A Conversation with Alvaro Bedoya on Trump's FTC Firings

Summary

Podcast Summary:

The Tech Policy Press Podcast – A Conversation with Alvaro Bedoya on Trump's FTC Firings
Date: March 25, 2025
Host: Cristiano Lima Strong (for Tech Policy Press)
Guest: Alvaro Bedoya, recently dismissed FTC Commissioner

---

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode centers on the unprecedented decision by President Trump to fire two Democratic Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. It explores the legal, historical, and practical implications of these firings, the rationale for challenging them, the risks to the agency’s independence and tech regulation, and Bedoya’s perspective on the broader stakes for democratic governance and rule of law.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. How Bedoya Learned of His Firing

• [01:14–02:30]
  • Bedoya found out he was fired while at his daughter’s gymnastics class, via a call and email from Commissioner Slaughter and the White House.
  • The firing was not unexpected but was shocking in its timing and manner.
  • Quote:
    "You don't expect to learn about it that way." – Alvaro Bedoya [01:25]

2. Legal Rationale for Challenging the Firing

• [02:30–06:35]
  • Bedoya explains that by law, FTC commissioners can only be removed "for cause" (inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance)—based on provisions from the 1914 FTC Act and the precedent set in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935).
  • The White House email did not cite any specific cause.
  • These protections exist historically to shield the FTC from the undue influence of wealthy interests and maintain agency independence.
  • Quote:
    "Our law was designed to insulate us from those kinds of influences. And that's why...it's a really important case." – Bedoya [06:12]

3. Responding to Conservative Criticism of FTC Independence

• [06:35–11:38]
  • Addressed critiques that the FTC is unaccountable to the President and operates differently than in 1935.
  • Argues FTC’s core, bipartisan, expert, adjudicative, and quasi-legislative functions remain relevant.
  • Highlights recent cases and studies involving pharmacy benefit managers, demonstrating the agency’s broad and complex work.

4. The Impact of the Firings on Ongoing Tech and Antitrust Cases

• [11:38–16:37]
  • Bedoya underscores bipartisan agreement with Republican Chair Andrew Ferguson on tech enforcement, specifically lawsuits against Meta.
  • Warns if presidents can remove commissioners for any reason, agency independence is lost and tech moguls could exert improper influence.
  • Raises concern about corporate influence, referencing Amazon’s workplace injury rates and political donations.
  • Quote:
    "...it does not matter what Chairman Ferguson thinks and wants to do...if a decree comes down from the White House...he has a choice, either he obeys or he doesn't obey." – Bedoya [13:27]

5. The Stance of Republican FTC Commissioners

• [16:37–19:07]
  • Republicans on the commission supported Trump’s move, stating the President has such constitutional authority.
  • Bedoya points out that current law (Humphrey’s Executor) has not been overturned by the Supreme Court.
  • Quote:
    "The Supreme Court has insisted that the only entity that can reverse the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court." – Bedoya [18:25]

6. Life After the Firing: Remaining Active & Public

• [19:07–22:01]
  • Bedoya and Slaughter believe they are still rightful commissioners and continue advocating for agency independence.
  • Focused now on public outreach, communicating the importance of the FTC to consumers, and championing its employees.
  • Example: recently raised awareness about Amazon Alexa retaining children's voice recordings without proper deletion.
  • Quote:
    "I'm going to be out there telling the public about how amazing the FTC's work is..." – Bedoya [20:35]

7. Public Advocacy & The Role of the Minority Commissioner

• [22:01–25:58]
  • Details Bedoya’s appearance at a rally with Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to raise awareness of the FTC’s importance.
  • Stresses the necessity of a robust minority voice on the commission to blow the whistle on improper interference, regardless of party.
  • Quote:
    "This is about whether this is going to be a country where we have rule of law versus...rule of billionaires." – Bedoya [23:45]

8. Downstream Stakes for Other Agencies and the Regulatory Framework

• [25:58–30:08]
  • Raises alarm that undermining these independence protections could affect other regulatory bodies (e.g., FCC, NLRB).
  • Warns that this is not a partisan issue; both parties are susceptible to the influence of billionaire donors.

