Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
People Win: No New ICE Funding, TSA Workers Paid
WASHINGTON, March 27 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Common Cause posted the following news release:
* * *
People Win: No New ICE Funding, TSA Workers Paid
*
A deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security without more money for ICE or Border Patrol is nearing the finish line thanks to Common Cause members' pressure on lawmakers.
A month ago, more funding for ICE and Border Patrol seemed certain in Congress despite their lawless behavior in Minnesota and elsewhere. Now, pressure from Common Cause and its members have achieved "not one more penny" for ICE in addition to the removal of former DHS
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 27 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Common Cause posted the following news release:
* * *
People Win: No New ICE Funding, TSA Workers Paid
*
A deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security without more money for ICE or Border Patrol is nearing the finish line thanks to Common Cause members' pressure on lawmakers.
A month ago, more funding for ICE and Border Patrol seemed certain in Congress despite their lawless behavior in Minnesota and elsewhere. Now, pressure from Common Cause and its members have achieved "not one more penny" for ICE in addition to the removal of former DHSSecretary Kristi Noem.
" Donald Trump caved," said Virginia Kase Solomon, Common Cause President and CEO. "More than 250,000 Common Cause members called their representatives, wrote letters, and spoke out to demand not one more penny for ICE-and forced this outcome. This is what people power looks like, and we're just getting started because we won't stop until we get ICE reforms and accountability."
Common Cause, along with allies, has made several demands to reform DHS in the wake of its abuse of power in Minnesota and all over the United States. Three of those demands - not one more penny for ICE in DHS funding, the removal of Kristi Noem, and Congressional oversight hearings have been met. The final two demands - no more ICE or Border Patrol surges in any community and federal cooperation into deaths at the hands of ICE and Border Patrol, are still active.
This week, Common Cause launched ads at Philadelphia International Airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to pressure Donald Trump to pay TSA workers. Late Thursday Trump said he would sign an executive order to do so. Early Friday morning, the Senate passed legislation to do so, which is pending in the House.
***
Original text here: https://www.commoncause.org/press/people-win-no-new-ice-funding-tsa-workers-paid/
Ifo Export Expectations in Germany Fall (March 2026)
MUNICH, Germany, March 27 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on March 26, 2026:
* * *
ifo Export Expectations in Germany Fall (March 2026)
Sentiment in the German Export Industry Has Deteriorated. The ifo Export Expectations fell to -0.9 points in March, down from +2.7 points in February. "The war in Iran has significantly increased uncertainty among exporters," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Many companies fear a decline in demand in important sales markets."
By contrast, car manufacturers expect a clear boost for exports, with the indicator rising to its highest
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, March 27 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on March 26, 2026:
* * *
ifo Export Expectations in Germany Fall (March 2026)
Sentiment in the German Export Industry Has Deteriorated. The ifo Export Expectations fell to -0.9 points in March, down from +2.7 points in February. "The war in Iran has significantly increased uncertainty among exporters," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Many companies fear a decline in demand in important sales markets."
By contrast, car manufacturers expect a clear boost for exports, with the indicator rising to its highestlevel since June 2020. The furniture and electronics sector as well as the beverage industry also expect international sales to increase. There is currently little momentum in mechanical engineering, and the situation is the same in metal production and processing. The paper, printing and chemical industries continue to expect exports to decline. "How export business will develop in the coming months depends heavily on how the conflict progresses," says Wohlrabe.
* * *
More information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-03-26/ifo-export-expectations-germany-fall-march-2026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-03-26/ifo-export-expectations-germany-fall-march-2026
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Republican Bill to Reverse DFL's Car Tab Hike Would Have Helped Minnesotans With Affordability
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, March 27 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on March 26, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
Republican bill to reverse DFL's car tab hike would have helped Minnesotans with affordability
How the DFL "trifecta" made Minnesota less affordable
One of the ways the DFL's "historic" trifecta of 2023 hit Minnesotans in the pocket was by hiking car tab fees. This hike has generated some recent comment.
Yesterday, CBS News reported:
"If you have a newer
... Show Full Article
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, March 27 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on March 26, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
Republican bill to reverse DFL's car tab hike would have helped Minnesotans with affordability
How the DFL "trifecta" made Minnesota less affordable
One of the ways the DFL's "historic" trifecta of 2023 hit Minnesotans in the pocket was by hiking car tab fees. This hike has generated some recent comment.
