The mask slipped again this past week. Donald Trump’s Federal Trade Commission, led by new chair Andrew Ferguson, abruptly terminated a significant lawsuit against PepsiCo for price discrimination practices that have systematically destroyed small businesses across America.

The case represented more than regulatory enforcement. It embodied the core promise Trump made to working-class voters—that he would challenge corporate power and restore economic opportunity to Main Street America.

Instead, Ferguson delivered a corporate pardon that ensures Walmart and Pepsi can continue squeezing independent retailers out of existence.

The lawsuit targeted PepsiCo’s practice of offering Walmart promotional allowances and pricing advantages unavailable to smaller competitors. Under the Robinson-Patman Act, such price discrimination has been illegal since the 1930s, when lawmakers recognized that raw bargaining power would inevitably lead to consolidation and the death of local businesses.

That prediction proved prophetic. The government’s abandonment of Robinson-Patman Act enforcement in the 1980s directly enabled the rise of retail giants like Walmart and Amazon, while independent grocers, pharmacists, and small retailers disappeared from rural and poor communities.

The evidence in the Pepsi case apparently demonstrated this dynamic clearly. In a parallel private lawsuit filed around the same time, plaintiffs showed that Frito-Lay—Pepsi’s subsidiary—routinely forces independent grocers to charge consumers dramatically higher prices. While major chains sold party-size Doritos bags for $2.49 retail, Frito-Lay charged independent stores $4.63 wholesale and recommended a $6.29 retail price.

Small business groups strongly supported the FTC’s enforcement action. Rural grocers, farmers, and convenience store owners—many of whom voted for Trump—understood that price discrimination represents an existential threat to their survival.

But Trump’s populist rhetoric proved hollow when tested against corporate influence.

Ferguson’s decision carries particular significance because of what it conceals. When the FTC initially filed the complaint, most details remained redacted to protect corporate confidentiality. Typically, judges unseal evidence early in litigation so the public can evaluate government claims.

Ferguson terminated the case before that unsealing could occur. The public will never see the evidence that supposedly justified a two-year investigation and formal complaint by former FTC Chair Lina Khan, a careful lawyer known for thorough preparation.

Ferguson’s stated rationale—that the complaint lacked evidence—rings hollow given his procedural maneuvering to hide that evidence permanently. If the case truly lacked merit, allowing public scrutiny would have vindicated his decision.

The timing also raises questions. Just days before the case dismissal, Pepsi hired lobbyist Bryan Cunningham, a former GOP operative now working through major law firm Gibson Dunn on “competition matters.”

Ferguson’s harsh personal criticism of Khan in announcing the dismissal—calling the case a “nakedly political” stunt and promising to “clean up the Biden-Harris FTC’s mess”—marked a departure from traditional antitrust enforcement discourse. Such rhetoric typically serves to distract from substantive policy reversals.

The broader implications extend beyond one lawsuit. The Robinson-Patman Act’s revival threatened roll-up strategies that private equity firms use to consolidate industries. As one industry insider explained to analyst Matt Stoller, volume discounts often represent the only real “synergy” in corporate acquisitions. Without those advantages, many debt-heavy consolidations would become financially unsustainable.

Ferguson’s action signals a return to the corporate-friendly approach of previous Republican and Democratic administrations, which routinely issued what amounted to corporate pardons while focusing on social policy issues to maintain political cover.

The decision contradicts Trump’s campaign promises and abandons the small business constituencies that supported him. Rural grocers, independent retailers, and local entrepreneurs who believed Trump would challenge corporate consolidation instead find themselves sacrificed to the same economic forces that have been devastating their communities for decades.

Meanwhile, Walmart—currently sparring with Trump over tariff policy—receives protection for the predatory pricing practices that built its dominance. The company can continue leveraging its scale to extract preferential deals that smaller competitors cannot match, accelerating the consolidation that has hollowed out American communities.

Trump’s FTC has also engaged in legally questionable personnel actions, illegally firing two commissioners from the minority party—moves that violate federal regulations governing commission composition.

The Pepsi case dismissal represents more than regulatory capture. It demonstrates how easily populist rhetoric dissolves when confronted with corporate lobbying and campaign contributions.

Small businesses that trusted Trump’s promises now face continued consolidation and economic marginalization. The evidence of corporate price discrimination remains buried, and the legal precedent protecting independent retailers has been abandoned.

Trump’s base got populist speeches. Pepsi and Walmart got results.