If you’ve ever stared at a checkout page and wondered why a “$29 ticket” turns into a $47 ticket after “convenience,” “service,” and “we-can-because-we-can” fees… you’ve already met the problem this executive order tried to tackle. President Joe Biden’s competition executive orderbest known as Executive Order 14036was a sweeping attempt to push the federal government to do something that sounds simple but is notoriously hard: make markets act like markets again.

The order didn’t magically turn every industry into a farmers’ market where everyone smiles and prices are written on chalkboards. What it did do was set a tone, create a to-do list across dozens of agencies, and encourage tougher antitrust enforcementespecially around mergers, worker mobility, and industry practices that make it harder to compare prices. It also triggered a wave of rulemaking, guidance, and enforcement activity that lasted well beyond the headline day it was signed.

What the “Biden competition EO” actually was

Signed on July 9, 2021, Executive Order 14036 (“Promoting Competition in the American Economy”) framed rising concentration as a pocketbook issue: fewer choices, higher prices, and weaker wage growth when employers or dominant firms have too much leverage. The order explicitly called for a “whole-of-government” approachmeaning antitrust cops (DOJ and FTC) weren’t the only ones asked to show up. Transportation, Agriculture, Treasury, Health and Human Services, the FCC, and others were nudged (sometimes shoved) to use their existing authority to encourage more competitive outcomes.

The EO also created a White House Competition Council to coordinate agency efforts and track progress. Translation: “We’re not just announcing thiswe’re scheduling meetings about it.” And yes, in Washington, that is a form of cardio.

The biggest idea: competition policy isn’t just antitrust lawsuits

Traditionally, when people hear “antitrust,” they think of blockbuster merger trials and courtroom showdowns. The Biden EO broadened the definition of “competition policy” to include a mix of:

• Stronger antitrust enforcement (DOJ/FTC merger challenges, investigations, and updated guidelines)
• Rulemaking aimed at lowering switching costs and improving transparency
• Sector regulation (airlines, broadband, agriculture, healthcare, finance) designed to reduce friction and boost choice
• Labor market focus (noncompetes, wage-fixing, no-poach agreements)

That mix mattered because markets can be “uncompetitive” for more than one reason. Sometimes it’s a merger. Sometimes it’s a dominant platform squeezing rivals. And sometimes it’s just a maze of fine print that makes it impossible to compare optionslike buying plane tickets with a calculator in one hand and a stress ball in the other.

How the EO tried to supercharge antitrust enforcement

1) A louder green light to DOJ and FTC

The EO urged “vigorous” enforcement and pointed agencies toward modern antitrust concerns: labor markets, serial acquisitions (“roll-ups”), data-driven market power, and platform dominance. It also encouraged scrutiny of “prior bad mergers,” reflecting a willingness to revisit older consolidation patterns that might have slipped through in earlier eras.

2) Merger review got sharperand more demanding

One tangible legacy was the DOJ/FTC 2023 Merger Guidelines, released as a consolidated statement of how the agencies analyze competitive harm. The guidelines emphasize multiple theories of harmhorizontal, vertical, potential competition, labor-market effects, and patterns of consolidation.

Whether you love or loathe those guidelines, they signaled a more skeptical posture toward consolidation. For dealmakers, the message was: “Bring more receipts.” For enforcers, it was: “Use more tools.”

3) Guidance didn’t stay frozen in the year 2000

Antitrust isn’t only about mergers. It’s also about how firms behave. A notable post-EO development was the move toward updating guidance around competitor collaboration (think: information sharing, joint ventures, and modern data/algorithm-driven pricing tools). As markets evolved, regulators pushed to modernize the guardrails.

The broader point: the EO helped normalize the idea that antitrust enforcement should keep pace with how businesses actually operate in 2026where “pricing advice” can come from software, and coordination can happen without anyone ever saying the quiet part out loud.

Labor markets: the EO treated workers like “market participants,” not scenery

One of the most distinct features of the Biden competition agenda was its attention to labor-market competition. If an employer (or a small group of employers) can limit worker mobility, wages can stagnate even if the overall economy is growing. The EO highlighted several practices regulators increasingly view as anti-competitive:

• Noncompete agreements used far beyond executives and trade-secret-heavy roles
• No-poach arrangements where firms agree not to hire each other’s workers
• Wage-fixing and collusive conduct that suppresses compensation

The headline attempt here was the FTC’s 2024 Noncompete Ruleintended to ban most post-employment noncompetes nationwide. But the implementation story shows a recurring theme of the era: aggressive policy goals, followed by aggressive litigation. Courts blocked enforcement, and later the FTC took steps to end its appeal and shift toward case-by-case enforcement instead.

