Why Does the Biden White House Hate Its Own Agenda?

It's not a mystery why voters don't know what Biden has done. The White House communications team systematically refuses to talk about the Biden agenda to reorient big business.

Welcome to BIG, a newsletter on the politics of monopoly power. If you’d like to sign up to receive issues over email, you can do so here.

A few weeks ago, the Federal Trade Commission revealed evidence of oil sector price-fixing, showing that domestic shale corporations had colluded with foreign producers in 2021 and 2022 to withhold oil from the market so gas prices would go up. This alleged scheme cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars collectively, and those who have heard about this scandal are pretty mad.

So you’d think that the FTC evidence would be a big deal, and that the Biden administration would talk about this conspiracy they just discovered, one that confirms what polling shows most Americans believe about corporate greed. But you’d be wrong. Two weeks ago, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked about it. Here’s what she said.

Q  Does the White House think the FTC made the right decision in approving Exxon’s acquisition of Pioneer, even though the company has been accused of colluding with OPEC?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I’m not going to comment on that either at this time.

No comment. That’s… astonishing. Gas prices are a major concern for Americans, and the FTC made a criminal referral for price-fixing around this commodity. I spent some time in the White House briefing room archives, and what I found surprised me. There is a systemic refusal to talk about government action to address problems with big business, paired with constant White House praise for large corporations.

One question in Democratic politics is why, with Biden’s policy actions, most Americans feel like the government has done nothing for them. Poll after poll shows that no one has heard of anything Biden has done, or if they have, they don’t connect it to the Biden administration. Here’s a poll from last year making the point.

As it turns out, it might have something to do with that back-and-forth over oil price-fixing. As I’ll show in this piece, that’s not a one-off, but systemic. The White House communications team routinely tells voters the government doesn’t do anything for them. That is, it’s not that Biden doesn’t have a message. He does. That message is “we don’t do anything for you.” And Americans hear that message loud and clear.

Let’s dive in to the details.

It’s been a few years of the anti-monopoly agenda in practice, with some significant and very public accomplishments. Millions of people saw news about the banning of non-compete agreements by the government, actions against banks via regulation of credit card fees, bans on junk fees, antitrust actions against Google, Apple, airlines, book publishers, and meatpackers. My organization put out this video, and the extent of the changes is actually pretty impressive.

Yet, there’s not really broad awareness of these achievements, even among political operatives who should be communicating with voters. And there’s a reason for that. Anti-monopolists in the Biden administration do not do a lot of communications work, because that is not their job. They are in policy positions, which is to say, they actually do some of the governing. (Let’s not to overstate the point, there are huge swaths of government hostile to the anti-monopoly agenda.) There are reasons to see Biden’s agenda as insufficient, or great, or bad, but regardless of how you see his agenda, he clearly has one. And there are enough accomplishments to articulate them in a White House press conference.

For instance, the Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division have exposed price-fixing in oil, food, and rent, the three biggest concerns of voters in terms of cost. The CFPB has cut overdraft and credit card fees, against the wishes of banks. The Biden administration is being sued by a dozen plus industry lobbying groups over its policies to lower prices for consumers or address pollution, and conflict is a natural dramatic mechanism to elevate messaging.

But lawyers and policymakers in government aren’t supposed to talk to voters, that job belongs to a different group, the political and communications teams. Think of it like a corporation. Policy, aka product design, is one job, and marketing, aka politics, is another. I’ve gone over policy design in detail for years, discussing how policymakers come up with and implement governance. But how does marketing in politics work? That is, how does one sell what the legal nerds are doing?

Well, there is a layer of political and communications machinery that is designed to translate this policy agenda to voters, to convey to them what the government is doing. This layer, for Democrats, is composed of neutral and partisan newspapers and outlets like the New York Times, local news, podcasts and YouTube shows, TikTok influencers, TV news and MSNBC/CNN, black and Latino radio, think tanks, unions, nonprofit mass membership organizations like the ACLU, and so forth. (For the GOP, it’s roughly similar, with a few different outlets and interest groups.)

At the center of this machinery is the White House communications shop, conveying the President’s philosophy and accomplishments on a daily basis. This group explains how to understand the administration. The key figures in this process are the Chief of Staff, Communications Director, and the White House Press Secretary, who collectively make the decision about how to sell what the President is doing. In the case of Biden, these people are former management consultant turned chief of staff Jeff Zients, former big tech PR guy turned comms director Ben LaBolt, and former MSNBC analyst turned press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Jean-Pierre’s predecessor was Jen Psaki, who now has a show on MSNBC, a simple example of the deep links between the partisan press and political operatives.