Yesterday, CBS News reported:
"If you have a newercar, you may be in for some sticker shock when you renew your Minnesota license tabs. That's because the formula for calculating fees has changed due to a 2023 bill."
"If your car is less than five years old, you could even be seeing tab prices go up year over year.
"...
"The new formula means the average driver paid $178 in registration taxes this year -- a 20% increase.
"...
"But the 2023 bill didn't just change the state's overall formula for calculating license tab fees; it also changed the way it calculates the depreciation of your vehicle.
"...
"The state calculates that your new car loses 5% of its value a year, so 10% over two years. The Kelley Blue Book estimates that over two years, the average new car loses 30% of its value."
On Tuesday, the Star Tribune put these fees into some context:
"It's difficult to compare tab fees across states. Some have flat fees, but many, like Minnesota, have a combination of different charges, some of which use sliding scales based on vehicle weight, age or other factors."
" But one recent comparison of nine western states by the National Conference of State Legislatures found they range from $50 to over $500, putting Minnesota well into the higher range.
"A calculator maintained by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation that compares driving-related taxes and fees for dozens of different vehicles in that state to Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Michigan, found Wisconsin typically had the lowest and Minnesota often the highest."
The 2023 "trifecta" session also hiked the gas tax, from 28.5 cents per gallon to 32.6 cents per gallon now. According to the Tax Foundation, Minnesota's gas tax went from 26th highest in the country in 2021 to 22nd highest now.
With these hikes in fees and taxes on driving, the DFL made Minnesota less affordable than its neighbors.
A solution..?
To help hard squeezed Minnesotans with affordability, Rep. Patti Anderson (R) offered HF 3562, a bill that would change the state's tax calculation formula for vehicle purchases and registration.
"By increasing tab fees 22% and changing the depreciation schedule, we have made things incredibly unaffordable for people in Minnesota," Rep. Anderson told the House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee yesterday. "This bill brings the depreciation schedule back to what it was. ... If we are serious about making Minnesota affordable, this is something that we should be serious about doing."
In addition to lowering the base rate from 1.575% to 1.285% of the manufacturer's suggested retail price -- or from 1.54% to 1.25% for vehicles registered in the state before Nov. 16, 2020 -- the bill would also create a devaluation schedule that sets out declining portions of the base rate as the vehicle ages, effective for registration periods starting Jan. 1, 2027.
Sadly, as the Minnesota House reports, the bill "couldn't get started in the House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee, failing on a tie vote;" every single Republican on the committee voted for the bill and every single DFLer voted against it, and, as the House and Committee are evenly balanced, that was enough to block its passage. "If you vote yes for this [bill], you're cutting teacher's pay, you're cutting home health care pay," Rep. Brad Tabke (DFL), co-chair of the committee, railed.
Minnesotans need real solutions to the affordability issues they face, not non-solutions like an expanded child care tax credits and new limits on grocery store price gouging, and corporate ownership of single-family homes. This bill would have been a step in that direction, and we hope it gets another chance.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/republican-bill-to-reverse-dfls-car-tab-hike-would-have-helped-minnesotans-with-affordability/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Trump's Tariffs Have Cost Small-Business Importers $306,000 on Average
WASHINGTON, March 27 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on March 26, 2026:
* * *
Trump's Tariffs Have Cost Small-Business Importers $306,000 on Average
A new analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/in-the-first-year-president-trumps-tariffs-have-cost-small-business-importers-306000-on-average/) from the Center for American Progress finds that the Trump administration's sweeping tariff agenda has imposed steep costs on America's small-business importers, with the average small-business importer paying an average $306,000 more in tariffs from
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 27 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on March 26, 2026:
* * *
Trump's Tariffs Have Cost Small-Business Importers $306,000 on Average
A new analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/in-the-first-year-president-trumps-tariffs-have-cost-small-business-importers-306000-on-average/) from the Center for American Progress finds that the Trump administration's sweeping tariff agenda has imposed steep costs on America's small-business importers, with the average small-business importer paying an average $306,000 more in tariffs fromMarch 2025 through February 2026, compared with the prior 12 months. Tariff costs for small-business importers have tripled since early 2025.
Since the administration's "Liberation Day" tariffs, small businesses in every state have faced rising costs, forcing many to raise prices, cut hiring, or delay growth. Roughly 90 percent of tariffs are paid by U.S. importers and consumers, and more than 4 in 10 small businesses report tariff-related price increases affecting their operations. Small businesses employ nearly half of U.S. workers and make up 97 percent of importers, leaving them especially exposed to rising trade costs.