9. Concerns Over Regulatory Rollbacks and Use of 'Independents'

• [30:08–34:51]
  • Concern that the Trump administration will scale back regulations benefiting large tech and corporate interests.
  • FTC’s recent rulemakings (on non-competes, subscription traps, junk fees, etc.) were designed not to burden small business unduly.
  • Bedoya warns about the possibility of "faux opposition" by appointing independents who cooperate with the majority rather than offering real dissent.
  • Quote:
    "It would be such a shame if, quote unquote, independents were on the commission..." – Bedoya [35:14]

10. What Comes Next: Watchdogs and Support

• [36:54–38:52]
  • Bedoya urges the public and the policy community to watch for rollbacks of settlements and lawsuits.
  • Calls for support and appreciation of federal employees, emphasizing their public service ethics.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On FTC independence:
  "Our law was designed to insulate us from those kinds of influences." – Bedoya [06:12]

• On political influence:
  "...it does not matter what Chairman Ferguson thinks and wants to do...if a decree comes down from the White House...he has a choice, either he obeys or he doesn't obey." – Bedoya [13:27]

• On law and precedent:
  "The Supreme Court has insisted that the only entity that can reverse the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court." – Bedoya [18:25]

• On public service:
  "These are people who get up and sue the Martin Shkrelis and Jeff Bezos of the world for pennies on the dollar, what they could make in the private sector." – Bedoya [37:30]

• On the FTC’s mission:
  "This is about whether this is going to be a country where we have rule of law versus...rule of billionaires." – Bedoya [23:45]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Learning about the firing — [01:14–02:30]
• Legal background & Humphrey’s Executor — [02:40–06:35]
• Modern FTC criticisms & defense — [06:35–11:38]
• Impact on tech regulation and concerns about political interference — [11:38–16:37]
• Reaction of Republican Commissioners — [16:37–19:07]
• What Bedoya and Slaughter are doing next — [19:07–22:01]
• Public advocacy and the FTC’s role — [22:01–25:58]
• Risks to minority voice and broader governance — [25:58–29:09]
• Implications for other agencies — [29:09–30:08]
• Concerns over regulatory rollback and appointments — [30:08–36:54]
• What to watch for next & public support — [36:54–38:52]

---

Conclusion

The episode provides a dense, candid examination of the stakes in President Trump’s firing of FTC commissioners, blending legal analysis, historical context, contemporary policy implications, and urgent warnings about threats to institutional independence and democratic checks and balances. Bedoya urges vigilance both legally and civically, and calls for bipartisan support of the FTC’s mission in the face of rising corporate and political power.

---

Useful For: Anyone interested in technology policy, the future of regulatory independence, antitrust enforcement, and the impact of money and political power on American governance. This episode is a must-listen for policymakers, legal scholars, and citizens concerned with maintaining democratic accountability in the realm of tech and competition.

Transcript

[A]

Your film is now ready to be shown.

[B]

Good morning. I'm Justin Hendricks, editor of Tech Policy Press, a nonprofit media venture intended to provoke new ideas, debate and discussion at the intersection of technology and democracy. Last week, President Donald Trump ordered the firing of two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission, an independent agency that enforces federal consumer protection and competition law, and that, under former President Joe Biden, turned up its scrutiny of the tech sector's biggest companies. The two commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, planned to challenge Trump's firing, which they said will only benefit billionaire tech moguls like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos. My colleague Cristiano Lima Strong, an associate editor at Tech Policy Press, spoke to Commissioner Bedoya on Monday.

[C]

Alvaro, thanks so much for joining us.

[A]

Thank you for having me, Cristiano. Congrats on the new Garrick.

[C]

Thanks so much. Appreciate you being here. I'm sure it's an incredibly hectic time. I wanted to start off by going back to Tuesday, when you first learned that the president had ordered your firing. How did you first find out about this and what was sort of your immediate reaction?

[A]

Sure. So I was at my daughter's gymnastics class. Just gotten there. And so the funny thing is, and with the week, with a week of time, I'm able to laugh about it a little bit. But my, my daughter really likes me to watch her the whole time because if she does, like, a really cool trick, she'll immediately look at me and I, you know, confess. I'm like a lot of parents that when you. You have, like, a class right after work, inevitably there's like, text messages and phone calls you got to be doing. And so I was actually trying really hard to be looking at her. But then Commissioner Slaughter called me and said, hey, have you looked at your email? And I said, actually, no, it's been a few minutes. I haven't looked at my email. And she said, yeah, well, I just got a email from the White House, you know, claiming that the president is firing me. And sure enough, I opened my email, and there it was. And, you know, it was certainly something we had been contemplating might happen. But of course, when you're sitting there looking at your daughter twirl on. On a. I really should learn all the terminology. The horizontal bar. Right. That you spin over like, it's. You don't expect to learn about it that way. So, yeah, it was. It was a bit of a surprise.