Physically, there’s a place where the marketing happens. Nearly every day, there’s a press conference at the White House, where the press secretary, along with relevant administration officials, takes questions from a gaggle of reporters, who then write stories about the news of the day that includes the perspective of the administration. This gathering is the beating heart of the political media, where the White House lays out announcements, and comments on legislation, Congressional doings, and current events.

So that brings us to the main question of this piece. How does the White House press secretary actually communicate its policies vis-a-vis big business? I went over some transcripts, to understand what they actually say. And what I found is that Psaki, and now Jean-Pierre, convey a philosophy that the President has no role in structuring how large corporations operate, except to offer praise to big business and give them credit for what the administration does. Basically, the White House communications team acts as if the President is the national camp counselor, and the boss is big business.

No Comment When It Comes to Taking on Big Busiiness

Let’s go back to the recent ‘no comment’ when the FTC-revealed evidence of oil-price fixing. That’s not a one-off. Jean-Pierre says ‘no comment’ a lot when it comes to questions about monopolistic behavior. Take the easiest question about the most hated company in America, Ticketmaster, during its most vulnerable moment, right after the Taylor Swift ticketing meltdown. Here’s the back-and-forth.

Also, Karine, following the issues surrounding Taylor Swift ticket sales this week, some Democrat lawmakers have been calling for more scrutiny over Ticketmaster and Live Nation, questioning whether that merger should continue. Does the White House thinks — think that there needs to be more scrutiny over Ticketmaster? And there’s some reports that DOJ is investigating Live Nation. Are you aware of this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, I would refer you to the Department of Justice on any investigation. I’m just not going to comment on any potential investigation from here or enforcement matter from here.

A few months later, Jean-Pierre actually made fun of ‘Swifties.’

Q: On Ticketmaster, there was this hearing in the Senate today.  Given the White House’s concern about monopoly power, you know, does the White House believe the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger should be unwound, given what we’ve heard today from senators expressing that concern as well?
 
A: MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Are you a “Swifty”?  Is that what it’s called?  I don’t know.  (Laughter.)
 
Q: I’m asking on behalf of all the Swifties, Karine.  (Laughter.)
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Things that you learn. 

This exchange was revealing insofar as it showed how Jean-Pierre just didn’t think the whole fiasco had anything to do with policy. Because to the White House communications team, it doesn’t. Indeed, the White House later did an event with a Live Nation/Ticketmaster representative, showing that the White House can praise big business.

The message here to the millions of people harmed by Ticketmaster is “We don’t care about you being cheated out of the most popular musician in the world in concert.” Does that win or lose an election? No. But it shows that voters are hearing loud and clear that this White House is proud of not doing anything for them.

Pretty much every major piece of litigation is like this example. Here’s what Jean-Pierre said the day of the Google adtech antitrust suit, which is all about how newspapers are being strangled by an ad monopoly.

 Q    Does the same concern apply to Google, which is facing a new DOJ action today?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to get into DOJ action or what DOJ is potentially — any legal matters that they potentially are taking. 

And here’s how she responded to a question about antitrust suit against Apple alleging they overprice the iPhone by engaging in unfair forms of competition.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That is a legal action being taken by the Department of Justice.  I can’t speak to that.  They have their reasons of moving forward on that.  I — I can’t speak to that.

Over and over, I noticed that Jean-Pierre, and her predecessor Jen Psaki, praised big businesses like Google, Ticketmaster, JetBlue, Amazon, etc for vaccine mandates, helping small business, AI safety, whatever. That’s fine, sometimes big companies do good things. But when the administration itself took legal action against big business, Jean-Pierre and her predecessor Psaki retreated into ‘no comment’ and ‘that’s a legal issue.’

Here’s Psaki in June of 2021 on big business, laying down the basic template.

Q: Can I ask you a question about Amazon as well?  So the FTC is going to look at the Amazon-MGM merger.  There’s growing criticism about the antitrust legislation that’s being put forth on the Hill. Are you — what is your perspective about whether there is, sort of, fundamental reform needed to ensure that large companies don’t get too big?  We’ve seen companies, including Amazon, really profit enormously from the pandemic and during the pandemic, and there have been warnings even from international financial institutions.  So do you see that there’s something sort of fundamental needed now to check the growth?

MS. PSAKI:  It’s a great question.  I don’t think I’m going to be in a position to speak to it from here.  There are legal components of this.  I can see if there’s more we can — we can give back to you on that.

