I. Introduction

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) still will not say whether he stands by his 2024 call for a future Democratic administration to adopt a “different philosophy” from Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Lina Khan – even after her chief corporate antagonist, Reid Hoffman, seems to have backed down. 

In an August 2024 CNBC interview, Moore was asked if Kamala Harris would respond to pressure from corporate mega-donors like Reid Hoffman to move away from Biden-era antitrust and consumer protection enforcement. On the subject of whether a Harris administration would shift course and create a regulatory environment more favorable to corporate interests, Moore said “I think we will, and I think we have to.” The context of his answer was unmistakable: Moore agreed that a Harris administration needed to break with the Biden administration’s approach to antitrust enforcement and consumer protection. 

Moore’s decision to align himself with Hoffman was notable given how he was the highest ranking Democratic official to do so. The coalition of Khan supporters in the face of these attacks spanned progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and establishment stalwarts like Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), who dismissed the donor campaign against her as “foolishness.” Sens. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV), both party moderates, also publicly praised Khan during this period. Beyond this, Khan received support from the Teamsters and the SEIU, and a coalition that included the AFL-CIO, NAACP, and Public Citizen warned against “billionaires choosing their own regulators.” 

Moore’s anti-Khan position, already a lonely one in the Democratic coalition at the time, has only garnered more scrutiny in the years that followed. Ahead of a potential presidential bid in his own right, Moore has consistently refused to comment on his views on Khan and antitrust. When asked about it by CNN in April 2026, Moore’s office evaded the question, with his office claiming he had “no thoughts about Khan one way or the other.” His office again refused to comment when asked by Sludge in June.

Hoffman, one of the most prominent mega-donors who called for Khan’s replacement, finally reversed course last week. At a Politico event, Hoffman said he would “certainly not” object to Khan’s return under a future Democratic administration. Following Hoffman’s reversal, Labyrinth Insights reached out to Moore’s office twice over a period of five days, with a clear deadline, about whether his 2024 comments still represented his views. His office once again chose not to comment. 

Moore’s silence comes at a time when he is preparing to attend a September 27 fundraiser in Silicon Valley, where contribution levels reach $6,000. (Labyrinth Insights asked Moore’s office for comment about the fundraiser and if his relationships with the tech industry influence his views on Lina Khan. His office did not comment.) It also comes amid mounting scrutiny of Moore’s own corporate background, specifically his role at Citigroup during the 2008 financial crisis: Moore continues to refuse to disclose if he received a bonus following the taxpayer-funded bailout. Since Khan left office upon Trump’s inauguration last year, the importance of antitrust enforcement has become more apparent than ever. In his second term, the Trump administration has gutted antitrust enforcement at the FTC and Department of Justice, with both agencies being weaponized to reward companies that curry favor with the White House. California Democrats’ recent surrender in their case against Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros., a deal that will give Trump allies control of CNN, demonstrates the importance of electing Democrats committing to taking on corporate power. 

II. Moore's Alignment with Anti-Khan Efforts

CORPORATE PRESSURE TO OUST KHAN

Following her appointment in 2021 as chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Khan received extraordinary pushback from corporate interests opposed to her agenda. Khan, who sought to reinvigorate antitrust enforcement after decades of dormancy, pursued a historically ambitious agenda. Alongside challenges to major mergers, Khan’s FTC scrutinized noncompete clauses that trap workers, while taking aim at subscription traps and junk fees. As the chair of the FTC at the onset of the modern ‘AI era’, Khan took a proactive approach to AI-related harms when much of Washington was content with inaction. 

Though Khan’s name is not universally known to the public, she was met by extraordinary ire by corporate lobbyists and their press allies. Elon Musk, for example, boasted publicly that Khan would be “fired soon” following Trump’s victory. Among corporate-friendly Democrats, the replacement of Joe Biden by Kamala Harris as the 2024 nominee was seen as an opportunity to push for a blank slate on economic policy. The topic of whether a President Harris would reappoint Khan to her role or remove her, in line with the demands of corporate leaders like Hoffman, was elevated at the end of the 2024 campaign after Hoffman publicly pressed the issue.