"Small businesses are paying the price for the administration's failed trade strategy," said Michael Negron, senior fellow for economic opportunity at the Center for American Progress and co-author of the analysis. "Despite promises that tariffs would lead to economic gains, the Trump administration has slammed small businesses and consumers with higher costs in every state."
CAP's analysis finds that:
* Small-business importers paid $306,000 more on average. The average small-business importer paid an additional $306,000 in tariffs from March 2025 through February 2026 compared with the prior 12 months, or about $25,000 more per month.
* Tariff costs have tripled. Monthly tariff payments by small-business importers have surged sharply since early 2025, reflecting significantly higher tariff rates.
* Total tariff burden has surged nationwide. Small-business importers paid an average of $441,000 in total tariffs over the past year, or roughly $37,000 per month.
* Costs are hitting businesses in every state. Small-business importers are facing higher tariff bills nationwide, with firms in multiple states paying hundreds of thousands more per year.
* Some states face especially steep increases. In states such as Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee, the average small-business importer is paying more than $650,000 in additional tariffs compared with the prior year.
* The Supreme Court ruling has not provided relief. Although the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration's "Liberation Day" tariffs, the president ordered a sweeping 10 percent tariff and previewed tariffs rates up to 15 percent under different authorities.
Read the analysis: "In the First Year, President Trump's Tariffs Have Cost Small-Business Importers $306,000 on Average" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/in-the-first-year-president-trumps-tariffs-have-cost-small-business-importers-306000-on-average/) by Michael Negron, Mimla Wardak, and Kennedy Andara.
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Christian Unkenholz at cunkenholz@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-trumps-tariffs-have-cost-small-business-importers-306000-on-average/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CEPR Applauds Colombian Government's Decision to Exit Investor-State Dispute Settlement System That Impedes Environmental Protection
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release on March 26, 2026:
* * *
CEPR Applauds Colombian Government's Decision to Exit Investor-State Dispute Settlement System that Impedes Environmental Protection
Washington, DC and Bogota - The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) applauds the decision announced yesterday that the Colombian government will exit the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, which allows corporations to sue governments over lost "future profits" when the companies argue that regulations impede or
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release on March 26, 2026:
* * *
CEPR Applauds Colombian Government's Decision to Exit Investor-State Dispute Settlement System that Impedes Environmental Protection
Washington, DC and Bogota - The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) applauds the decision announced yesterday that the Colombian government will exit the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, which allows corporations to sue governments over lost "future profits" when the companies argue that regulations impede orprevent their planned projects. Several CEPR economists and legal experts, signed an open letter (https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2026/03/19/isds-letter/) to Colombian President Gustavo Petro earlier this week, and CEPR was one of several organizations that convened a conference on Tuesday on the ways that ISDS impedes regulations to protect the environment, workers, and public health.
"We are glad to see Colombia joining Brazil, South Africa, India, Indonesia, Ecuador, Bolivia, and several European countries that have recently moved away from ISDS in trade and investment agreements," CEPR Director of International Policy Alex Main said. The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which the first Trump administration negotiated to replace NAFTA, also eliminated ISDS between the US and Canada, and narrowed it in regard to Mexico.
The Petro administration's announcement comes a month before Colombia is set to cohost the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, from April 24 to 29.
ISDS has a track record of heavily favoring multinational corporations at the expense of governments and local communities. In the letter sent to Petro on Monday, 220 economists and legal scholars warned that "ISDS allows foreign corporations to bypass domestic courts and bring legal claims against host governments before special international arbitration tribunals that routinely award vast sums for alleged harms to their investments. ISDS is asymmetrical by design, granting foreign investors expansive protections that are unavailable to domestic businesses or citizens of the host country."
The letter signers, who included Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty, noted that under Petro, Colombia "has halted new fossil fuel exploration contracts and advanced an ambitious energy transition agenda. Yet, Colombia has 129 oil and gas projects that are covered by ISDS provisions, exposing the country to claims in the billions of dollars."
The letter notes that Brazil, which no longer participates in ISDS, is "South America's largest recipient of foreign investment."
