在总统任期后的近三年里乔·拜登任命莉娜·汗为美国联邦贸易委员会主席后，该政府机构已经对美国一些最大的公司提起诉讼或采取其他行动进行挑战大型技术,大型制药公司和大企业.
在周日播出的一次采访中，汗对美国广播公司新闻节目《本周》的联合主播乔纳森·卡尔说:“联邦贸易委员会一直专注于确保我们使用我们所有的工具和权力来保护美国人民免受非法商业行为的侵害。”
汗领导下的联邦贸易委员会的任务是执行国家反垄断法，保护消费者免受不公平或欺骗性商业行为的影响，该委员会已经瞄准了以下行业巨头亚马孙、Meta和生物技术公司安进。但并不是所有的追求都成功了——例如，阻止Meta收购一家虚拟现实初创公司的尝试失败了Khan告诉Karl，她认为还有很多事情要做。
“从很多方面来看，我们的工作才刚刚开始，”她说，并告诉卡尔，在她目前的任期于9月24日到期后被提名连任“将是一种荣誉”。
毕业于耶鲁大学法学院、曾在众议院司法委员会任职的汗是领导该机构的第一位南亚裔人士最年轻的联邦贸易委员会主席。
与过去几十年相比，在她的领导下，欧盟委员会在反垄断执法方面采取了更积极的方法，但汗表示，她只是成为了主席应该成为的“执法者”。
“在许多方面，我们正在进行一个非常保守的项目，确保我们回到联邦贸易委员会的根本，国会制定的法律的实际文本，并确保我们忠实于书本上的法律和法律先例，”汗说。
汗的一些批评者包括华尔街日报编辑委员会，该委员会上周发表了一篇题为“莉娜·汗穿普拉达”的文章，批评联邦贸易委员会阻止两家奢侈品时装公司合并的举动。这篇社论的标题似乎是指2006年的电影《穿普拉达的女魔头》
“我没有任何股份，”这家意大利时装公司的可汗笑着说，并继续为联邦贸易委员会的合并决定辩护。“看，美国98%的交易都是在美国政府没有提出第二个问题的情况下完成的。当我们发现非法合并时，我们会毫不犹豫地采取行动，这是绝对正确的，因为如果我们不做好自己的工作，美国人民将遭受损失。”
可汗在自己的领域中以强烈批评大型科技公司的主导地位而闻名，她还是一名法律系学生时发表的一篇关于亚马逊的文章让她声名鹊起。
2017年的那篇名为《亚马逊的反垄断悖论》(Amazon‘s Antitrust Paradox)的文章发表在《耶鲁法律杂志》(Yale Law Journal)上，被引用了2000多次。文章称，亚马逊是一家垄断企业，它“在一定程度上通过积极致力于为消费者降价的商业战略和言论逃避了政府的审查。”
9月，联邦贸易委员会和十几个州起诉亚马逊称其从事非法商业行为，允许其“行使垄断权力”。
“亚马逊在哪些方面是垄断的?”卡尔问道。“因为我可以在亚马逊上购买，但我也可以上街去沃尔玛或塔吉特购物。”
可汗说，亚马逊采取的行动最终会虐待客户。
“在过去几年中，它向小企业收取的费用大幅增加，因此现在一些小企业不得不向亚马逊支付每2美元中的1美元。这基本上是50%的亚马逊税，”她解释说。
她继续说:“我们的诉讼还指控亚马逊一直在使用一整套秘密算法悄悄为消费者提价。“我们的诉讼称，如果亚马逊没有采取这些非法策略，那将允许更多的竞争对手在线超市出现，这对将面临更多价格竞争的消费者来说更好。”
亚马逊在去年提起诉讼后谴责了这些诉讼。
亚马逊当时表示:“联邦贸易委员会提出的挑战有助于刺激整个零售行业的竞争和创新，并为亚马逊客户带来了更多选择、更低价格和更快的送货速度，并为在亚马逊商店销售的许多企业带来了更多机会。”
Meta(前身为脸书)和亚马逊分别向美国联邦贸易委员会提出动议，要求将可汗从与其公司相关的任何决策中除名。她没有。
“你为什么不这么做?”卡尔催促道。
“当你有某种利益冲突时，道德法律主要要求回避，”她说，比如拥有一家公司的股票或有一名近亲在一家公司工作。
“但没有明显的偏见?”卡尔回击道。“我的意思是，你在接受这份工作之前显然对亚马逊有自己的看法。”
“我做过学术工作。汗说:“很多有幸被任命担任这些工作的人都是通过从事政策工作进来的。“我们绝对专注于不带任何恐惧或偏袒地执行法律。嗯，我们也不想纵容这种不严肃的要求，如果没有真正的利益冲突，这种要求是以一种轻浮的方式提出的。”
对于所有可预见的批评者来说，汗也有来自各个政治领域的粉丝，从佛蒙特州参议员伯尼·桑德斯等进步人士到俄亥俄州参议员JD万斯和佛罗里达州众议员马特盖兹等前总统唐纳德特朗普的支持者。
她的共和党支持者被称为“汗服务者”。
然而，他们的支持并没有让可汗感到惊讶。
她说:“反垄断和反垄断在我们国家有着两党合作的悠久历史。“这是因为长期以来人们认识到，同样地，如果在我们的政治领域集中权力，可能会损害人们的自由和自由;如果你将权力集中在经济领域，这也可能是一个重大威胁。”
汗说，垄断权力会吸引两党的审查，因此无论谁在11月的总统选举中获胜，谁将担任联邦贸易委员会主席，她相信该机构在她的领导下将继续采取这种做法。
她说:“我们看到的两党对垄断权力的担忧，我们看到的对人们数据被收集和监控的担忧，我们看到的对医疗金融化的担忧——我认为无论谁担任这一职务，这些问题都将继续引起关注。”
FTC is 'just getting started' as it takes on Amazon, Meta and more, Chair Lina Khan says
In the nearly three years since PresidentJoe Bidenappointed Lina Khan as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the government agency has taken on some of America's largest corporations, filing lawsuits or taking other actions to challengeBig Tech,Big PharmaandBig Business.