[C]

And the communication that you received because. And this to get into it a little bit. But you've talked about how you plan to challenge this, and the crux of this case is likely to hinge on this supreme court president from 1935, known as Humphrey's executor, that established that the President cannot fire a Federal Trade Commission member such as yourself without cause. The communication that you received, it did not allege any cause, is that right?

[A]

None. No. It simply said prem has this authority and so the President is exercising it. And there was some line about your continued presence at the FTC is inconsistent with his, but it seemed to very deliberately avoid citing the causes that statute and the Supreme Court have said can be used to fire me. It went out of its way to not cite any of those causes or really substantive cause whatsoever.

[C]

And this is the main reason that you all plan to allege that this is an illegal firing.

[A]

Right?

[C]

Could you, could you talk us through the rationale there and then what you're hoping is the result of challenging this?

[A]

Absolutely. Let me quickly do like the Black letter law. But I think what is very important is people understand why these protections exist to begin with. Like why on earth are there these special protections for FTC commissioners? Quickly, the Black Letter Law, 1914 FTC act says we can only be removed by the President, number one, and, and even then only for cause. But the words for cause aren't there. Instead there are a very specific list of causes, three of them, inefficiency, neglect and malfeasance. Those are the reasons the President can cite to remove us. So in 1935, this provision was challenged because FDR tried to remove a guy named Humphrey, Commissioner Humphrey, and Humphrey of course challenged that. Then Humphrey subsequently passed away and so his estate, hence Humphreys executor sued for back pay. And the Supreme Court ratified that statute. They said, fdr, you cannot do that. There is a value in a bipartisan body. There is a value in these long terms that let these commissioners build up expertise. There is a value to these independent agencies. But again, let's zoom out from the black letter law and ask why on earth are there these special protections? Because I understand people who say, look, the President's, the President, the President should be able to control, you know, to make these kinds of decisions. Those protections come from a late 19th century law in the late 1800s called the Interstate Commerce Commission Act. And the man who passed the Interstate Commerce Commission lived in the Gilded Age. They lived in the world of Standard Oil and the Beef Trust and the Sugar Trust. And if you read the debates in Congress when that law was passed, they expressly talk about the Dangers of concentrated power in the hands of trusts. Right. And how it affects and infects government. I don't think they use that word, but I think they use the word oligarchy and oligarchs. And so when the FTC, pardon me, when Congress in 1914 passed the FTC act, they wanted similar protections that would protect commissioners from that corrupting power of money in government. And so they literally copy pasted that language over from the Interstate Commerce Commission act into the FTC Act. And frankly, I think that this is why this case is so important. It's not just about, hey, the law says I'm protected and I shall be protected. No, the fact that we are in a time when billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk like Mark Zuckerberg are exercising ever more power in our government. Our law was designed to insulate us from those kinds of influences. And that's why it's, I think it's a good, it's a really important case and I'm optimistic that we're going to win once, once it's finally resolved.

[C]

So I was hoping you could engage with or respond to some of the criticisms of Humphrey's executive, which conservative legal scholars for many years have been critical of. One you've alluded to, which is this idea that even a commissioner at an independent agency such as the FTC should be accountable to an unelected bureaucrat. Conservatives often say to the President who is the chief of the executive, and some of it is also agency specific, which is that the work of the FTC has changed so much since 1935. It engages in rulemakings, in administrative proceedings, all of this that it looks so different that that President can't hold in the current day. What's your response to some of those arguments?

[A]

