After six years without facing an oversight hearing or a serious check from Congress, Senator Ted Cruz is finally bringing the Federal Trade Commission back under the spotlight on Wednesday, and not a moment too soon.
As Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, Cruz deserves real credit for convening this week’s FTC oversight hearing. Ever since the Biden era, when unelected regulators stretched their authority further and further, strong oversight has become essential. Sen. Cruz has long been one of the sharpest voices on antitrust and administrative overreach, and this hearing is exactly the kind of leadership Washington has been missing.
If there’s one question he should press harder than any other, it’s this: Why is the FTC still spending taxpayer money pursuing leftover cases from the Biden FTC Chair Lina Khan era that would never hold up in court?
As National Constitutional Law Union founder John Pierce recently wrote, “It seems that Khan set out to ram through as many complaints as possible before her chairwomanship came to an end. One case was filed the day before the 2024 election, and nearly 10, if not more, followed before Jan. 20, 2025. Three of these are still pending with the FTC.”
We’re through the first quarter of 2026 now, so why are these Biden/Khan cases still on the docket? And what can the FTC do to get rid of them faster so that the commission can focus more on the Trump administration’s antitrust priorities?
This is the question that Ted Cruz must get answered.
To be clear, Khan wasn’t wrong about everything. She was right to take a harder look at genuinely bad actors, especially in Big Tech. Americans across the political spectrum have concerns about companies that abuse their power, and stronger enforcement — done properly — can be a good thing.
But Khan, a radical progressive who went on to co-chair New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s transition team, didn’t stop there. This egalitarian-minded leftist appeared to hate all successful businesses, not just the bad ones, and made it her seeming mission to shrink as many of them as she could. For this reason, her FTC often treated even the businesses delivering lower prices and clear benefits to consumers as suspect.
That’s where things went off the rails. She tried to remake the U.S. economy from a capitalist engine of growth into something closer to a managed, quasi-socialist model, where businesses aren’t allowed to scale freely, but are instead cut down to size in the name of leveling outcomes.
Last week, Breitbart News reporter Lucas Nolan shined a spotlight on one of the three Biden cases that remain on the books, which is a legitimate problem: the Southern Glazer’s case, which is still actively making its way through the court. This case is particularly egregious because it’s the only one of the three that will directly impact the cost of goods consumers need to pay for at the checkout counter.
American families love buying in bulk. Whether it’s stocking up at Costco, grabbing essentials at Walmart, or getting discounts as a regular customer, people like paying less when they buy more. It’s common sense. It stretches household budgets and makes everyday life more affordable.
Yet, in the Southern Glazer’s case, Khan tried to minimize this practice for businesses by expanding a law meant to stop predatory pricing.
This is ludicrous. As long as the same bulk pricing deal is offered to everyone, there is nothing predatory about a supplier giving discounted rates to companies that buy more from them. That translates into lower prices for their consumers. That is why Trump FTC Chair Ferguson (then just an FTC commissioner) dissented when Khan brought this case, writing that the FTC had exercised its discretion “poorly by bringing the case,” and would likely not prevail “even on its own theory.”
And yet the case has continued onward.
What’s happened only reinforces the concern. In recent filings, the FTC has admitted it doesn’t have a single example of consumer or business harm, instead falling back on the vague claim that “discovery is ongoing.” That’s a troubling place to be when taxpayer dollars are funding the effort.
To his credit, Ferguson has already begun unwinding parts of the Khan agenda. But more needs to be done. That starts with taking a hard look at the cases that never should have been brought in the first place, like this one that Breitbart highlighted last week.
Sen. Cruz’s hearing is the perfect opportunity to demand answers: Why are these cases still active? What are they costing taxpayers? And what legitimate legal theory justifies continuing them when the evidence of harm simply isn’t there?
The FTC shouldn’t go soft on business — not by a long shot — but it needs to be smarter about enforcement.
Going after bad actors is good policy. Going after businesses and business practices that help families save money is not. That just leads to the Trump administration not having as much time, money, and resources to hold Big Tech and other predatory actors accountable.
Sen. Cruz understands that distinction. This week, he has a chance to make sure the FTC does too.
Ashley Clapper Bennett, J.D., is an attorney with Corbin, Stapler & Clapper, PC. She is a member of the Central Texas Republican Women and Texas Federation of Republican Women and a former candidate for the 146th Judicial District Court.