For over a century, antitrust laws have been a defining feature of America’s economic policy. Born from a desire to prevent monopolies that harm competition, these laws were meant to keep the marketplace open and fair. But as federal regulators increase their appetite for aggressive antitrust enforcement that deviates from its original intended purpose, it’s worth asking: what does “antitrust” really mean—and what is its significance for a free market economy like ours?

“Antitrust” refers to a set of federal and state laws designed to prevent companies from engaging in anti-competitive behavior that emerges from an abuse of dominance, like bid rigging, price fixing, and customer allocation. The core federal antitrust laws—the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914—were intended to ensure a fair playing field in the market. In practice, antitrust is a law enforcement tool that empowers federal regulators to challenge mergers, investigate cartel conduct, and penalize companies that abuse market power to harm consumers. The goal isn’t to punish successful companies, but to ensure success doesn’t come from market manipulation or government favoritism.

When government regulators attempt to use antitrust as a weapon to punish size or success, they discourage investment, innovation, and the very competition it’s meant to protect. Take the technology sector, for example. Some in Washington would break up large tech companies like Meta and Google—not because their practices have been proven to harm consumers, but because they’ve simply become too big for political comfort. This is the opposite of fairness and openness, and signals to innovators: why strive for success if the government could tear your company down? Antitrust was never meant to be wielded as a political weapon to produce certain outcomes. Instead, it serves to bring about evidence-driven judgments about consumer welfare, a principle known as the Consumer Welfare Standard, which has been applied by U.S. courts for decades.

The United States economy and that of its states depend on a competitive market—from energy and technology to small businesses and startups. When regulators in Washington push the scope of antitrust beyond clear consumer harm, they create uncertainty that threatens opportunity here at home. Aggressive federal regulation will harm the business partnerships, investments, and efficiencies that drive growth in Louisiana’s key industries and set a dangerous precedent for state enforcement of antitrust.

Antitrust is an example of how the government must serve as umpire in the marketplace: ensuring that players adhere to the rules of the game and stepping in only when unfairness is at hand and consumers are harmed. It is not a warrant for government to manipulate or force company size or outcomes at will—picking winners and losers. As our nation and our state continue pursuing prosperity, elected leaders should remember that the best safeguard for consumers is not more bureaucracy, but more competition. 250 years of U.S. history have shown that when markets are free and government plays by its own limits, everyone has the opportunity to thrive.