The One Agency Act, so hot right now

Photo Credit: Getty
The 119th Congress has reignited old conversations regarding antitrust enforcement in the US. Namely, do we need two agencies to enforce the antitrust laws? Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) has reintroduced the One Agency Act, legislation that would consolidate the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust enforcement within the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Versions of the One Agency Act have been introduced in the three prior Congresses:
116th Congress | S. 4918 | Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) |
117th Congress | S. 633 | Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) |
H.R. 2926 | Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) | |
118th Congress | H.R. 7737 | Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) |
My colleague Ryan Young and I authored an opinion piece for The Hill in 2021 encouraging Congress to streamline antitrust enforcement:
The Justice Department is perfectly capable of handling such antitrust cases, so having one agency in charge would add simplicity and expertise. It would also end pointless turf battles between these agencies. Whether the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission takes on a given case now might as well be decided by a coin toss. That is wrong, especially for cases with hundreds of billions of dollars along with tens of thousands of workers at stake.
More recently, other experts in the field have urged lawmakers to pass the legislation. Dr. James Edwards wrote in National Review late last year that the One Agency Act would bring fairness and accountability to antitrust enforcement. Former FTC general counsel, Alden Abbott, wrote in Forbes that the “dual enforcement U.S. federal antitrust enforcement system raises multiple problems and no longer can be justified as sound public policy.”
Further, both Dr. Edwards and Abbott agree that the move could save taxpayers money. More specifically, Abbott argues that the One Agency Act fits neatly within the goals of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). However, DOGE’s initial vision of dismantling the administrative state appears to have been shifted by Elon Musk’s focus on federal technology modernization. President Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, reorganizing the United States Digital Service into the “United States DOGE Service” for the purpose of “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”
The development suggests that streamlining bureaucracy may no longer be a top priority for the DOGE. Nevertheless, Congress has the opportunity promote government efficiency as well. And congressional attorneys have indicated that the One Agency Act has a high likelihood of passing.
Abolishing the FTC’s antitrust authority and placing it solely within the DOJ is not a new idea. During the American Bar Association Antitrust Section’s 1980 annual meeting, Stanford Law professor William F. Baxter joined FTC Commissioner Robert Pitofsky for a debate on how the agency might be reformed. Baxter quite resoundingly contended that he “would like to see the FTC lose all of its antitrust jurisdiction” and that the Commission had “done a deplorable job with it over the years.” Baxter would go on to head the DOJ’s Antitrust Division the following year after being nominated by President Ronald Reagan. He ultimately oversaw the settlement and breakup of AT&T.
Antitrust hawks on the left will unsurprisingly continue to push back against the One Agency Act. Confusing and unpredictable antitrust enforcement, caused by overlapping agency jurisdiction and powerful administrative law judges, indeed works in their favor. But don’t underestimate the opposition from a less visible interest group that could quietly work to undermine the legislation: the regulatory industrial complex that exists outside of government.
Baxter’s 1980 critique of the FTC also highlighted personnel issues and the inability to retain talent:
I think it has absolutely insuperable personnel problems in the sense that while it is indeed possible to attract some guns, people leave the staff. The better they are the sooner they leave. Not because they want immediately to get out but because they become very very desired employees by the antitrust industry.
Regulation is essential for the ongoing health and success of some private entities. When the FTC announced changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Premerger Notification Form in 2023, the agency estimated that the hours needed to prepare HSR filings would nearly quadruple. And several big law firms averred that it was an underestimation. Fred Ashton, Director of Competition Policy at the American Action Forum, argued that the new form would be a “boon to antitrust lawyers . . . and would increase paperwork burdens by hundreds of thousands of hours and compliance costs by hundreds of millions of dollars.”
The FTC serves as a vital source of nutrition for the antitrust industry. Ambitious structural changes or even outright abolition of the agency could be seen as a threat. The same is true for other agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. Prior work experience at these regulatory agencies might be less valuable if their powers are diminished or eliminated.
Lawmakers are right to revisit the strange regulatory monsters they have created. And with the reintroduction of the One Agency Act, Rep. Ben Cline appears committed to the task.