You are confusing the DOJ (here) and the FTC (lina). Lina in fact, has repeatedly lost in court and is widely viewed, by both antitrust hawks and doves alike,

You are confusing the DOJ (here) and the FTC (lina). Lina in fact, has repeatedly lost in court and is widely viewed, by both antitrust hawks and doves alike, as being remarkably ineffective. You'd be very hard pressed to compare her record to any effective FTC chair (IE in reigning things in) and say "yeah she's doing great" Instead, she's showboated and lost repeatedly, which has only emboldened most companies who feel that she is so inept that they having nothing to fear. In fact, she's lost so much she has been getting asked if she's doing it on purpose to try to get more power (lol): https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4490640-internal-ftc-emails-show-ftcs-khan-is-actually-trying-to-win-by-losing/ https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4490640-internal-ftc-ema... Career FTC employess, who (despite what HN may think) are very very good lawyers and very good at antitrust law, have no faith in her "honesty and integrity": "The annual OPM poll of federal employees shows morale and respect for the “honesty and integrity” of FTC leadership plunging from the highest level among federal agencies to the lowest levels under Khan." That's not really a great sign. The biggest win they've had is basically "A settlement that blocked anticompetitive harms of pharma giant Amgen’s $28bn acquisition drug maker Horizon" In the same time period, they lost 6 much more major cases in a row (microsoft/activision, etc). That's unheard of. If you want someone who cares about the press, and will file lawsuits at the drop of a hat, take Lina. If you want someone who is actually going to achieve meaningful change, she ain't your person. I'd rather have an FTC that anyone is actually afraid of.