Even so, the EO’s labor-market emphasis didn’t vanish. It influenced enforcement priorities, interagency cooperation, and how regulators talk about “competition” in plain language: not just cheaper stuff, but better bargaining power for people selling their labor.

Consumer-facing competition: transparency, switching, and “junk fees”

A market can look competitive on paper while still behaving like a locked roomespecially when consumers can’t compare prices up front or face big penalties for switching. The EO pushed agencies to reduce those friction points.

Airline fee transparency (and the court battles that followed)

The Department of Transportation issued a rule requiring airlines and ticket agents to disclose certain ancillary fees up frontchecked bags, carry-ons, and change/cancellation feesso consumers could compare total cost while shopping. It was an attempt to force competition on the “real price,” not the teaser price.

The catch: airlines challenged it, and the rule got tied up in court. Over time, litigation and procedural rulings limited and ultimately vacated the rule. The policy goaltransparent, comparable pricingremained popular. The legal pathway, however, got potholes. Big potholes.

The FTC’s “Junk Fees” rule for tickets and lodging

Another major transparency effort landed at the FTC: a final rule targeting deceptive fee practices in live-event ticketing and short-term lodging. The rule doesn’t outlaw fees entirely, but it aims to prevent bait-and-switch pricing by requiring clearer total-price disclosure. The competitive logic is straightforward: when total prices are visible early, honest pricing competes betterand “mystery math” competes worse.

Sector-by-sector: what “whole-of-government” looked like in real life

The EO’s genius (and headache) was its breadth. Rather than betting everything on a handful of antitrust lawsuits, it pushed many agencies to take smaller but meaningful steps. Here are some of the most illustrative areas.

Healthcare and prescription drugs: competition as cost control

The EO encouraged action on high drug prices and limited competitionareas shaped by patents, rebate structures, and consolidation. HHS and related agencies produced reports and plans aimed at improving affordability and competition, including attention to excessive pricing and market dynamics in healthcare.

Practical example: competition policy here isn’t just “sue a monopolist.” It can mean enabling alternatives, reducing administrative barriers, and making sure dominant intermediaries can’t quietly steer the market through opaque contracts.

Hearing aids: a concrete affordability win

One of the most consumer-visible results associated with the EO-era competition push was the creation of an over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid category. The FDA finalized rules establishing OTC hearing aids for adults with perceived mild to moderate hearing loss, allowing purchase without a prescription or in-person fitting.

It’s not flashy like a tech antitrust trial, but it’s the kind of change that competition policy is supposed to deliver: more entry, more options, and lower costs in a category that had long been expensive and gatekept.

Broadband: “nutrition labels” for internet plans

Shopping for internet service has historically felt like deciphering a menu where half the prices are “market price” and the other half are “call for details.” The FCC’s broadband consumer labelsoften described as broadband “nutrition labels”were designed to standardize key information like price, speeds, and fees so consumers could compare plans more easily.

This is competition policy by spreadsheet: it doesn’t attack a firm directly, but it changes the information environment so the best deal has a fighting chance to be understood.

Agriculture and right-to-repair: power isn’t only about price tags

The EO highlighted agriculture as a sector where consolidation can squeeze farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. It pointed to enforcement of rules that limit unfair practices and supported efforts aligned with right-to-repairespecially where equipment restrictions can lock customers into costly service channels.

In competitive terms, repair restrictions can behave like a hidden monopoly: the product may be “for sale,” but the service ecosystem is locked down. Allowing independent repair and parts access can increase competition and reduce lifecycle costs, which matters in industries where equipment is a multi-year bet.

Alcohol markets and distribution: when structure shapes choice

Treasury’s analysis of competition in beer, wine, and spirits markets illustrated another idea: competition isn’t only about brand rivalry; it’s also about distribution, market access, and regulatory structure. When a small number of gatekeepers control shelf space and routes to market, entry becomes hardereven if the product itself is great.

So… did it work?

The most honest answer is: it depended on what you measure, and when. The EO wasn’t a single law passed by Congress; it was an executive directive pushing agencies to use their existing powers. That means results showed up unevenly:

• Some initiatives produced durable rule changes (like OTC hearing aids and certain transparency rules).
• Some collided with courts (like the FTC noncompete rule and parts of airline fee transparency).
• Some shifted enforcement culture (how agencies frame mergers, labor markets, and platform dominance).

Another reality: competition policy is slow. A merger case can take years. Market structures evolve over decades. And even successful enforcement often changes incentives more than it changes headlines.

