A New Day at the FTC

A new day at the FTC

Author:

The Carta Policy Team

|

Read time:

6 minutes

Published date:

March 21, 2025

Trump fires FTC commissioners, testing executive power. SEC eases Marketing compliance for private funds and continues to take steps toward crypto policy framework.

The Topline:

Trump ousts Dem FTC Commissioners, expanding power over independent agencies

“President Trump has the lawful authority to manage personnel within the executive branch…President Trump will continue to rid the federal government of bad actors unaligned with his common-sense agenda the American people decisively voted for.”

—White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers

On March 18, President Trump fired the two Democratic commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. With this action, the President is testing his legal authority and further eroding political norms; revamping the FTC and its policy agenda; and sending a signal that will reverberate across other independent federal agencies, including the SEC.

Background: The FTC is charged with protecting customers from unfair or deceptive business practices and from unfair methods of competition. This description may sound innocuous and like that from your High School Student Council Advisory Board for Procedures on the Mock Court Club, but the reality is the FTC’s remit is powerful and far-reaching, touching everything from a company’s business practices and products, to privacy and data security, to mergers and acquisitions.

FTC leadership: In theory, the FTC is led by five commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President chooses one Commissioner to serve as Chair, and no more than three Commissioners can be of the same political party. In practice, the political party that controls the White House has a 3-2 majority and designates the chair, but the President agrees to nominate two commissioners recommended by the opposition party. In reality, today there are two Republican-backed Commissioners: Melissa Holyoak and Chairman Andrew Ferguson (who also affirmed the President’s authority).

What does this mean? Personnel is policy. And with this action, President Trump is exerting even more control over personnel at even independent agencies—even if it is not clear he has the legal authority for such actions.

Broader administrative state: Operationally, the FTC looks a lot like, well, the SEC. If the President’s actions on the FTC stand, it will reaffirm his control over other agencies and their authority. We could see this reflected in an SEC agenda that has ramifications on a private markets agenda that although has areas of bipartisan support on expanding investor access and access to capital, may become more partisan and as a result less successful and permanent, particularly if the pendulum swings the other direction in 2028.

Bottom line : The FTC’s antitrust agenda will be less aggressive than the Biden Administration, but still forceful. With that said, expect uncertainty around rulemaking and operations as courts consider the President’s power. And—especially if this action is upheld—expect an increasingly transitory policy framework that swings more rapidly between administrations given the increasing power held in the executive.

SEC issues new Marketing Rule guidance

The SEC updated its Marketing Rule guidance to address a major friction point for private fund managers with respect to extracted performance. Under the new guidance, funds are now permitted to use gross performance metrics at the investment level so long as:

The updated guidance also clarified that certain non-performance investment characteristics can be shown on a gross basis so long as the nature of the metric is clearly labeled and gross and net performance of the entire portfolio is also displayed.

Why it matters: The new guidance is a welcome reprieve for fund managers. Previous staff guidance required private fund managers to show gross and net performance for extracted performance, which required private fund managers to devise strategies to assign portfolio-level fees at the individual investment level—a source of frustration for fund managers and confusion for investors. Many funds will likely adapt their marketing materials to show performance in accordance with the new guidance, but should take care to ensure they are meeting the other requirements of the rule.

Quick hits: