WHEN: Today, Tuesday, January 7, 2025
WHERE: CNBC’s “Squawk Box”
Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC interview with FTC Chair Lina Khan on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” (M-F, 6AM-9AM ET) today, Tuesday, January 7 for her exit interview. Following is a link to video on CNBC.com: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/01/07/ftc-chair-lina-khan-hopes-facebook-and-amazon-wont-get-a-sweetheart-deal-from-trump-2point0.html
All references must be sourced to CNBC.
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: Joining us right now first on CNBC for her exit interview is FTC Chair Lina Khan. Chair Khan, thank you for joining us. We’ve been talking to you now for four years. This is eight more days before it’s over.
LINA KHAN: Business days, that’s right.
SORKIN: Business days before it’s over. I want to talk about the last four years, the way the business community has thought about all of this, the way the business community has thought about you, the way you’ve thought about them and all of that. But I want to start, before we even get to sort of looking back on this last four years, I don’t know if you just saw the news that came out this morning from Facebook’s, from Meta, around community notes. They’re going to effectively get rid of their policing, if you will, of content on their own. And they’re going to move parts of their team to Texas from California. There’s a whole sort of move afoot. Also just yesterday, Dana White joined the board of Meta. And the reason I’m even mentioning this is I wonder whether you look at that and this effort by some of the tech companies and others as a rebuke, if you will, of what you and the FTC have been trying to do over the last four years.
KHAN: Well, Andrew, it’s so great to be here with you. And look, what the rules are for speech online is an enormously important question. And a world and an economy in which those rules are being set by a single company or even a single executive is deeply at odds with why we have the antitrust laws and the anti-monopoly laws, right? I mean, this is an economy that has thrived when we have fierce competition. And I’ve heard a lot of concerns, including on both sides of the aisle, about what happens when you concentrate control and have gatekeepers over who gets hurt and who gets to speak.
SORKIN: So it sounds like you’d be a fan of what Meta is doing then.
KHAN: Well, look, I think we should have an economy where the decisions of a single company or a single executive are not having extraordinary impact on speech online. And I know that’s a concern that we hear bipartisan members of Congress talk about. And so it’ll be interesting to see what happens. We, of course, have litigation ongoing. There’s going to be a trial starting this spring, FTC versus Facebook, alleging that their prior acquisitions were illegal.
SORKIN: What do you think, though, of the relationship that we’re seeing between big tech and the next administration? What do you make of the meetings and pilgrimages with which we’re seeing Mark Zuckerberg go to Mar-a-Lago or we’re seeing a Jeff Bezos or Tim Cook? I mean, this is a very different kind of relationship than the administration, the Biden administration, had in specifically what you represented to the business community.
KHAN: So I approach my job with a focus on faithfully enforcing the law and making sure we were doing that across the economy without fear or favor. There has been, as you know, a lot of concern about dominant digital gatekeepers, again, on both sides of the aisle. And even as we’ve seen the President-elect announce some of his future appointments, he’s noted that he’s making these appointments with a view that they’re going to continue to maintain a tough line against some of these big technology companies.
SORKIN: Do you think they are, given the meetings that we’re seeing, given the million-dollar donations to the inaugural? I mean, on a very personal basis, you know, there’s only eight business days left in your role. What do you make of that?
KHAN: Well, look, I can’t predict what future people in my position are going to do. It is true that the FTC has been very successful, including in its ongoing litigations against Amazon and Facebook. And so it’s only going to be natural that those companies are going to want to come in and see, can they get some type of sweetheart deal?
SORKIN: Right.
KHAN: Right? Can they get some type of settlement that’s cheap, that settles for pennies on the dollar and lets them escape from a liability finding in court?
SORKIN: Do you see that happening? Is that what you think is happening?
KHAN: I hope it won’t. But again, I can’t predict that. And we are set to go to trial against Facebook this spring, against Amazon in the fall of 2026. Of course, they would want a sweetheart deal, and I hope future enforcers wouldn’t give them that.
SORKIN: You mentioned Amazon. That’s a company that just made a documentary deal with Melania Trump. What do you make of that?
KHAN: Well, look, I think in general, our economy, including our tech sector, has done best when we’ve had open competitive markets, right? We have an economy that has traditionally shunned the centralization approach that other countries have taken. We’ve had an economy where even incumbents have had to look over their shoulders.
SORKIN: Right. I know, you’re — look, you’re talking in a very sort of academic way about this. I’m asking from a very practical perspective and a personal perspective, given the approach that you’ve taken, what you think is going to happen over the next four years. And to the extent you’ve seen these meetings taking place and you’ve seen the rhetoric in the business community, by the way, you’ve seen the number of deals that you keep hearing about a sort of massive pipeline that’s already started. What you think of that? People even saying, I’m going to do the deal now because, guess what? Lina Khan’s not going to be in the job in two weeks.