Still, the EO made competition a mainstream policy lens again. It encouraged agencies to treat market power as a cause of real-life frustrationshigh prices, low wages, confusing billsrather than an abstract academic problem.

What changed after the EO was revokedand what didn’t

A key update for anyone tracking this topic today: Executive Order 14036 was revoked on August 13, 2025. That revocation marked a clear political shift in how the White House wanted to frame competition policy.

But revoking an EO doesn’t automatically erase everything that happened because of it. Many initiatives were implemented through agency rules, guidance, and enforcement actions that have their own legal footing. Some continue. Some are being revised. Some are being litigated. And someonce the policy ball started rollingkept rolling because consumer expectations changed (after all, once people see total-price ticketing, they tend to prefer it).

In other words: the EO was a catalyst. Its legacy lives in the rules finalized, the cases brought, the language regulators now use, and the competitive expectations consumers have developed.

What businesses and consumers can learn from the EO era

For businesses

• Assume merger scrutiny is not just about market share. Labor effects, vertical relationships, and patterns of acquisition can matter.
• Transparency is becoming a competitive requirement. Hidden-fee strategies invite both regulatory risk and customer backlash.
• Compliance is now part legal and part product design. How you display prices, present terms, and manage data can trigger competition questions.

For consumers

• Competition policy affects daily purchases. Hearing aids, airline fees, broadband bills, and ticket prices are all “competition” issues.
• Price clarity is power. The easier it is to compare total cost, the less room there is for gamesmanship.
• Policy changes can come in waves. Some rules stick, some get revised, and some get blockedso the direction matters as much as any single announcement.

Experiences: what “competition policy” feels like on the ground (about )

The funny thing about competition policy is that most people don’t experience it as “policy.” They experience it as a Tuesday. A normal, slightly chaotic Tuesday, where you’re trying to buy something, switch jobs, or start a business without getting gently shoved into a corner by paperwork, lock-in, or a price that mysteriously grows legs and runs away.

Picture a mid-career professional who wants to leave a job for a better opportunity. In theory, that’s the labor market working: skills go where they’re valued. In practice, a noncompete clause can turn a simple career move into a legal anxiety spiral. During the EO era, that worker might have seen headlines suggesting noncompetes could be limited or bannedand felt a real sense of possibility. Then court rulings arrive, and the experience becomes less “freedom!” and more “wait, so what’s enforceable this week?” Even without a nationwide ban, the conversation shifted. Employers had to think twice about using noncompetes as a default setting, and workers became more aware that these clauses weren’t just “standard”they were controversial.

Now imagine a small business owner trying to compare broadband plans for a storefront. They aren’t asking for poetry; they’re asking for a number they can budget. Broadband “nutrition labels” aim to give that owner a quick way to see the real price and key terms without calling three different numbers and getting four different answers. When labels are clear, shopping feels less like a guessing game. When labels are weakened or inconsistent, you’re back to the old routine: “Just sign up and hope the bill matches the ad.” That’s not competition; that’s a trust fall with your wallet.

Or take a parent planning a family trip. Airline tickets look affordable until baggage fees and change fees pile on. Fee transparency rules were supposed to bring those costs forward so families could compare apples to apples. But court challenges turned the lived experience into a half-step forward, half-step sideways dance: consumers want total price clarity; airlines argue about process and authority; regulators rewrite and re-litigate. The consumer experience in the meantime is simple: “I just want to know what this trip costs before I hit Buy.”

Then there’s the quiet win: OTC hearing aids. For many people, hearing loss is gradual, and the barrier isn’t just priceit’s the friction of appointments, fittings, and the sense that help is complicated. Making hearing aids available over the counter changes the experience from “this is a medical project” to “this is a product I can shop for.” More choice doesn’t solve everything, but it changes the emotional math: it feels more accessible, more normal, and more within reach.

That’s the real “experience” of the Biden competition EO era: fewer locked doors (sometimes), brighter lights on pricing (sometimes), and a louder message that markets should work for regular peoplenot just for the companies best at hiding the ball.

Conclusion

Biden’s competition executive order was ambitious, messy, and unusually broad. It treated competition as a practical toolone that can influence wages, prices, innovation, and the ability to switch providers without a second mortgage. While later political changes revoked the order itself, many of its effects live on in enforcement priorities, finalized rules, and consumer expectations. If nothing else, the EO helped bring antitrust and competition policy out of the law-school basement and into everyday liferight next to your internet bill, your ticket checkout screen, and your “why is this so expensive?” group chat.