The departure of Justice Department Antitrust Chief Gail Slater marks a pivotal moment in America’s battle against corporate monopolies, coming just months after she secured a landmark victory against Google that shattered decades of Big Tech immunity. Her exit raises critical questions about whether the Trump administration will maintain its aggressive stance against the Silicon Valley oligarchs who have strangled American competition and free speech.
Slater’s tenure, though brief, delivered results that eluded previous administrations for over two decades. In a historic ruling, she successfully convinced a federal judge that Google had illegally monopolized the digital advertising market—a breakthrough that establishes crucial legal precedent for dismantling the tech cartel’s stranglehold on American commerce and information.
The timing of her departure is particularly significant given the ongoing battles against entrenched corporate power. Under Slater’s leadership, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s censorship case, directly challenging the Big Tech-Big Media alliance that has systematically silenced American voices. This constitutional approach represented a return to first principles—treating information monopolies with the same skepticism our founders showed toward the British East India Company.
Slater’s confirmation with bipartisan Senate support demonstrated something Washington’s establishment prefers to ignore: aggressive antitrust enforcement transcends traditional party lines because it serves the forgotten men and women of America. Her invocation of the Boston Tea Party wasn’t mere rhetoric—it connected modern antitrust policy to our nation’s founding resistance against monopolistic control, whether exercised by 18th-century trading companies or 21st-century tech giants.
The reported internal clashes over “more lenient oversight” reveal the persistent tension between America First populists and Chamber of Commerce Republicans who remain comfortable with corporate consolidation. This divide isn’t new—it echoes the historical split between Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting and the business-as-usual Republicans who enabled the very monopolies that strangled American opportunity in the early 1900s.
Slater’s “forgotten men and women” framework directly channeled President Trump’s 2016 coalition, recognizing that concentrated corporate power threatens both economic opportunity and constitutional governance. While globalist elites celebrated the rise of “too big to fail” corporations, American workers and small businesses suffered under the weight of monopolistic practices that would have shocked the Sherman Act’s authors.
The constitutional implications extend far beyond economics. When a handful of tech oligarchs can control the flow of information, manipulate search results, and coordinate with government agencies to silence dissent, they wield power that rivals—and often exceeds—that of elected officials. Slater understood that antitrust enforcement isn’t just about market competition; it’s about preserving the decentralized power structure that makes republican government possible.
Her departure comes at a crucial juncture. The Google precedent provides a foundation for continued enforcement, but momentum requires leadership willing to challenge entrenched interests. The question now is whether Attorney General Pam Bondi will select a successor committed to building upon Slater’s constitutional framework or will accommodate establishment pressure for lighter corporate oversight.
Patriots should view this transition as both opportunity and test. The Trump administration’s approach to antitrust enforcement will signal whether America First principles can overcome the swamp’s reflexive deference to corporate power. The stakes couldn’t be higher—allowing tech monopolies to reconsolidate would undo years of progress and leave future generations at the mercy of unaccountable corporate oligarchs.
The path forward requires leaders who understand that true conservatism means conserving the competitive markets and decentralized power that built American prosperity. Slater’s legacy provides the roadmap; now the administration must choose whether to follow it or retreat to the failed policies that enabled monopolistic abuse in the first place.
America’s founders risked everything to break free from monopolistic control. Today’s patriots deserve leaders equally committed to that revolutionary principle.
