DOJ Antitrust Chief Gail Slater Ousted, Sources Say

Gail Slater, who led the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division for nearly a year, was forced out of her post the week of Feb. 12, 2026, according to two people familiar with the matter. Sources told CNN the dismissal followed months of friction between Slater, Attorney General Pam Bondi and the White House. Slater posted on X that she was leaving with sadness and hope, while Bondi issued a terse departmental thank-you. The change removes a senior official who had pushed for aggressive enforcement against major technology firms and raises questions about upcoming merger reviews.

Key Takeaways

• Gail Slater served as head of the DOJ Antitrust Division for nearly one year and was removed in mid-February 2026, per two sources.
• Internal tensions were reported between Slater, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and officials in the West Wing over enforcement priorities.
• Bondi released a brief statement thanking Slater for her service; Slater posted a farewell on X that framed her departure as voluntary.
• Slater had pushed for tougher actions against big tech; the division has pursued high-profile matters involving Apple and Google in recent years.
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren publicly criticized the ouster, calling it indicative of possible corruption and urging congressional oversight.
• The move could affect pending and imminent merger reviews, including the high-profile Warner Bros./HBO sale to Netflix and related franchise bids.
• Details about Slater’s permanent successor and the administration’s long-term antitrust strategy remain unsettled.

Background

The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Justice Department enforces federal competition laws through civil and criminal litigation and merger review. In recent years the division has launched major actions against technology firms such as Apple and Google, signaling renewed federal scrutiny of platform power. Slater, appointed less than a year earlier, was widely reported inside the department as advocating vigorous enforcement of conduct and merger cases affecting digital markets.

Slater’s tenure unfolded against a politically charged backdrop in which the White House and influential private-sector actors have frequently weighed in on regulatory and enforcement decisions. Antitrust enforcement is inherently political because it shapes market structure, investor returns and corporate strategy, making leadership stability in the division consequential. Internal disagreements over priorities and prosecutorial tactics are not unusual, but removals of senior antitrust officials generate heightened scrutiny because of the division’s gatekeeping role on major transactions.

Main Event

According to two people familiar with the situation, the Trump administration moved this week to remove Slater from her post as Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. The sources told CNN the step followed months of strained relations with Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House advisers. Slater’s departure was signaled publicly by her own post on X, where she said she was leaving the role with sadness and hope.

Bondi’s statement thanked Slater for her service and highlighted the division’s mission to protect consumers and promote economic opportunity, but stopped short of a full endorsement of Slater’s record. Inside the department, Slater was known for urging an assertive posture toward tech platforms and for pursuing both civil and criminal lines when warranted. Colleagues and outside observers described her as pushing cases that could test the administration’s tolerance for confronting influential industry players.

The personnel change comes as the Antitrust Division prepares to weigh contentious merger matters. One prominent pending matter involves the proposed sale of the Warner Bros. studio and HBO to Netflix, a transaction contested by Paramount and others. The division’s approach to that and similar cases will be closely watched by competitors, investors and lawmakers because enforcement decisions can materially affect prices, market concentration and innovation incentives.

Analysis & Implications

Leadership turnover at the Antitrust Division often signals a potential shift in enforcement emphasis. Removing an official who prioritized aggressive action against large tech firms could slow or reshape certain investigations and merger reviews, at least temporarily. A new leader—if more deferential to industry—could narrow the scope of cases pursued or favor negotiated settlements over litigation.

The political optics are significant. Critics argue that the timing and manner of Slater’s exit raise concerns about political interference in law enforcement decisions, particularly where influential companies maintain ties to the administration. Supporters of the change may frame it as routine personnel management. Either way, markets and litigants factor in enforcement predictability; uncertainty about the division’s leadership can affect deal structuring and bidding behavior.

For ongoing high-profile matters, including disputes around content and studio sales, the interim leadership and the eventual permanent appointee will shape procedural timetables and likely legal theories pursued. If the administration names a successor aligned with industry preferences, some mergers could face less aggressive challenges; conversely, a like-minded replacement could maintain current trajectories. Congressional oversight is likely to follow, with Democrats—led by lawmakers such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren—demanding explanations.

Comparison & Data

The table summarizes notable matters tied to the division’s recent docket. While not exhaustive, it highlights that the Antitrust Division has been active across platform, media and corporate conduct arenas; leadership changes can influence whether cases proceed to trial, settle, or are dismissed.

Reactions & Quotes

“On behalf of the Department of Justice, we thank Gail Slater for her service to the Antitrust Division which works to protect consumers, promote affordability, and expand economic opportunity.”

Pam Bondi, Attorney General (department statement)

“It is with great sadness and abiding hope that I leave my role as AAG for Antitrust today. It was indeed the honor of a lifetime to serve in this role.”

Gail Slater (X post)

“This looks like corruption,”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (public statement)

Bondi’s brief expression of thanks framed the departure as routine, while Slater’s own message emphasized pride in service and a forward-looking tone. Senator Warren framed the removal as politically fraught and called for congressional inquiry, signaling likely partisan scrutiny in hearings or requests for documents.

Unconfirmed

• No official announcement has named Slater’s permanent successor; interim leadership arrangements have not been publicly detailed.
• Reported back-channel pressure from industry executives or direct White House orders influencing the removal have not been independently verified.
• Details about the extent to which Slater’s docket will be altered under new leadership remain speculative pending formal policy statements.

Bottom Line

The removal of Gail Slater from the Antitrust Division is consequential because it occurs at a moment of intense scrutiny of tech platforms and major media transactions. Leadership shifts can materially alter enforcement posture, potentially affecting litigation choices and merger outcomes that shape markets and consumer prices.

In the near term, stakeholders should watch for the naming of an interim and permanent replacement, the division’s handling of pending high-profile reviews, and any congressional follow-up. Transparent explanations from the department and timely oversight will be central to assessing whether this was routine turnover or a politically driven intervention with broader policy consequences.

Sources

• CNN — news report (media)