So look, we are going to actively litigate this imminently. And so it's wise for me to keep a certain to zoom out quite a bit here, given the forthcoming litigation, but a couple thoughts. First of all, some of our most impactful work comes from what are called Market Studies, 6B Studies. And some of our most important cases are before the adjudicative bodies within the Federal Trade Commission, our administrative law judges, the Commission itself, when it acts as an appellate body within the Commission. Two quick examples. So we issued not one, but two separate interim reports about these, these little known commercial entities known as pharmacy benefit managers. This is the middle layer between insurers and pharmacies that in a world of a lot of vertical consolidation means that there's an insurer who owns a pharmacy benefit manager who has a dog in the fight in terms of the competition between pharmacies, Right? There used to be tons and tons in pharmacies. Now they've started dying and closing, allegedly because the pharmacy benefit managers are steering business to, surprise, surprise, their own pharmacies. And so one of the findings of this most recent staff interim report that was voted at 5, 0, by the way, this was a unanimous vote in the Federal Trade Commission, FTC staff found that certain, quote, unquote, specialty drugs, including cancer drugs, appear to have been marked up 4,000%. And those markups, of course, were most acute for the pharmacies, allegedly, that the PBMs, that the insurers and PBMs themselves owned. And so there's all sorts of information in this report that has made all sorts of waves in the economy, in markets and policy, because it seems to be backing up some of the allegations that independent pharmacists and others are making. That is the kind of market study that we do that is much more, I would say, legislative in nature and that we're shedding light on a problem so that a body like Congress may be able to act on it. Additionally, one of the most important cases I.e. before the Commission as an adjudicative body is a case involving allegations that those same entities, pharmacy benefit managers, are competing not to lower the price of insulin for the insured patients, but to raise their insured patients. And Commissioner Slaughter and I are actually only appellate judges in this matter because Chairman Ferguson and Commissioner Holyoke are accused. And so we are in this bizarre situation where we have no idea what happens to this case because both of the appellate judges, according to the President, are gone. And look, it's my judge to adjudicate the case. I don't know which way it will go, but I'm pretty sure the American public benefits from it being adjudicated one way or the other. And so I think I feel good about the record that will be built out in court as part of this lawsuit about the work we do being quite broad and some of our most important work being adjudicative and legislative in nature, which is why in 1935, the Humphreys executive Court, Supreme Court said, this is a quasi legislative and quasi judicial body. Sure, we've changed, but I think there's an important case to be made there. The other thing I'll stress is if you look at cellular law, which was one of the most recent cases, there's a lot of differentiation between the FTC and that case. Was about the CFPB director at the time. The fact that we are a multi member, bipartisan body. There is something special that happens, something legitimating that occurs. There's a legitimating function. Is that a word? Yes, it is. That is a word. Legitimating, that's a verb I can conjugate that way in having this bipartisan expert body. So I feel good. I'm going to leave it at that, though, so I don't get my lawyers annoyed at me.

[C]

No, that's certainly understandable. So you've touched on some of the. The practical realities of this kind of limbo period where the President is attempting to fire you and Commissioner Slaughter, you all are challenging it, and there's still ongoing business at the agency that you all were involved in. We, of course, are focused on the tech space. Wondering if you could talk a little bit about what do you see happening to some of the work in terms of regulating, enforcing in the tech sector in this time where there's going to be an ongoing legal challenge to the President's party.

[A]

Bill? Yeah. Let me point something out, because I've had very significant differences with the new chairman, Andrew Ferguson, but there are definitely scenarios where we are shoulder to shoulder on the same page. Probably foremost in that list is the need to hold Big Tech's feet to the fire. Okay. And he has said, to his great credit, despite the fact that Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos were behind the President at the inauguration, that he planned to bring it to Big Tech. I think he said it on Fox Business. And I thought, amen, that's fantastic. We're going to court with Meta around its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp next month. And so this is music to my ears. But here's the thing, Cristiano. In a world where the President can fire any commissioner for any reason at any time, it does not matter what Chairman Ferguson thinks and wants to do. It doesn't matter what my colleague, Commissioner Holyoke, thinks and wants to do. Because if a decree comes down from the White House or someone close to the President that says, hey, look, Jeff, you know, Mr. Bezos has two cases that the FTC is letting in. It'd be pretty great if that was just one case, right? Why don't you take, you know, knock one of those off the table? Why don't you settle it at a comfortable price for our friend right now? Again, let me take a step back. I'm not alleging this has happened, but I think it would be foolish to not Consider the root potential that this happens. And it doesn't matter if Chairman Ferguson wants to do it or not, because he has a choice. Either he obeys or he doesn't obey. And I fear that what the President is trying to do to me is what president will try to do to him if he doesn't obey. Now, someone listening might also say, well, Alvaro, why are you throwing around these accusations this way? And again, I'm not accusing that Amazon is actually pulling these strings in this way with respect to the ftc, I do think it is quite extraordinary that when there is a rich record suggesting that Amazon warehouse workers suffer injury rates 2x the industry average, that Senator Sanders issued a terrific report on this in mid December, got kind of lost in the transition. He alleged that Amazon workers who are injured went to the in house company healthcare provider and it was a company policy to turn them away from outside referrals for 21 days. Okay, you can look in Reddit and one of the things I like to do, I feel like maybe we talked about this at some point. I'm lurking in all sorts of Reddit forums and one of my favorite forums to work on is the Amazon Fulfillment center forum. And I saw this worker talking about how it was a picture of a vending machine that had ppe, but it also had not soda, not chips, but painkillers. Okay? And the injury, the injuries at Amazon warehouses are so bad that their vending machine warehouse floor are stocked with painkillers. And the person who was posting about it actually said, I'm out of my quantities and I'll explain that in a second. And I am screaming, my feet are killing me right now. Amazon warehouse workers saw a thread I did on this online, which hilariously, by the way, was one of the last public statements I made before I was fired. I think it's an interesting coincidence. And some of them pointed out, hey man, this stuff is free, but it's also capped, right? And so just consider how many injuries you need to experience that you need to dole out painkillers in the warehouse floor and you need to capture the amount of like Advil. And I'm not talking about fence, you know, about opiates here. I'm talking about Advil and aspirin you dole out on the warehouse floor. Okay? And yet, and yet, after $1 million from Amazon for the inauguration, after a what I think it'd be fair to say is a sweetheart deal for the first lady that the New York Post says will result in $20 million of, of money that flows to her pockets after, and I don't know if it's after Amazon, a deal to license the apprentices, but after those first two things, the new head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is none, none other than a former Amazon safety executive. So we would be foolish to not ask questions about what's going to happen to these tech cases in a world where commissioners can be fired for any reason at any time.

[C]

You've alluded to your Republican counterparts on the commissioner, Chair Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoke. The they both issued statements after you disclosed Trump's attempt to fire you all and they basically affirmed Chair Ferguson said he has no doubts about the president's constitutional authority to do this. Commissioner Holyoke also said that she believes he has the constitutional authority. What did you make of them backing up this attempt? And I'll note you and Commissioner Charlotte have been removed from the FTC website. You've been listed as formers. Now, what do you make of the fact that Republican leadership is standing by the president in this regard and what could that mean for some of the agency's activity going forward?

[A]

First of all, I don't care about the website. We've got an amazing public affairs team at the ftc and I don't want to make them put them in a position where either they listen to me and me and Commissioner Slaughter, of course, very much think we are still FTC commissioners versus listening to the White House Chairman Ferguson, you know, they're, they're just doing their jobs. And so I, I don't begrudge them any of that. Although, yes, it is funny to see an end date to my tenure when the attempt is very much illegal. And look, what do I make of Chairman Ferguson statement? I will let your readers, I will lead your readers to the same very interesting information I am aware of, which is when Senator Cantwell, Maria Cantwell, asked then Solicitor General Andrew Ferguson, then the nominee to be commissioner at the ftc, about what he thought about the for cause removal protections that apply to FTC commissioners under Humphrey's executor. I think this was question two in the questions for the record submitted as part of his nomination. He squarely answered that he thought Humphrey's executor look, it has been criticized, but it remains good law. And the Supreme Court has insisted that the only entity that can reverse the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court. And unless I've been asleep at the wheel here, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has not overruled Humphrey's executor in the intervening 90 years since it was issued in 1935. And so I don't mean to be too cute, but I agree with Solicitor General Ferguson that Humphrey's executor remains good. And I'm looking forward to making that clear in court.

[C]

You've said we are still commissioners. We are challenging to make, to have courts affirm this and to have this be known. I'm wondering, have you been in the building in FTC headquarters since Tuesday? Do you have access if there's a vote that's called, have you thought about showing up? How are you dealing with that aspect of it?

[A]

Yeah, two things. First of all, let's talk about what I'm not doing and then talking about what I'm doing so I can't get into my email, can't get in my calendar. Of course I'm not going to put the security guard in the position where need to either let me in the building and probably get in trouble with all sorts of folks or listen to the chairman, listen to the white. I'm not going to do that to those guys. Okay? That's not what I'm about. But look, so how am I doing my job? My plan is to do two things. I have said time and again. Commissioner Slaughter said time again, this is not about us, okay? This is about the billionaires over President Trump's shoulder at the inauguration. And this is about protecting the extraordinary public servants at the ftc. So what you're going to see from me are two things. First of all, I'm going to be out there telling the public about how amazing the FTC's work is, how if you care about being able to afford your groceries, your, your prescription medicine, how if you care about your kids privacy, if you care about your privacy, you need to care about the FTC's ability to stay an independent agency. So right before we hopped on this interview, Cristiano, I got online and just did like a 40 second video about our case against Amazon Alexa, where if you're a mom or dad, you may want to know that for years Alexa kept recording. Pardon me, Kept. Yeah, kept recordings of your kids forever. And that even when parents said, no, no, no, I need you to delete that one. Alexa kept transcripts of it. And one thing I said in this video is, guys, just think, does your kid need to say for you as a parent to stop and be like, oh, we need to delete that? And yet Amazon kept on holding onto those transcripts. And so you're going to see me telling and at the end of the video, I ask, hey, everyone, what's going to happen to cases like this in a world where billionaires hold ever more power and in a world where the president could fire a commissioner for any reason, anytime? And I think this question people need to grapple with. The other thing I'm going to be doing, Cristiano, is being out there meeting with the wonky word that we use as market participants. But I'm going to be meeting with small business leaders. I'm going to be meeting with workers. I'm going to be meeting consumers to find out the problems they're experiencing and lifting them up for the world. You do ask an interesting question. What if they start, you know, pulling, pulling back, you know, pulling back, settling cases for pennies on the dollar when if Commissioner Slaughter and I were there, we would have stopped that. That is a question I'm spending a lot of time thinking about because that is something that keeps me up at night.