Moore’s alignment with the anti-Khan pressure campaign was, by all appearances, deliberate. In the CNBC interview, his calls for regulatory policies to help “large industries to be able to compete” reflected corporate talking points about Khan’s leadership. In this context, his prediction that a Harris administration would face “different dynamics” requiring “different philosophies” can be fairly interpreted as siding with supporters of a break with pro-consumer regulatory efforts under Biden. Moore notably did not identify a particular merger challenge or consumer protection rule he felt went too far. When asked by journalist Ryan Grim at the time whether he believed Harris would remove Khan, Moore’s office was evasive, and provided a statement about insulin prices that did not mention Khan or antitrust.

III. Moore's Record of Corporate Deference

CITIGROUP AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

Moore was hired by Citigroup in 2007, shortly before the financial crisis. He became a vice president at the company in 2010, and remained at Citigroup until 2012. During his tenure, Citigroup received a taxpayer bailout while still paying $5.3 billion in bonuses for 2008, with 738 employees receiving at least $1 million. At the same time, Citigroup announced plans to eliminate 52,000 jobs, representing around 15 percent of its workforce worldwide. 

Moore, who later criticized Wall Street for helping cause the crisis “without consequence,” continues to avoid disclosing if he received a bonus after the bailout. In April 2026, Axios asked Moore if he regretted his time at Citigroup and whether the taxpayer bailout was justified. His office dismissed this scrutiny, describing it as “stale, D.C.-based nonsense.” Sludge would later ask Moore about the topic, though his office provided no answer.

CORPORATE ACCESS AS GOVERNOR

First elected to office in 2022, Moore has built a powerful political network, including through relationships with corporations. As a gubernatorial candidate, Moore has accepted corporate donations from companies including Amazon, Lockheed Martin, DoorDash, and CVS. His inaugural committee raised almost $4.6 million overall, with help from corporate donors including Amazon, Capital One, and Comcast. 

In late 2024, it was reported that Moore scheduled fundraisers with former and current executives from companies including Truist and Eli Lilly. At a separate fundraiser in Georgetown, an event for Moore was co-hosted by Jarryd Anderson, then the co-chair of the Financial Services Group at Paul Weiss. Anderson’s clientele has included Moore’s past employer Citigroup, alongside corporate giants including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and Google. 

Later in 2024, Moore traveled to Texas for a fundraiser held by businessman Daniel Lubetzky. Lubetzky, who had been the subject of a profile by Moore in his 2015 book, is the founder of Kind Snacks. Lubetzky was among a group of wealthy corporate leaders who pressured then-New York City mayor Eric Adams and Columbia to crack down on anti-genocide protesters.

During the annual Preakness Stakes horse race, Moore has hosted politicians and corporate leaders in $200,000 taxpayer-funded VIP tents. In 2024, the tent’s guest list included executives from Southwest Airlines as well as Big Law firm Venable. A year later, the tent’s guest list included corporate representatives from companies including Kaiser Permanente and Volvo.

RECORD ON AI AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Since 2025, data centers have become a crucial political issue at the federal, state, and local levels. Amid rising concerns over impact on the electrical grid, as well as AI development more generally, many elected officials who previously supported data center development have pivoted. In September 2026, Moore firmly stated that he would “absolutely” sign a statewide data center moratorium if the legislature passed one. He ultimately signed an executive order on September 23 that will subject data centers to stricter review. He separately called on the legislature to end data centers’ favorable tax exemptions. Axios had previously noted in February 2026 that Moore was among the Democratic governors who had been “bending over backward to lure data centers, with offers of lavish tax breaks and other goodies” prior to public backlash.

In 2023, Moore’s position on data centers drew concern among environmental advocates after the state’s Public Service Commission (PSC) declined to waive review of 168 diesel generators for a data center. This resulted in swift industry pushback, with Aligned Data Centers approaching Moore’s office in support of easing regulations. Moore ultimately supported legislation to help exempt data center development from environmental scrutiny, arguing that the current framework led to regulatory “unpredictability” for businesses. Moore additionally vetoed legislation that would have mandated a statewide analysis of data centers’ environmental footprint. 

