitting processes, construction workforce shortages, restrictive zoning laws, and environmental requirements all create cost pressures that discourage building the new housing America desperately needs.

Since returning to my native Arizona several years ago, I’ve seen firsthand the influx of people moving here, naturally driving up rents. Unfortunately, under our Democratic attorney general, state officials have joined the Biden-Harris administration in ignoring the real causes of rising market costs, previously filing their own lawsuit against RealPage. After 20 years of Republican leadership that made Arizona attractive to newcomers, Democratic leaders now regrettably pursue a misguided path that stifles innovation.

To address housing affordability, we must tackle supply shortages and inflationary pressures. Instead, the federal government under Biden and Harris has chosen to scapegoat a software company and mislead consumers about how the housing market works. Americans shouldn’t fall for such false narratives.

Florida JetBlue flight diverted after unruly passenger claims to be the devil, punches female companion



A JetBlue flight traveling from Florida to Massachusetts was forced to divert its route and land early after an unruly passenger reportedly punched his female companion and claimed to be the devil.

JetBlue Flight 170 was traveling from Fort Lauderdale to Boston around 9:30 p.m. on Thursday. However, the plane was forced to divert its route and land in Orlando after a passenger allegedly started acting in a bizarre and violent way.

Passengers claimed that a man on the plane began making threats and telling people he was the devil. At one point, the male passenger reportedly punched the female companion that was traveling with him.

"I was in front of the plane so I heard no disturbance in the back, but we had one of the flight attendants tell the first few rows that there would be pit stop in Orlando, but they didn't want to make an announcement in case it angered the man," passenger Max Seelig told the news outlet out of Boston.

WCVB-TV reported, "One passenger who was sitting close to the man said flight attendants put the woman who was with the man in the plane's bathroom, and the man was punching the door to try to get her out."

A passenger said, "They put her inside the bathroom, and he tried to punch the door and take her out of the bathroom. It was pretty scary."

Video taken by passenger Leo Ruiz shows the unruly passenger being escorted off the flight by law enforcement after the JetBlue airliner had landed at Orlando International Airport.

After the alarming disturbance, the rest of the passengers had to disembark from the plane in Orlando. The passengers then had to wait for the plane to be refueled, stand by for a new crew to arrive, and then re-board the plane. The plane didn't land in Boston until 4:31 a.m. on Friday, according to the New York Post.

JetBlue allegedly sent an email to the passengers that read: "This disruption is considered an uncontrollable disruption; meaning it's due to events outside of JetBlue's control (things like Air Traffic Control or weather disruptions) and, unfortunately, does not qualify for customer compensation or reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses."

“The individual was intoxicated and transported to local hospital by [Orlando Fire Department] for treatment,” a department spokesperson told the New York Post.

The unruly passenger's name was not released by authorities, and he was reportedly not arrested.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Boston-bound JetBlue flight from Florida diverted by passenger claiming to be devil www.youtube.com

Mom and her 6 kids kicked off JetBlue flight because 2-year-old wouldn't wear mask



A mother and her six children were booted from a JetBlue flight this week, because her 2-year-old little girl refused to wear a mask in accordance with the airline's policy.

The mother says the experience was humiliating and "traumatizing" for her children and her husband is threatening legal action, but JetBlue stands by its decision.

What are the details?

New York mom Chaya Bruck, 39, and her children boarded a JetBlue plane in Florida headed to Newark on Wednesday, when the flight crew told Bruck her toddler must wear a face mask in order to travel. But Bruck explained that the girl — who had a pacifier in her mouth at the time — refused and pushed off her mask whenever the mother tried to put it on her.

The Washington Examiner reported that "video of the Wednesday interaction shows Bruck pleading with flight attendants to let her remain on the flight, with other passengers supporting her fight to keep the family on the plane."

After Bruck resisted leaving, the captain ordered every passenger to get off the plane. Bruck, her children, and other passengers who defended them were not allowed back on, leaving the family stranded. They were eventually able to catch a flight home five hours later through United Airlines.

"I'm not a confrontational person, I didn't want any trouble," Bruck later recalled to Fox News. "I just wanted to get home with my six kids after a family vacation and this put a damper on our experience."

"My kids started crying. They got scared," the mother added. "They didn't know what was going on. It was very traumatizing."

JetBlue Airways' corporate communications manager, Derek Dombrowski, told the outlet in a statement, "During these unprecedented times, our first priority is to keep crew members and customers safe, and we've quickly introduced new safety policies and procedures throughout the pandemic."

He noted that the airline's "face covering policy was updated most recently on Aug. 10 to ensure everyone is wearing a face-covering – adults and children alike – to help prevent the spread of coronavirus." The spokesman reiterated, "Children age 2 and over must wear a face covering, consistent with CDC guidelines, which say 'Masks should not be worn by children under the age of 2.'"

But Bruck's husband pointed out to The Yeshiva World that JetBlue's own website stated Wednesday that "small children who are not able to maintain a face covering are exempt" from the mandatory mask policy. The language on the website now reads, "all travelers 2 years and older must wear a face covering over their nose and mouth throughout their journey, including during check-in, boarding, while in flight and deplaning."

Mr. Brucks says he is hiring an attorney and plans to file a federal lawsuit against the airline over the incident.