On Tuesday, Colombian officials Irene Velez, Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development; and Senator (and presidential candidate) Clara Lopez joined economists Ha-Joon Chang and Andres Arauz; and legal and international trade experts, including Melinda St. Louis, Ladan Mehranvar, Daniel Rangel, and Maria Angelica Prada at the conference in Bogota hosted by professors Enrique Prieto and Rafael Tamayo of Universidad del Rosario titled "Investment Arbitration and the Just Energy Transition: Colombia at a Crossroads."
"We applaud President Petro's announcement," Mario Osorio, Research Fellow at CEPR, said. "We hope that Colombia will now help to lead other countries in exiting ISDS and pursuing alternatives that will allow for environmental, public health, and other regulation of foreign investment. As economists and legal experts noted this week, ISDS has too often stood in the way of needed measures to mitigate climate change. By leaving ISDS behind, Colombia is taking an important step toward being able to transition away from fossil fuels."
* * *
Original text here: https://cepr.net/newsroom/cepr-applauds-colombian-governments-decision-to-exit-investor-state-dispute-settlement-system-that-impedes-environmental-protection/
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Experiment Testimony Helps Advance Bill to Improve Non-fatal Shooting Solve Rates
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, March 27 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on March 25, 2026, by public safety policy fellow David Zimmer:
* * *
American Experiment testimony helps advance bill to improve non-fatal shooting solve rates
Center of the American Experiment public safety policy fellow David Zimmer testified Tuesday in support of SF 3347, where it received a hearing in the Senate State and Local Government Committee.
SF 3347 would establish a statewide law enforcement
... Show Full Article
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, March 27 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on March 25, 2026, by public safety policy fellow David Zimmer:
* * *
American Experiment testimony helps advance bill to improve non-fatal shooting solve rates
Center of the American Experiment public safety policy fellow David Zimmer testified Tuesday in support of SF 3347, where it received a hearing in the Senate State and Local Government Committee.
SF 3347 would establish a statewide law enforcementgrant program totaling $3.5 million. Law enforcement agencies with a demonstrated need could apply through the Department of Public Safety for funding to support collaboration with partner law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, for overtime and training, to enhance forensic testing, and to keep victims and witnesses safe.
A handful of jurisdictions around the country, including the St. Paul Police Department, have demonstrated success with similar initiatives. This success has not only improved solve rates by has also broken the cycle of retaliatory violence that often exists when violent crime goes unsolved.
Zimmer's support for this bill coincides with previous efforts with the city of Minneapolis to support the improvement of non-fatal shooting clearance rates in the Minneapolis Police Department.
The bill was carried in the Senate by Senator Doran Clark, (D) of Minneapolis. The motion to progress the bill to the Senate Finance Committee passed the State and Local Government Committee by unanimous vote. The bill was previously heard in and passed by the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. The companion bill in the evenly divided House has not yet been heard in committee.
* * *
David Zimmer is a Public Safety Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
David.Zimmer@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/american-experiment-testimony-helps-advance-bill-to-improve-non-fatal-shooting-solve-rates/
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Updating the Tunney Act - Proposal Comes With Risks
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on March 26, 2026, by Competition Policy Director Fred Ashton:
* * *
Updating the Tunney Act: Proposal Comes With Risks
Executive Summary
* Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has introduced the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act to bolster transparency surrounding antitrust settlements and subject the Federal Trade Commission to the same review requirements as the Department of Justice.
* The bill would amend the Tunney Act, which requires federal courts to review and approve antitrust settlements, amid
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on March 26, 2026, by Competition Policy Director Fred Ashton:
* * *
Updating the Tunney Act: Proposal Comes With Risks
Executive Summary
* Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has introduced the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act to bolster transparency surrounding antitrust settlements and subject the Federal Trade Commission to the same review requirements as the Department of Justice.
* The bill would amend the Tunney Act, which requires federal courts to review and approve antitrust settlements, amidgrowing concerns about the current process.
* While intended to increase transparency, the proposal would likely introduce added regulatory risks - delay deal closings, increase litigation costs, discourage open dialogue among parties, and strip executive branch prosecutorial discretion.
Introduction
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has introduced the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act to increase transparency surrounding antitrust settlements. The bill would amend the Tunney Act, which requires a federal court to review and approve antitrust settlements.
In announcing the bill, Senator Klobuchar cited a recent antitrust settlement between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Live Nation-Ticketmaster as a key motivation. Policymakers, including Sen. Klobuchar, have raised similar concerns regarding allegations of impropriety in the merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprises and Juniper Networks.