KHAN: So there’s no doubt that under this administration, we took a more rigorous approach to enforcing the law. And we’ve been vindicated in court time after time, right? I mean, just a little over a year ago, we introduced new merger guidelines. We’ve now had over a dozen courts cite those guidelines as persuasive authority. There used to be a view that even blatantly illegal deals, for example, could be cured by a divestiture of a hodgepodge of assets, even if that wouldn’t create a competitor. We’ve rejected that view, including in the Kroger-Albertsons deal. The court vindicated us. There used to be a view that vertical mergers were presumptively legal or benign. We’ve successfully blocked close to a dozen vertical deals. We’ve had courts vindicate us on going after serial acquisitions, private equity rollouts, including in health care markets. So look, is there a risk that there would be a backsliding? Of course. But now that the courts have so resoundingly vindicated our approach, we know that if there is a reversion, that’s going to be in contravention of the law, not because of it.
SORKIN: Let me ask you this, though. One place where you haven’t been vindicated is this issue around non-competes, this idea that the non-compete has been effectively this Texas — Texas court is fighting it, right? Do you think that that was overly broad? Do you look back and say, I wish I had done that differently?
KHAN: So the non-compete rule we finalized last year after 25,000 thousand comments from people across the country sharing, as you know, these provisions are now used for fast food workers, security guards, janitors. Ultimately, we got sued in three different courts. Each of those courts came out a slightly different place. So the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said preliminarily the rule is lawful. The District Court of Florida said the FTC does have substantive rulemaking authority. You’re right that the Texas judge has put the rule on hold and we are now appealing that. I think we’re right on the law. I think we have a duty to the American people to eliminate non-competes if we think they’re violating the law. And thousands of non-competes have already been dropped for workers because of the FTC’s efforts.
SORKIN: Let me ask you this, you’ve had — you’ve been in this role for four years. You’ve learned a lot. I imagine. I hope you’ve learned a lot. What would have you done differently given what you know now? What would have you done differently? And given that you became a symbol to a large degree for many industries, which, by the way, turned out to ultimately vote for President Trump, interestingly, whether you think about that, whether you think that, that matters, whether you think about the long-term viability of all these things you’re talking about, backsliding cases today that may get undone later. I assume you would have wanted, even though I know you don’t think you’re political, you would have wanted Vice President Harris to have won or President Biden to have won. And so when you think about sort of the long-term nature of all this, what would you have done differently?
KHAN: So, look, of course, we would have wanted more time. And, you know, one person I found a lot of inspiration from during my tenure was actually President Reagan’s FTC Chair, Jim Miller, who came in with specific vision, with a lot of focus and ended up creating durable change in how we do antitrust and consumer protection. Of course, directionally, I wanted to do something different. But in terms of the durable impact that they were able to create, that’s what we have really looked to follow. And I think we have gotten some wins that we be durable. One other thing that I really prioritized during my tenure was hearing from Americans across the country, right?
SORKIN: Right.
KHAN: And these types of jobs, it’s very easy to become insulated, hear from people in DC, hear from dealmakers in New York. And one thing I heard from people across the country was a desire for a more aggressive cop on the beat, right? Not once did I hear that the answer to our economic challenges is more monopolization or more consolidation or more mergers. And so I think across the country, there is a recognition that the work the FTC has been doing is making people’s lives better.
SORKIN: There’s not one thing that you can point to over the last four years that you wish you had done differently?
KHAN: Well, look, one frustration always is just how long some of these cases take, right? I mean, the — the Meta case that’s going to trial this spring was filed originally during the Trump administration. The Amazon case will not will have taken, you know, three years. And so, of course, you always think about, is there something we could have done differently?
SORKIN: I know, but I’m saying for you, your own decisions. I mean, by the way, this — this — this is the Kamala Harris question. What would have you — what would have you done differently? What would you do differently? And by the way, I think she lost a lot of points publicly because she unfortunately, you know, was on the view and was unable to answer that question. So I’m asking you what you’ve been in this job for four years. There must be something you said. You know, I regret that. I wish I had done if I had just done that. That would have been interesting. I’ve learned something. What did you learn?
KHAN: Across the board, there are always hard decisions you have to make about which lawsuits you’re going to bring, which lawsuits you’re not going to bring. I think every lawsuit we brought, we brought because the law and the facts were on our side. Overall, of course, you have to think about resources. The FTC ended up, you know, getting constraints budgetary wise that made us rethink some of the cases we were bringing. But overall, I think we use the tools that we were given.
SORKIN: So there’s nothing? Nothing.
KHAN: Well, look, I do think we could have thought through, is there a way to move some of these things even faster?
