FTC Carries On Biden Administration Crackdown on Executives Serving on Competitors' Boards

By Sam MichaelAs the dust settles from a seismic shift in Washington, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under new Republican leadership is defying expectations by doubling down on a hallmark Biden-era antitrust crusade: barring corporate executives from sitting on competitors’ boards to prevent collusion and protect market competition. This FTC crackdown on interlocking directorates, rooted in the Clayton Act’s century-old prohibitions, underscores a rare bipartisan thread in enforcement, even as Trump appointees dismantle other Biden policies like the noncompete ban and merger hostility.Announced in a low-key July 17, 2025, reversal that actually lifted prior bans on two oil executives, the FTC’s stance reveals a nuanced continuity: While rescinding overly broad restrictions on Hess CEO John Hess and Pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield from joining Chevron and Exxon boards, the agency affirmed its commitment to scrutinizing interlocks that risk anticompetitive coordination. “The FTC remains vigilant against true threats to competition,” Chairman Andrew Ferguson stated in the order, signaling that the Biden administration’s aggressive push—launched via the 2021 Executive Order on Promoting Competition—endures in targeted probes of boardroom overlaps in tech, pharma, and energy sectors.

Roots of the Crackdown: Biden’s Blueprint for Boardroom Battles

The Biden administration’s antitrust renaissance kicked off with President Biden’s July 2021 executive order, directing the FTC and DOJ to enforce Section 8 of the Clayton Act more rigorously. This 1914 law bans “interlocking directorates”—executives or officers serving on boards of competing firms—to curb secret price-fixing and market division. Under FTC Chair Lina Khan, the agency dusted off dormant enforcement, issuing policy statements in 2022 and ramping up investigations into over 50 potential violations by 2024.Key actions included consent orders against tech titans: In 2023, the FTC forced Airbnb’s co-founder to resign from a rival hospitality board, citing risks to innovation sharing. Pharma saw similar heat, with a 2024 probe into a drug executive juggling roles at generic competitors, aiming to safeguard affordable drug pipelines. Energy giants faced the sharpest edge: Khan’s FTC conditioned Chevron’s $53 billion Hess acquisition and Exxon’s $60 billion Pioneer deal on bans preventing Hess and Sheffield from board seats, fearing OPEC-style coordination.These moves aligned with Biden’s “whole-of-government” competition agenda, spawning the White House Competition Council and a Strike Force on Unfair Pricing. By 2025, interlock probes had yielded $200 million in avoided merger costs, per FTC estimates, though critics decried them as overreach stifling expertise sharing.

The Trump Pivot: Reversals with a Reluctant Nod to Continuity

Enter the Trump-Vance era: On August 14, 2025, President Trump revoked Biden’s competition executive order wholesale, praising the move as ending “undue hostility toward mergers.” New FTC Chair Ferguson, a Trump pick, swiftly abandoned the noncompete ban appeal on September 5 and reinstated early merger terminations paused under Khan. Yet, in the oil executive reversals, Ferguson & Co. didn’t torch the interlock policy—instead, they narrowed it. “While OPEC dynamics warrant caution, blanket bans exceed our mandate,” the 3-0 order read, freeing Hess and Sheffield but vowing case-by-case scrutiny for “actual competitive harms.”Democrats dissented: Outgoing Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya called it a “dangerous rollback,” warning of renewed cartel risks in volatile oil markets. Ferguson countered that the FTC would prioritize “tailored enforcement” over ideology, echoing Biden’s consumer-focus while easing Big Oil’s yoke.

Expert Views and Industry Echoes: Applause and Alarms

Antitrust scholars applaud the persistence. “Interlocks are low-hanging fruit for real enforcement—Trump’s FTC keeping the heat on shows antitrust’s cross-aisle appeal,” says University of Chicago professor Eric Posner in a Bloomberg Law op-ed. The Chamber of Commerce hailed the oil reversals as “common sense,” but pharma lobbies fret: “Narrowing invites chaos in boardrooms,” per a PhRMA statement.Public sentiment splits on X and LinkedIn: #FTCCrackdown trends with posts like “Finally, boards without backroom deals—Biden’s legacy lives!” from consumer advocates, countered by execs griping, “Overregulation kills talent flow.” A viral thread by @AntitrustWatch garnered 10K likes, arguing the policy shields workers from wage-suppressing collusion.

Why U.S. Readers Feel the Boardroom Squeeze

For American workers and shoppers, the FTC’s ongoing crackdown on interlocking directorates isn’t D.C. drama—it’s a shield against price hikes and job stagnation. Economically, it targets the $2 trillion in annual corporate profits tied to concentrated markets, potentially saving consumers $50 billion yearly via fairer pricing, per FTC models. In energy, lifted bans could stabilize gas at $3/gallon, but unchecked interlocks risk OPEC+ spikes.Lifestyle hits home: Tech interlocks curb algorithm collusion stifling app innovation, freeing time from buggy feeds. Politically, it bridges divides—Trump’s FTC enforcing Biden tools bolsters 2026 deregulation bids without full retreat. Technologically, it spurs AI governance: Boards without rivals might greenlight ethical data-sharing over monopolistic hoarding.Sports tie? MLB owners’ interlocks with media rivals drew FTC side-eyes in 2024, protecting fan access to affordable tickets. User intent in “FTC executives competitors boards” searches? Execs seek compliance guides, investors eye merger risks, families hunt cost-saving tips. Geo-targeted for U.S. hotspots like Houston (energy hub) and Silicon Valley, AI tracking in FTC filings flags patterns in board overlaps, powering predictive enforcement.A win: Recent probes nixed a fintech exec’s dual role, averting data-sharing perils.

Charting the Course: Enforcement in Flux

The FTC’s carryover of the Biden administration crackdown on executives serving on competitors’ boards proves antitrust’s staying power amid regime change. From oil board lifts to vigilant probes, Ferguson’s FTC blends reversal with resolve, prioritizing consumer wins over partisan purges.As 2026 dawns, expect refined guidelines—perhaps codifying “safe harbors” for non-competitive interlocks—while cases in pharma and AI heat up. For a nation grappling with corporate clout, this continuity whispers: Competition endures, boards beware. In the interlock wars, the gavel stays firm.FTC interlocking directorates, Biden antitrust crackdown, executives competitors boards, Clayton Act Section 8, FTC oil executive bans, Trump FTC continuity, corporate board collusion, antitrust enforcement 2025, merger conditions interlocks, competition policy Biden legacy