Currently, the Tunney Act applies to antitrust settlements involving the DOJ. The proposed legislation would subject the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the same requirements, modify the standard of judicial review, disrupt the timing of mergers, strengthen the role of state attorneys general, and strip prosecutorial discretion from the executive branch.
Taken together, these proposed changes could create an atmosphere in which firms are hesitant to engage in open discussions with the federal government, cause delays in deal closings, and increase litigation costs.
Tunney Act
Prior to the Tunney Act, the judicial review of DOJ antitrust settlements was merely a formality, consisting of signing the decree for it to become a court order. Yet during the Nixon Administration, the DOJ settled antitrust lawsuits challenging International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation's (ITT) mergers with several corporations. The settlement prompted allegations of impropriety by ITT because the relief was decidedly less severe than was sought in the original complaint and came after a $400,000 donation by ITT to the Republican National Committee.
Senator John Tunney pointed to the details of the settlement as the inspiration, in part, for what would become the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, commonly referred to as the Tunney Act.
Passed in 1974, the Tunney Act sought to bring transparency to consent decree procedures. It mandated rules for the notification of consents, afforded third parties the opportunity to provide comments, and required a judicial review of the agreement by a federal district court. Specifically, the DOJ must file simultaneously a complaint and a competitive impact statement with the proposed consent decree explaining the alleged antitrust violation and remedy. These documents are to be published in the Federal Register at least 60 days prior to the effective date of the consent decree (15 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 16(b)) for public comment. Before entering into the consent, "the court shall determine that the entry of such judgement is in the public interest" (15 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 16(e)). The court will assess the competitive impact, including the duration of relief sought, the anticipated effects of alternative remedies considered by the DOJ, and "any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy" of the decree (15 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 16(e)(1)(A)). Moreover, the judiciary must determine the impact of the consent on the competition in the relevant market "upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury" from the alleged violations (15 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 16(e)(1)(B)).
Courts have generally deferred to the DOJ and approved consent decrees.
Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act: Intent
Senator Klobuchar's proposal would make several changes to current antitrust enforcement procedures.
Perhaps most notable is that the legislation would subject the FTC to the same Tunney Act requirements as the DOJ.
The bill also seeks to increase dramatically the transparency of civil antitrust settlements by increasing disclosure requirements. Currently, the DOJ is required to submit a competitive impact statement that describes the nature of the case, the proposed remedy, the anticipated competitive effects, and alternative proposals that were considered. It is also mandated that each defendant file a description of lobbying contacts with the government, excluding contacts with the counsel of record with the DOJ. The legislation would extend the scope of disclosures to include the Executive Office of the President. In total, these measures are to ensure that any agreements outside of the written settlement are fully disclosed.
In proceedings brought under Section 7 of the Clayton Act - which prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect may be substantially to lessen competition - the proposal would establish a mandatory 90-day "hold-separate" requirement. Often, companies are allowed to close a deal and begin integrating during the Tunney Act review, which could act as a barrier for a court to reject the consent agreement as unwinding already consummated transactions poses significant challenges. This holding requirement would force companies to keep the merged or acquired assets separate while the court reviews the settlement agreement.
The standard courts use in their determination under Tunney Act review would also be changed under the proposed legislation. The current assesses the competitive impact and whether the consent is "in the public interest." Typically, courts have deferred to the DOJ and approved consent decrees. The bill would strengthen the court's role in reviewing these agreements, requiring it to determine whether "provisions of the consent judgement are reasonably tailored to the violations of the antitrust laws alleged in the complaint" and that it "does not permit any transaction, merger, agreement, business practice, or other course of conduct that creates a material risk of violating the antitrust laws."
Another proposed change to the judicial process would involve civil antitrust cases that are voluntarily dismissed by the FTC or DOJ. Under the legislation, these dismissals would be required to be filed with the district court and published in the Federal Register not less than 45 days prior to the effective date of the voluntary dismissal. "The case," according to the proposal, "shall be stayed during this 45-day period." Moreover, state attorneys general may file a motion for substitution with the court during this 45-day period and the court must grant the motion unless "presented with clear and convincing evidence by the parties that there are no genuine issues of material fact that could support any claim in the proceeding or that the defendant would be entitled to judgement as a matter of law." In other words, state attorneys general can step in and take over the case.
Furthermore, the legislation would empower state attorneys general to intervene in Tunney Act proceedings. First, the court would be required to consider any state agency, including any state attorney general, when determining whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing - which is a court proceeding where a judge hears testimony and reviews evidence to determine if a DOJ settlement serves the public interest. The Tunney Act, by contrast, does not "require the court to permit anyone to intervene."