[C]

You've talked about using the bully pulpit and getting the message out and talking about the agency's work. You were just in, in Denver at a rally with Senator Sanders and Representative Ocasio Cortez talking about the agency's work. I think it's fair to say it's not every day you see a FTC official standing on a platform in front of thousands of people, and you gave a very impassioned remarks about the agency's work. Talk a little bit more about the decision to do that and to make the case to the public in this moment.

[A]

Yeah, I see my job right now as being telling the American people about the extraordinary humans at the FTC and why we need to let them keep on working in an independent agency. There's all sorts of just ugly things, wrong things being said about my employees. You've got people who could in a heartbeat, in a snap of the fingers, go work for a corporate law firm making, you know, 500,000amillion dollars a year. Yet they believe in the work and stay on the job so they can fight fraud, so they can fight companies who think they could trap you and your kid any moment at any time to keep hospitals from being and driving up your hospital bills. And so when Senator Sanders team reached out and said, hey, would you consider speaking at this rally? It was an opportunity for me to tell tens of thousands of people about who the FTC is and how it was working for Colorado. For example, in Colorado, we stopped the Kroger Albertsons merger. And in each place in the country means something different in Colorado. It meant that there were these four separate supermarkets and really there were two owned by one company, two owned by the other company, King, Sooper, City Market, Albertsons and Safeway, that we're all going to become one company. And there was a rich evidentiary record suggesting there was going to jack up prices for people in Colorado and cut wages and jobs. The UFCW union workers in that state. And so any chance I have to tell the world to tell taxpayers about how the FTC works for them, I am going to take. Now, some people might say that was a political rally. Alvaro. In my speech, I addressed this squarely. This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is not about progressives versus conservatives. If it were, I would have not been on that stage. This is about whether this is going to be a country where we have rule of law versus a country where we have rule of billionaires. And that is something that left middle people who are totally checked out of politics care about. And so that is why I did what I did. And, yeah, you give me a bully pulpit to tell people about how amazing my employees are. I will take it seven days of the week. And it was. It was quite an experience. But I think it's important to use that fully public to tell the public about that work.

[C]

You're also touching on the ability to publicly express dissent, and that's a key piece here, which is that the FTC was poised to likely soon have a Republican majority. The president has appointed Mark Medder to serve on the agency. And so if, when confirmed, that would give Republicans a 3, 2 majority. If that had gone down. And now it's a situation where I'm wondering if you could speak to what is the significance of there potentially not being Democrats on the commission, which. So Republicans could, in theory, with three, do what they want anyway. What is the significance of having a minority member on the commission that can speak out?

[A]