"The FTC has been squarely focused on making sure we're using all of our tools and authorities to protect the American people from illegal business practices," Khan told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl in an interview that aired Sunday.
Tasked with enforcing the nation's antitrust laws and protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices, the FTC under Khan has homed in on industry giants likeAmazon, Meta and biotechnology company Amgen. But not every pursuit has been successful -- an attempt to block Meta from acquiring a virtual reality startup failed, for example -- and Khan told Karl that she believes there's still much more to do.
"In many ways it feels like our work is just getting started," she said, telling Karl that it "would be an honor" to be nominated for another commissioner term after her current term expires on Sept. 24.
A Yale Law School graduate and former staffer on the House Judiciary Committee, Khan is the first person of South Asian descent to lead the agency and, at 35, is alsothe youngestFTC chair.
The commission has taken a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement under her leadership compared to decades past, but Khan said she's simply being the "law enforcer" the chair is meant to be.
"In many ways, we're undertaking a deeply conservative project, making sure we're going back to the roots of what the FTC is about, the actual text of the laws that Congress created, and making sure we're being faithful to the law on the books and the legal precedent," Khan said.
Some of Khan's critics include The Wall Street Journal editorial board, which last week published a piece titled "Lina Khan Wears Prada," criticizing the FTC's move to block a merger of two luxury fashion firms. The editorial headline seemed to be a reference to the 2006 film, "The Devil Wears Prada."
"I don't own any," Khan said, with a smile and a laugh, of the Italian fashion house, going on to defend the FTC's decisions on mergers. "Look, 98% of all deals in America go through without even a second question being asked by the American government. It's absolutely true that when we spot an illegal merger, we won't hesitate to act because if we don't do our job, the American people will lose out."
Khan has gained a reputation in her field as a fierce critic of Big Tech's dominance, and a piece she published about Amazon when she was a law student put her on the map.
That 2017 article, called "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," which was published in the Yale Law Journal and has been cited more than 2,000 times, argued Amazon was a monopoly that had "evaded government scrutiny in part through fervently devoting its business strategy and rhetoric to reducing prices for consumers."
In September, the FTC and more than a dozen statessued Amazon, alleging it engaged in illegal business practices that allowed it to "wield monopoly power."
"In what way is Amazon a monopoly?" Karl asked. "Because I can buy on Amazon, but I can also go down the street and I can buy at Walmart or I can buy at Target."
Khan said that Amazon has taken actions that ultimately mistreat customers.
"The fees that it charges to small businesses have dramatically increased over the last few years, so that now some small businesses have to pay 1 out of every $2 to Amazon. It's basically a 50% Amazon tax," she explained.
"Our lawsuit also alleges that Amazon has been using a whole set of secret algorithms to quietly raise prices for consumers," she continued. "Our lawsuit alleges that if Amazon had not engaged in these illegal tactics, that would have allowed more rival online superstores to emerge, and that would be better for consumers who would face more price competition."
Amazon rebuked the lawsuits' claims after it was filed last year.
"The practices the FTC is challenging have helped to spur competition and innovation across the retail industry, and have produced greater selection, lower prices, and faster delivery speeds for Amazon customers and greater opportunity for the many businesses that sell in Amazon's store," Amazon said at the time.
Both Meta (formerly Facebook) and Amazon separately filed motions with the FTC requesting that Khan be recused from any decision related to their companies. She did not.
"Why did you not do that?" Karl pressed.
"The ethics laws primarily require recusal when you have some kind of conflict of interest," she said, like having stock in a company or a close family member who works for a company.
"But not a clear bias?" Karl pushed back. "I mean, you obviously had an opinion about Amazon before you took this job."
"I had done academic work. A lot of people that have the fortune of being appointed to these jobs come in through having done policy work," Khan said. "We're absolutely focused on enforcing the law without fear or favor. Well, we also don't want to kind of indulge, you know, requests that are not serious and that are being made in a frivolous way if there's no real conflict of interest."
For all the predictable critics, Khan also has fans spanning the political spectrum, from progressives like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to supporters of former President Donald Trump like Ohio Sen. JD Vance and Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz.
Her Republican supporters have been dubbed the "Khanservatives."
Their support, however, doesn't surprise Khan.
"Antitrust and anti-monopoly has a long bipartisan history in our country," she said. "and it's because there's long been a recognition that in the same ways that if you concentrate power in our political sphere, that can undermine people's liberties and freedoms; if you concentrate power in the economic sphere, that can also be a major threat."
Khan said that monopoly power attracts bipartisan scrutiny, so regardless of who wins the presidential election in November and who chairs the FTC next, she believes the agency's approach under her leadership will continue.
"The bipartisan concern that we see about monopoly power, the way we see concern about people's data being harvested and surveilled, the way we see concern about financialization of health care -- these are all issues that I think will continue to attract concern no matter who's in this job," she said.