On AI policy more generally, Moore’s partnership with AI companies Anthropic and Percepta on child poverty has been met with skepticism. The National Center for Youth Law, for example, cautioned that without safeguards, the initiative poses “risks to those same children and families” that must be “properly understood and addressed.” Under Moore, Maryland was one of just four states to sign onto the new AI-focused “RAISE US” initiative led by former Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. RAISE US has been criticized for prioritizing the demands of AI companies in policy conversations over AI-related job losses at the expense of labor unions. 

Moore has also been criticized over the passage of largely toothless consumer protection legislation. As we noted in our analysis in June, Moore signed a defanged “ban” on surveillance pricing into law after the bill’s important provisions were almost entirely removed amid industry opposition. In 2025, Moore allowed a flawed earned-wage-access law to become law, albeit without his own signature, despite his own office identifying major gaps that render the bill futile. His own letter on the law noted the bill exempted covered companies from prohibitions on discriminatory credit decisions and deceptive advertising. As a result, more than three dozen groups, including Maryland NAACP and the Center for Responsible Lending, urged him to veto the bill.

IV. Stakes of Antitrust Enforcement

TRUMP-ERA CORRUPTION

Moore’s 2024 comments on antitrust and his refusal to clarify his current views are especially notable given the ongoing corruption of antitrust enforcement under Trump. Since returning to office last year, the FTC and DOJ have pivoted from aggressive antitrust enforcement into becoming tools for cronyism and authoritarianism. Powerful Trump-affiliated lobbyists have been able to build a clientele of corporations looking for favors from the White House to settle their cases. Last year, in the HPE-Juniper case, career Antitrust Division lawyers’ opposition to proposed remedies became moot after the company wooed DOJ leadership into an agreement. In the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case, the DOJ controversially settled without obtaining its divestiture demands after a Trump-supported backroom deal. (State attorneys general ultimately continued on with the case and won in the jury trial). It’s clear that Corporate America increasingly understands that under Trump, currying favor with the president is more important than the law when trying to push a deal through. 

Amazon and Meta, who both pushed frivolous demands that Khan recuse herself from FTC’s antitrust cases against their companies, have evidently welcomed this shift. Both companies have worked to appease Trump through gestures, such as donations of $1 million to his inaugural fund. Amazon, whose “Melania” documentary was widely seen as an overture to the White House, has been accused of being a potential “pay-to-play scheme” to ease regulatory scrutiny. Meta’s decision to end fact-checking in the United States and spend $25 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit are also clear efforts by the company to build its relationship with the White House to achieve favorable outcomes. 

MEDIA CONSOLIDATION AND DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING

Media consolidation poses a direct threat to Americans’ free speech rights and civil liberties more generally. In Paramount’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, the company’s Trump-aligned leadership responded to state antitrust scrutiny with scorched-earth tactics, including threats to leave California. Amid this de facto blackmail effort, corporate-friendly California Democrats including Gov. Gavin Newsom pushed Attorney General Rob Bonta to accept a settlement agreement. 

The merger, beyond being set to further erode both competition and jobs in Hollywood, also means that allies of Trump will be able to control both CNN and CBS News. The settlement agreement includes a provision for accountability in editorial oversight of both news outlets, a meaningless promise given that the resulting board will be under the authority of CEO David Ellison. Moore’s criticism of Trump’s assault on the free press is undermined by Moore’s apparent laissez-faire approach to antitrust enforcement, a crucial tool for preventing the rise of media monopolies willing to censor on Trump’s behalf.

V. Conclusion

In 2024, Moore’s support for the donor-backed campaign urging Harris to break with Khan made him an outlier in his own party. In 2026, this approach is even more incompatible with the party mainstream. Beyond Hoffman’s own retreat, the broader embrace of Khan by potential 2028 contenders signals where the party is heading. As CNN noted, Khan is now fielding calls from Democrats considering 2028 presidential candidacies, with potential candidates including former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Cory Booker praising her approach. Given trends within the party, it’s fair to expect candidates unwilling to take on corporate power to face serious headwinds, particularly after four years of Corporate America allying itself with Trump’s White House. Outside of antitrust, Moore’s continued refusal to comment on whether he received a bonus at Citigroup following the bailouts also represents a ticking time bomb he will face with Democratic voters.