Yeah, and I want to. I'm really grateful for the chance to answer this question because I want to make sure we don't answer in terms of Democrat versus Republican, because if you're a Republican, you need to care about this, too, because eventually Democrats will be in the presidency again. And it's not just Republicans that have issues with money in politics and money in government. One of the things that really shocked me was in the last election when Vice President Harris refused to say that she would keep Chair Khan in office if she were elected. Say what you will about Chair Khan, what she did, the work she had at the FTC was wildly popular among an Extraordinary cross section of Americans. Right? You know, we sued pesticides manufacturing, pardon me, brand pesticides manufacturers, crop control product makers who were trying to, in our view, anti competitively elbow out generics from the market. Now, you're a farmer, you really care about your ability to get cheap crop control products. Right. You know, under chair Khan, we sued we suing John Deere for screwing over farmers and ranchers and making it locking down their software such that it's impossible to fix your own tractor or even take it to the guy you know down the street who's fixed your family's tractors for generations. No, no, no. Thanks to that software being locked down, you got to go take it to the dealership. And everyone knows that when you take a car, a vehicle to the dealership, you're going to pay more for than when you take it to your local auto body shop. And so those are just two examples. Subscription traps. We're trying to end that ridiculous thing where you do two clicks and you sign up for a subscription and then you find that you need to spend an hour and a half on hold to cancel it over the phone. So this is the kind of stuff that Sharecom did. Wildly popular. So my wife is from Louisiana. I spend a lot of time down in Louisiana, particularly kids, spring breaks, kids, summer breaks. And let me tell you, I got a lot of Republican family members down there and I got a lot of really conservative family members down there. They asked me what I do, I tell them about those cases. There is not one person at the end of the conversation who's, oh, yeah, that's great. And yet Vice President Harris would not sign on the dotted line. And what that's about, I'm afraid, is money in politics is those billionaire donors who are contributing to her campaign. So why should you want a minority commissioner in office in a world where the president can fire someone at any point anytime? I fear you're going to have those edicts come down from the White House of, hey, go easy on this merger. Hey, or rather go hard on that merger, right? Oh, hasn't been kind to us. Why don't you shut that down? In that world, the minority commissioner, whatever party, the minority commissioner is going to be able to blow a whistle to stop that. They're going to be able to go to Capitol Hill. They're going to be able to warn the public about what might happen. And that's just one of any number of examples of why it's so important to have minority shooters there.

[C]

I know you've both spoken about this Somewhat. But what's the concern level that we could see this happen? There have already been some firings at a number of agencies that we could see this at other sort of independent regulatory agencies like the Federal Communications Commissions or others that are structured on a sort of independent, bipartisan basis.

[A]

Some of the independent agencies have different levels of protections than we do. The National Labor Relations Board has. I forget I haven't put the statute side by side. Very comparable for cause protections, if not the same for cause protections. Other agencies have different protections. But like you mentioned, fcc, they look at mergers as well. Right. They make critical decisions about spectrum. Right. And so there is every reason to worry about a world where our political system, which is already soaked in billionaires money, can reach down to those agencies and tell them to do X, Y or Z. Regardless of whether you're a Democrat or Republican or independent, it is the same concern writ large across the system.

[C]

I would say you've talked about how certainly there was a lot of hope for bipartisanship on tech issues at the agency. We've heard of the Republican leadership talk about this as well. But I think there's been a lot of attention on the enforcement side and perhaps less so on the regulatory side. Chair Ferguson just recently did an interview on CNBC where he talked about how he sees the FTC as a cop on the beat and not a regulator. A lot of the activity that the FTC has done in recent years has included rulemakings and other things, like the commercial surveillance rulemaking that started under Chair Khan's tenure. Wondering if you could talk about, are you concerned at all about some of those regulatory efforts to grapple with the power of the tech sector and major tech companies receding under the Trump administration? President Trump has been very vocal in talking about wanting to pare back the regulations and boost innovation in some of these sectors. So what might that look like? And does the direction there concern you?

[A]

So am I worried that they're going to pare back some of the regulations? Absolutely. And I am sympathetic. In this job, I've gotten to know a lot of small business owners, not just grocers and pharmacists, who obviously deal with stuff that's like life and death, to be honest, with your food, your health. Right. But also like entrepreneurs. One of the meetings that I had a couple of months ago was just with this entrepreneur, Some More Entrepreneurs organization. And what was really cool about this group is it was every kind of entrepreneur. You had people with landscaping businesses, you had people who were in construction, you had people who Ran electronics businesses, TV media companies, documentary filmmakers. And look, all of these are companies that probably have, you know, that are not billionaire companies, right? They've got staffs of maybe five or 10 or 15 people. These are small businesses. And when those folks look at me and say, hey, Alvaro, we're not the biggest fans of regulation, I am sympathetic to that, right? But I would urge anyone to. And by the way, why am I sympathetic to it? Because who does, who is really good at complying with regulations or should be really good or at least has the staff for it and doesn't sweat it that much? The billionaire companies, right? They're the ones who can have those legal offices of dozens or hundreds of people. They can hire those fancy law firms. It's the small businesses that get stuck with that annoying tab. But let's look at some of the rulemakings we're talking about, right? We have a rulemaking on non competes, but we preserve trade secrets, right? We preserve agreements to not go and poach, you know, your old employer's clients. Our rulemaking on subscription fees, right? No one in that room, pardon me, on click the cancel on subscription traps, that thing where you got to cancel over the phone, even they sign up on the Internet. No one in that room was like, oh yes, that's really going to put a crimp in my style. These are not, these are not businesses that are trying to trap people in month to month subscriptions by, by putting them on hold for 90 minutes, right? These are people who are accountable to the communities that they operate in, the clients they have, because their clients are their neighbors. And if you trap your neighbor in a subscription trap, you're going to hear about it on the weekend when you're at soccer practice, right? And so I feel good about the rulemakings we've put out. It would be a shame if Chairman Ferguson and my colleagues walked them back. You know, my hope is that look, and some of the rules were supported. I think our junk fees rule came out for one, because we paired it back to just live events and travel. And so this idea that we were out there wielding this machete, regulatory, I don't know, whatever metaphor you want to pick, that we were out there just doing whatever the heck we wanted, I don't think aligns with reality. And so I'm hopeful that doesn't happen.