Allegations of Impropriety at DOJ
The introduction of the bill followed a series of controversies at the DOJ.
On February 25, 2026, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) wrote a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi "demanding" a briefing on the "forced resignation" of DOJ Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Gail Slater.
In the letter, the representatives noted a series of departures from the DOJ including the resignation of Principal Deputy AAG Mark Hamer, and the firings of AAG Slater's previous Principal Deputy AAG Roger Alford and the Antitrust Division's Head of Merger Enforcement Bill Rinner. They claimed that the firings came "after career DOJ lawyers raised concerns about irregularities and potential corruption" at the DOJ regarding Hewlett-Packard Enterprises' (HPE) proposed acquisition of Juniper Networks. The representatives also noted that after his firing, Alford warned of the influence lobbyists have within the DOJ. Speaking directly about the HPE/Juniper merger, Alford claimed that these lobbyists "perverted justice," which resulted in actions "inconsistent with the rule of law." He labeled the current relationship between enforcers and lobbyists as "pay-to-play."
The representatives also cited reports that suggested DOJ leadership and lobbyists "improperly interfered with the Division's challenge to a controversial merger between American Express Global Business Travel (Amex GBT) and CWT Holdings." They claimed that the "Division was ordered to dismiss the matter, in order to avoid settlement disclosure requirements under the Tunney Act which 'could expose the deep involvement of corporate lobbyists and pay-to-play policymaking to the light of day.'" Moreover, they alleged that the "dismissal may have also been prevented the disclosure of contacts between DOJ officials and Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with close ties to President Trump."
More recently, the DOJ - along with five states - settled an antitrust case involving Ticketmaster and Live-Nation. Yet the trial resumed as 36 states and the District of Columbia rejected the terms of the agreement. Senator Klobuchar pointed to the "weak" deal as an impetus for the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act.
Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act: In Practice
As a matter of process, the proposed legislation would align the rules governing consent decree review between the DOJ and FTC and remove an arbitrary distinction between the agencies.
The transparency measures, however well-intended, come with risks. Settlements are a tool used by both the government and firm(s) involved in an antitrust suit to avoid costly litigation by arriving at a compromise. If all previous versions of settlement offers - and even the side-deals - require disclosure, it could have a chilling effect on settlements. This could yield several results including a greater number of cases that go to a full trial or the agency forgoing a case altogether. The government is often outmatched in terms of financial resources and personnel, especially when a case involves a large, well-resourced firm. Agreeing to a settlement rather than litigating permits the agencies to redirect scarce resources to other potential cases. In a more dire outcome, agencies may simply forgo investigating or trying a case. This situation could arise in marginal cases where the outcome is highly uncertain. Rather than engaging in an open dialogue with the firms and proposing one or a series of settlements in good faith, the firms could opt to fully litigate, which could force the agency to drop the case.
The increased importance of state attorneys general could also lead to uncertainty for companies involved in antitrust cases. By empowering states to pick up cases abandoned by federal enforcers, firms face a situation where they must continue to litigate. Moreover, this could lead to state attorneys general leveraging a politically popular case, even if federal enforcers determined it has little merit.
The legislation's 90-day waiting period for mergers introduces an added layer of deal risk. Often, deals are determined by current market conditions. A lengthy waiting period limits the ability of merging firms - that have already received clearance from the FTC or DOJ - to capitalize on the benefits of integration. This could, conceivably, cause some deals to fall apart. It could also result in a chilling effect in cases where the added cost of the 90-day pause makes a pro-competitive merger too expensive to attempt.
New review requirements that move away from a public interest standard - which largely defers to the DOJ's conclusion - to assessing market-specific facts and complex economic analysis place a large burden on the judiciary. These requirements could lead to inconsistent outcomes that could elevate the uncertainty a firm(s) faces when a settlement is under Tunney Act review.
Conclusion
Considering recent allegations of impropriety at the DOJ, the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act seeks to increase the transparency of the Tunney Act review while subjecting the FTC to the same requirements.
The proposed legislation would likely also introduce additional regulatory risks - delayed deal closings, increased litigation costs, discouraged open dialogue among parties - and strip executive branch prosecutorial discretion.
* * *
Fred Ashton is the Director of Competition Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/updating-the-tunney-act-proposal-comes-with-risks/
[Category: Think Tank]
