Justice Dept.'s antitrust chief departs amid tensions over enforcement

Gail Slater, a veteran antitrust attorney, was ousted amid conflict with department leaders over aggressive enforcement of competition laws.

Published on Feb. 13, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Justice Department's top antitrust attorney, Gail Slater, was ousted amid conflict with department leaders over how aggressively to enforce the nation's corporate competition laws. Slater, a veteran antitrust attorney, was a rare political appointee within the Trump administration with bipartisan support and was considered a thought leader for the coalition challenging what they call an overly lax approach to policing corporate power. Her departure comes as the administration faces criticism over the pace of antitrust investigations and merger reviews.

Why it matters

Slater's ouster raises concerns that the Trump administration may be using antitrust enforcement as a political tool to reward or punish companies based on the president's whims rather than the law. Her aggressive approach to policing monopolies, particularly in the tech industry, was expected to face resistance from industry lobbyists aligned with the administration.

The details

Slater, an ally of Vice President JD Vance, was pushed out after clashing with department leaders over the pace of antitrust investigations and merger reviews. The administration was frustrated with the slow pace of Slater's office, and officials hope a new antitrust chief can speed up the historically slow process. Slater also faced opposition from conservative activists like Mike Davis, who was paid by Hewlett Packard Enterprise to help push through a merger that Slater opposed.

  • Slater was nominated and confirmed as the head of the Justice Department's antitrust division in March 2026.
  • In July 2026, two of Slater's top deputies were pushed out after clashing with lobbyists working for Hewlett Packard Enterprise.
  • In November 2026, President Trump publicly demanded an investigation into the meatpacking industry over soaring prices, a few weeks after Slater closed a years-long probe into the industry.

The players

Gail Slater

The former head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, a veteran antitrust attorney who was considered a thought leader for the coalition challenging an overly lax approach to policing corporate power.

Mike Davis

A conservative activist who was paid by Hewlett Packard Enterprise to help push through a merger that Slater opposed, and who has also been advocating for a favorable settlement for Live Nation in an antitrust lawsuit.

Pam Bondi

The Attorney General, who was frustrated with the slow pace of Slater's office and the department's antitrust enforcement.

Omeed A. Assefi

A deputy in the antitrust division overseeing criminal enforcement, who will temporarily lead the division after Slater's departure.

Chad Mizelle

Bondi's former chief of staff, who pushed through a settlement in a lawsuit the antitrust division had brought against Hewlett Packard Enterprise, over Slater's objections.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“It is with great sadness and abiding hope that I leave my role as AAG for Antitrust today. It was indeed the honor of a lifetime to serve in this role.”

— Gail Slater (X)

“No one is entitled to work at DOJ. You must be willing to put aside personal agendas and vendettas to advance the President's priorities and serve the American people. DOJ antitrust will continue protecting consumers and become an even stronger advocate for fair market dynamics. American competitiveness will prosper!”

— Chad Mizelle (Social media)

“Gail was a disaster. I recommended her hiring. And her firing.”

— Mike Davis (Group chat)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

Slater's ouster highlights the tensions within the Trump administration over the pace and direction of antitrust enforcement, with some officials pushing for a more aggressive approach to policing corporate power while others seek to prioritize speed over rigor. This raises concerns that antitrust policy may be driven more by political considerations than the law.