[C]

So under the law, there can be no more than three members of the same party on the commission at the time. It does not explicitly state that the other members need to be members of the minority Party. So one scenario that could happen here is that the president could appoint independents to the vacancies he's trying to create by ousting you both. Does that concern you, that prospect that he will appoint sort of a faux opposition?

[A]

That is absolutely a concern. And what I would say to that is my reading of the Supreme Court cases about for cause removal protections, but also bipartisan bodies. Is that the reason a bipartisan body matters is for the conflict? Right. It is for the sharpening of opinions on both sides and strengthening the actions the commission takes regardless of whether or not you have agreement. I saw this time and again when we had Commissioner Wilson and Commissioner Phillips on the commission that our work would be stronger because Commissioner Phillips, Commissioner Wilson, they are pretty darn smart. These are brilliant lawyers. Much as I occasionally disagree with them or disagree with them strongly. Their presence made our work in the majority stronger because we had to reconcile with their disagreements. And often we made changes in response. Look, most recently with Commissioner, then Commissioner Ferguson and then Commissioner Holyoke and the junk fees rule and how it turned out, much pared down from its original offer. And so I would. That would be such a shame if, quote, unquote, independents were on the commission. Now, look, am I adverse to bona fide independence being on the commission, people who are actually thinking for themselves? I'm not. One of the most extraordinary commissioners we had was Pamela Jones Harbor. And if I'm not mistaken, and I may be mistaken, it's been a week, Cristiano. I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure she was an independent. And let me tell you, there was a dissent in the Google double click matter that Commissioner Pamela Jones harbor wrote that I read about, like once every three or four months because it warned about this intersection of market power and commercial surveillance that I frankly think we haven't quite fully reckoned with even today. So absolutely, look, bona fide independent voices, amen. I'm all about it. Quote, unquote, independents who are actually just agreeing and in lockstep with the majority. That's not what the American public needs to protect them.

[C]

I know we're coming up on time, so I just wanted to put it to you. What should folks in this space be watching for next year and what should we expect from you all?

[A]

Let me suggest one thing to watch for and then one thing to do. In terms of things to watch for, I would look at what gets rolled back. If you think that Chairman Ferguson and Commissioner Holyuk are the only members of the current Federal Trade Commission, as they said, they do and as the President says he thinks, then they, in their eyes, have a majority, that they can settle any case. They can either petition to modify a settlement or withdraw a settlement. If it's a commission settlement, there's all sorts of changes they can make. And so watch for those pulling back of lawsuits, of settlements, of orders, that kind of thing. And if you're hearing this and, and you're sympathetic to Commissioner Slaughter and myself, and more importantly, the work of the ftc, take a moment and reach out. If you have an FTC employee in your life, reach out to them, reach out to any federal employee and just tell them what they mean to you, what their work means to you. These are people who get up in the morning and they think about protecting the American people. You know, they don't think about, oh, how am I going to make my next million, where is my next beach house going to be? And what are the drapes going to be like, you know, in my sitting room, right? These are people who get up and sue the Martin Shkrelis and Jeff Bezos of the world for pennies on the dollar, what they could make in the private sector. And yet they're getting emails calling them low productivity and casting all sorts of aspersions on them. And let me tell you that for me, getting those little tiny notes of support in my email, you know, on social media, they matter. And so I don't want that all to just be aimed at me and Commissioner Slaughter. I want the FTC employees out there and the federal servants out, the public servants out there to get those messages as well.

[C]

Alvaro, thank you so much for joining us and taking the time. I really appreciate it.

[A]

Thank you, Cristiano. And thank you, Tech Policy Press, for the amazing work all of you do every day. It's terrific work and I've been following it for some time.

[B]

That's it for this episode. I hope you'll send your feedback. You can write to me at JustInEckPolicy Press. Thanks to Cristiano Lima Strong. Thanks to my co founder, Brian Jones. Thank you for listening.

[A]

Tech Policy Press.