SORKIN: Let me ask you this. And it goes relates to big tech. You obviously — there’s a big case with Google. We talked about Amazon. There’s all these cases out there. Then there’s the AI piece of all of this, which is a lot of the cases that are out there today actually are backward looking. One of the things you’ve been looking at is AI and how that’s going to change things going forward. And also the relationships that many of these companies, Microsoft has, for example, with OpenAI, Anthropic has with Google and Amazon. What is the state of that? And how do you think that plays out in 20 days from now?
KHAN: So, we have an ongoing inquiry looking at some of these investments in partnerships between the incumbents and some of the newer start-ups, trying to understand what’s really going on here. Are these investments that are really interfering with the independent decision-making, and is that going to undermine competition? That inquiry is ongoing. I’m hopeful that we’d be able to share something publicly before I end my chair-ship.
SORKIN: So, there’s an announcement, you think, coming in the next week or two?
KHAN: I hope so. I mean, we’re a multi-member commission, so we have to vote.
SORKIN: What could happen, though, given — I mean, what can you do in the next two weeks? And by the way, how do you feel about doing anything in the next two weeks as it relates to bringing suits or anything else, given that there is a new administration coming and some there is an argument that, you know, executive orders and other things that the administration is doing today that they shouldn’t be doing. They should hold off and wait until the next administration to get into office.
KHAN: Well, look, of course, we’re going to do everything we can to smooth the transition, and I’ve offered that to my colleagues. But we’re going to use every day we have to enforce the law and make sure we’re—
SORKIN: But how do you feel about trying to lock something in now? I mean, that’s some people would look and say, look, the other guy won, and the American people spoke, if you will. And so trying to lock people into something today that has — that then someone has to try to undo later is unfair.
KHAN: Well, look, inauguration will happen when it happens, and until there, this administration is in place. And I took an oath to enforce the law and do our job as long as I’m in this job.
SORKIN: Biden just blocked the Japan Nippon deal with the U.S. Steel. I’m curious how you think about and how maybe you think President Trump should think about foreign countries that are allies of ours and whether they should be allowed to make acquisitions in our country.
KHAN: So, as you know, this was a process that was, you know, led by CFIUS. The FTC doesn’t have a role in thinking through some of those national security implications. I do think across the board, though, there has been a growing recognition of how extreme consolidation can pose a national security risk, right? We’ve heard senior members at the Defense Department—
SORKIN: Right.
KHAN: Note how extreme consolidation in the defense industrial base is creating that risk. And we’ve seen how even in areas like, you know, aircraft manufacturing, extreme consolidation can create that risk. I know people, including airline executives, have traced some of the challenges at Boeing all the way back to the McDonnell Douglas merger a couple of decades back. And so we need to be aware of the deep connection between having robust competition and how that helps us domestically, but also internationally.
SORKIN: Trump’s pick for your job, the successor, is Andrew Ferguson. You know him. What do you think of him? And how do you think he’s going to do this differently than you?
KHAN: Well, look, I’ve really enjoyed getting to work with Commissioner Ferguson. We’ve had, you know, deep engagement and debates. And of course, I wish him all the best. Of course, the FTC has been extraordinarily active these last few years. And I think there’s going to be a lot of expectation that the FTC not go weak and just, you know, revert back to a less rigorous approach.
SORKIN: Have you had that conversation with him?
KHAN: Well, we’re, of course, helping him with the transition and providing any type of support that we can.
SORKIN: What about the vice president, Vice President Vance, who’s apparently a fan of yours, have you talked to him?
KHAN: Well, look, in this role, I’ve had the chance to engage with a lot of senators, including with him, and have appreciated that on both sides of the aisle, there’s a recognition that we really need strong anti-monopoly enforcement. And that’s good for America.
SORKIN: Final question for you. What do you think of the sort of sense that there are now individuals in our country who are super wealthy, who’ve had enormous success, I’m thinking of Elon Musk, on one end, Jeff Bezos and others, that now have their hands in lots of different pies, if you will. And whether you think that regulators need to think about that in a different way than they had in the past?
KHAN: It’s an incredibly important question. And you’re right that some of how this is playing out is going to look different. But historically, we did have things like structural separations, right? I mean, even in banking, we traditionally had the separation between banking and commerce, the idea being that the entities that are providing credit for the rest of the economy shouldn’t be conflicted when they’re directly competing with some of those businesses. So we may need to reactivate some of those principles, especially in infrastructure industries.
SORKIN: What do you do next?
KHAN: Right now, I’m focused on the next eight business days and finishing strong. We’re going to be running through the tape.
SORKIN: The next eight business days. Becky and Joe, that is Lina Khan, the FTC Chair, Lina Khan in her exit interview. Thank you so very much for joining us.
KHAN: Thanks so much.
For more information contact:
Jennifer Dauble
CNBC
t: 201.735.4721
m: 201.615.2787
Stephanie Hirlemann
CNBC
m: 201.397.2838
