Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Antitrust Division emphasizes engagement, transparency, and timeliness at 2026 Antitrust Tech Summit, (Oct 16, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

Deputy Attorney General Greco emphasized how the Trump Administration views the practical certainty of an expeditious settlement at case outset as “the ideal result,” but she warned the DOJ will follow the law and facts to block deals when necessary.

Department of Justice Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stephanie A. Greco delivered remarks presenting her view of Trump Administration antitrust enforcement at the 2026 Antitrust Tech Summit. Cooley LLP hosted the half-day event at the Embarcadero Center in San Francisco on October 15, 2026. Greco stressed that the Trump Administration has a sense of urgency, especially in connection with affordability. It therefore values both the timeliness and certainty of settlement results, where achievable, over litigation either as an ideological exercise or as an end unto itself. If antitrust goals are not achievable, Greco cautioned that the Antitrust Division is presently expanding its bench. She said it is hiring attorneys who are eager to litigate. Greco advised antitrust practitioners to actively engage with the Antitrust Division about pending transactions; that they do so at an early juncture with proposals in-hand; that they do so in an open and transparent manner; and that they stay focused on the applicable antitrust laws and facts pertinent to their clients’ industries, not extraneous industrial policy, foreign investment policy, or other non-antitrust regulatory concerns.

Competitive concerns. Greco opened her remarks with the observation that healthy competition in the tech sector is important to the Trump Administration, as evidenced by the ongoing litigation against Apple in connection with the smartphone market, the Google Search victory at the D.C. Circuit, and substantial court -ordered relief in the Google Ad Tech case last month.

Greco characterized the Trump Administration as “laser-focused” on affordability insofar as nearly two-thirds of Americans’ household budgets go to healthcare, housing, and food. She said agencies across the executive branch are working to drive down prices by “reducing unnecessary burdens on businesses and fostering competitive markets.” Greco noted that antitrust enforcement, the fostering of competitive markets, plays an important role in pursuing the Administration’s affordability goals by helping to increase quality and drive down prices.

Enforcement approach. Next, Greco outlined her approach as a law enforcer at the Antitrust Division and the ways in which the Division’s attorneys, economists, and staff all work to protect competition. She noted that although most businesses are complying with the antitrust laws, the Antitrust Division follows the facts and law where they lead, yet it aims to do so with care so as not to “tax” businesses with “unnecessary or over-broad inquiries.”

Greco distinguished that the Trump Administration does not have a “bias” against deal-making because mergers and acquisitions “typically create value, not only for shareholders but also for the economy as a whole.” However, this does not mean that all deals are procompetitive. Greco said the Antitrust Division will take action where it finds a deal is unlawful and likely to drive up prices or degrade quality.

In Greco’s view, criticisms about a putative Trump Administration predilection for settling antitrust matters “overlook the realities of being an antitrust enforcer.” She noted the paradox that some observers leveled exactly the opposite criticism at the prior administration. They claimed it was reluctant to engage in meaningful settlement discussions, even when antitrust targets were willing to address competitive concerns.

In noting that the outcome of litigation is never assured, and that relief obtained in settlement might be better than that obtainable at trial, Greco cautioned that “[a] myopic focus on litigating cases is not ideologically pure, it is strategically naïve.” Greco emphasized here that antitrust litigation is “notorious” for lengthiness.

Returning to the Trump Administration’s sense of urgency, Greco advocated that settlements are effective because they speed relief. The certainty of an expeditious settlement at case outset is “the ideal result.” Divestiture settlements, in particular, bring procompetitive benefits immediately.

Claimed results. Greco continued that despite “differences” in the approach to litigation compared to the prior administration, recent results “speak for themselves.” She cited settlements in the past year pertinent to meat; eggs; rental housing; hospitals; electricity; packaged ice; concrete; asphalt; and heavy equipment. She said a few followed lengthy pre-trial litigation, but more were achieved through consent decrees filed contemporaneously with complaints.

Bench expansion. Apart from emphasizing the benefits of negotiated resolutions, Greco warned the Antitrust Division will litigate when necessary. To that end, she said the Antitrust Division is in the process of expanding its litigation program by “hiring a new cohort of senior litigation counsel” and that she and the new hires “will be happy to see you in court.”

Citing one example of the Antitrust Division’s resolve to litigate when necessary, Greco described a July decision to file suit to block defense and aerospace contractor TransDigm from buying Stellant Systems, an industrial base and defense industrial base supplier. She said the Antitrust Division investigation concluded the transaction would harm competition for components used in Navy destroyers and Air Force fighter jets. Greco said the Antitrust Division “didn’t start by saying ‘no’” but ended up there after early discussion with TransDigm, after which TransDigm chose to abandon the deal. She alleged TransDigm did not even wait to see the complaint because they knew the deal would be blocked.

Greco concluded here that anyone who brings an anticompetitive deal like TransDigm did should expect similar resolve, and again, she indicated the Antitrust Division managed to uphold antitrust objectives without protracted litigation.

Engagement recommended. Greco advised that open and transparent engagement with the Antitrust Division is critical. “Spinning” a deal rationale will be counterproductive because the Antitrust Division will root out factual misrepresentations. Greco mentioned an example of how documents from an executive team directly contradicted what they had told the Antitrust Division team. She continued that the Antitrust Division expects private counsel to advise their clients to be honest, “and not just when they are under oath.” On the bright side, she said the Antitrust Division has had “many recent experiences where parties and their counsel have worked honestly and constructively with us to achieve fair results that safeguard competition.”

Returning yet again to the Trump Administration’s sense of urgency and its practical goal of reducing unnecessary burdens on business, Greco said antitrust practitioners should also be prepared to discuss potential resolutions that address Antitrust Division concerns at an early point.

Greco continued that arguments based in antitrust law will be the most persuasive because it is not the jurisdiction of the Antitrust Division to set industrial policy or to address non-antitrust regulatory concerns, like foreign investment review.

The facts are equally important because the Antitrust Division wants to see “ordinary course documents and data that are aligned with the arguments you are putting in front of us.” Greco said the Antitrust Division “care[s] about the quality and accuracy of the material information” before it. Greco concluded her remarks with the observation that Antitrust practitioners will serve their clients well by helping the Antitrust Division team understand the facts of how competition works in their industries.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust AntitrustDivisionNews GCNNews