The Trump 2.0 antitrust agencies demonstrate renewed willingness to negotiate structural remedies for mergers, but Q2 2026 developments reveal that federal clearance alone may not protect deals from state and private challenges. Meanwhile, the HSR filing form has reverted to its legacy version, though new rules may emerge by year-end.
United StatesAntitrust/Competition Law
Overview
Q2 developments suggest that the Trump 2.0 antitrust agencies are more willing than their predecessors to engage with merging parties on practical resolutions, particularly where proposed fixes are structural, timely, and capable of preserving competition. At the same time, the quarter showed that federal agency clearance may not fully de-risk a transaction where states or private plaintiffs remain active. Meanwhile, the HSR form has reverted to the pre-2025 form, but the agencies are still considering possible revisions later this year.
Remedy proposals are viable again, but parties should engage early
- Current Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and US Department of Justice (DOJ) leadership have emphasized that negotiated remedies can be appropriate where they fully resolve competitive concerns, with a continued preference for structural relief over behavioral commitments.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
View source
