DOJ Antitrust Nominee Questioned on Past Writings, FCC Actions

Adam Candeub, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Justice's antitrust division, faced sharp questioning from senators on Wednesday during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The hearing focused on his past controversial writings and his recent work as general counsel at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Nominee Defends Past Statements

Democratic senators pressed Candeub on an article in which he wrote that "Muslim immigrants and their children seem prone not only to terrorism, but to cultural separatism." When asked if he stood by the statement, Candeub defended the writing as part of a defense of President Trump's travel ban.

"I wrote those articles in defense of Donald Trump’s travel ban, which protects against terrorism," Candeub said, according to a Reuters report of the hearing. "And I thought that terrorism continues to be a tremendous threat to all Americans."

Scrutiny Over FCC Actions

The nominee also faced questions from Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana regarding the FCC's authority over political speech. The exchange came amid criticism of the FCC's decision to order an early license review of eight ABC stations owned by Disney (DIS), a move that followed pressure from the president over the network's content.

Ad

Candeub stated that the FCC has the authority to regulate broadcasters in the public interest, a standard determined by law and precedent. Senator Kennedy expressed concern, asking, "Doesn’t that scare you? ... What if the FCC is in the hands of someone whose politics you disagree with?"

Implications for Antitrust Policy

If confirmed, Candeub would lead the Justice Department's powerful antitrust division, which is responsible for policing anticompetitive business practices and reviewing major mergers and acquisitions (M&A). His confirmation could have significant implications for corporate deal-making and competition enforcement.

When asked about his approach to antitrust law, Candeub indicated a preference for non-intervention. He told the committee that "free markets generally have the answer" and that "the evidence must be strong" to justify bringing an enforcement case.