House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan is orchestrating what critics call a backdoor dismantling of the federal government’s key antitrust enforcement capabilities through an obscure budget maneuver. The Ohio Republican’s proposal would effectively strip the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of its antitrust authority, transferring those responsibilities to the Department of Justice (DOJ) — but critically, without transferring all enforcement powers.

The legislation, set for committee markup this week, is being pushed through the budget reconciliation process, bypassing normal legislative scrutiny and debate.

According to reporting by Matt Stoller, Jordan’s bill doesn’t simply reorganize federal agencies. It strategically hobbles antitrust enforcement by leaving the FTC’s unique “unfair methods of competition” authority — Section 5 of the FTC Act — in limbo.

“The bill does NOT transfer the Section 5 ‘unfair methods of competition’ authority to the DOJ,” Stoller writes. “That authority remains with an agency that has no staff and no capacity to litigate, which means it could die.”

This technical maneuver carries enormous real-world implications. The FTC has used Section 5 authority to pursue cases against pharmacy benefit managers, Amazon, and agricultural giants Corteva and Syngenta. The commission also employed this authority to ban non-compete agreements nationwide, protecting workers across industries from restrictive employment contracts.

All these cases — and potentially hundreds of existing consent decrees — would face uncertain futures if Jordan’s proposal becomes law.

Legal experts note the legislation appears deliberately crafted to create enforcement gaps. By using the reconciliation process, which limits legislative provisions to revenue and spending matters, Jordan has produced a bill that moves personnel and funding without properly addressing legal authorities.

“If this bill passed, and I were a lawyer for UnitedHealth Group or Amazon, I’d be filing a complaint demanding the case against my client be dismissed, since no one has the authority to litigate it,” Stoller explains.

The timing is no coincidence. Under Chair Lina Khan, the FTC has become one of the most active and effective federal agencies, directly challenging corporate power in ways that benefit average Americans. This has drawn fierce opposition from business interests and their allies in Congress.

Jordan’s proposal echoes Utah Senator Mike Lee’s “One Agency Act,” which has received endorsement from figures like Elon Musk. The stated rationale — eliminating redundancy between the FTC and DOJ — masks a deeper agenda, critics say.

The redundancy in antitrust enforcement has historically been by design. The FTC and DOJ have different standards, authorities, and structural advantages. The FTC is a bipartisan commission with broad but relatively weak enforcement powers, while the DOJ can bring criminal charges but has narrower jurisdiction.

When one agency is deadlocked, as happened with Microsoft antitrust litigation, the other can step in. This dual-enforcement system provides more comprehensive protection against monopolistic practices.

Beyond Section 5, other critical consumer protections are at risk. The FTC’s ability to investigate industry practices and issue reports through its Section 6(b) authority would effectively vanish. The Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits price discrimination, would technically remain enforceable by DOJ, but that department hasn’t brought such a case since 1977.

“This whole thing is sloppy, essentially an attempt to ‘Delete the FTC’ without repealing the FTC Act,” Stoller notes.

The move comes after Khan’s FTC reinstated robust enforcement of Section 5, reversing a 2015 Obama-era policy that had severely limited its use. Khan’s approach, backed by extensive legal precedent and historical practice, has enraged corporate defense attorneys who had grown accustomed to more lenient oversight.

Jordan’s attempt to rush this significant change through the budget process suggests awareness of its unpopularity. Normal legislative channels would expose the proposal to greater scrutiny and opposition, potentially from both sides of the aisle.

For consumers, the stakes are enormous. The FTC’s antitrust enforcement directly affects prices, product quality, and market competition across the economy. If Section 5 enforcement disappears, nearly all Americans would likely face higher prices for goods and services ranging from prescription drugs to digital products.

The move represents a stark example of special interest influence. Jordan’s action follows consistent pressure from corporate donors who have long opposed aggressive antitrust enforcement.

Democrats are expected to strongly oppose the measure, but the reconciliation process circumvents many traditional legislative obstacles. The bill’s fate may ultimately depend on whether moderate House Republicans recognize the potential consumer harms and break ranks with Jordan.

For a brief period, some conservatives had begun acknowledging that consolidated corporate power threatens economic freedom and market competition. Jordan’s proposal suggests that traditional pro-corporate ideology has reasserted dominance within Republican leadership.

The committee hearing today will reveal whether this backdoor attack on antitrust enforcement can advance or whether consumer protection still commands bipartisan support.

Update: Jordan quietly removed his backdoor elimination of FTC antitrust enforcement from the budget bill during the committee hearing after major pushback from Republican constituents and business organizations who are dependent on good antitrust enforcement.