Big business, to Psaki, is a technical legal question, and thus not in her wheelhouse. When you think about it, that’s crazy. Almost everything the White House does is about law and technical questions. In that press conference, Psaki talked fluently about voting rights, climate change, Covid, policing, bail reform, and Congressional deliberations. All of those are technical! And she did manage to mention how helpful big business is getting people vaccinated.

We’re working with the private sector as well.  As you all know, Microsoft is giving away Xboxes at Boys & Girls Clubs.  The College Challenge is rallying university students across the country. Walgreens is giving out $25 to anyone who gets vaccinated there before July 4th. 

Whatever you think about vaccines, the framework here is that the White House is a camp counselor or hall monitor asking the powerful people to be nice.

Let’s go over a few more examples. Here’s early January of 2023, when someone asked Jean-Pierre about mass layoffs at big tech companies.

Q: Thank you.  In the last several weeks, major IT companies — like Google, Microsoft, Amazon — have fired thousands of IT professionals.  A significant number of them are either Indian Americans or Indian IT professionals.  So, two questions.  These companies are saying that a recession is on the horizon; that’s why they’re firing these people.  Does the President think that there is a recession coming up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, more broadly — I’m just not going to speculate why companies — individual companies have made specific personnel decisions.  That is for them to speak to.  But, you know, you — you don’t have to make — take my word for it.  Our economy is continuing to grow in a steady and stable manner as we have — you’ve heard us from here.  And you just have to look at the economic data, when you look at the CPI data, you look at the PPI.

This kind of question is a lay-up. Big business made a ton of money during the pandemic, often with government help, the easy answer is they should share the wealth a little bit. But Jean-Pierre goes out of her way to make it clear it’s inappropriate for the government to interfere with individual companies choices about who to lay off. That’s a very powerful message, that “Biden doesn’t believe in doing anything for you.”

There’s more. Here’s an easy question from February of this year.

Q: The Discover-Capital One merger.  How — how concerned are you guys?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, again, with this as well: I’m not going to speak to any particular case.

And another, from December of 2023:

Thank you, Karine.  Quick question on the U.S. Steel acquisition.  Several lawmakers, including John Fetterman, have come out now against the — the U.S. Steel acquisition by Japan’s Nippon Steel.  I’m just wondering how the White House views this proposed deal.  And do you have any concerns around market consolidation or national security?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, given the — this could potentially be a regulatory review, I’m not going to speak to any specifics of this transaction.  So, I’m going to be very careful. 

And another one, the big golf merger that got major play throughout the sports press:

Q: Does the White House now have any reaction to the merger of the PGA and LIV Golf?  And did this issue come up during Secretary Blinken’s meeting yesterday with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I can say this: The State Department — my colleague at the State Department, they put out a readout of the meeting that Secretary Blinken had with the Saudi Arabia government.  So I would refer you to their readout.  I’m sure it’s available online at the State Department.

So, again, we’re just not going to comment on this deal.  We are — the — we’re going to let the two parties speak for themselves.

In other words, at every moment, when there’s drama around power, the White House explicitly says ‘we don’t do anything for you’ or ‘we’re not involved’ or ‘ask the legal nerds.’

I’m not trying to pick on Jean-Pierre. She’s obviously important, but if the White House doesn’t have anything to say the day of major antitrust announcements against trillion dollar firms, that’s a decision made by more than just the Press Secretary, and probably includes LaBolt and Zients. In other words, this messaging is a choice. It’s also not inevitable; Jean-Pierre did a good job when discussing the Southwest meltdown, saying “Look, Southwest Airlines failed its customers — point blank.  The Department of Transportation will hold them accountable to their commitments to make their customers whole.” She then described actions the DOT would take. But that was an exception.

Zooming back out a bit, I might add another force here that’s problematic in this communications style. The White House lawyers are aggressively cautious, and they imagine it’s inappropriate for the White House to mention antitrust cases. (This obsession with norms extends to the Federal Reserve and courts, which are other powerful institutions.) Former White House competition policy advisor, Tim Wu, in his paper titled “The President's Role in Antitrust Policy,” noted that Biden, though overseeing a revival of the law and the President’s coordinating role in it, “has continued to keep a significant distance from involvement in or even mentioning individual cases.”

That doesn’t excuse the communications team, but it helps show that the bad messaging is a broader team effort. Wu argued this legal choice of caution is a problem, and that “the White House’s current practice of refusing to even mention or acknowledge major antitrust cases goes too far.” Still, the unnecessary legal shackles on antitrust don’t explain everything. Here’s a question on the administration being sued by airlines over “a new rule requiring transparency on checked bag fees and reservation changes.” This kind of question is great, since it shows drama, conflict over something that Americans easily understand, which is whether airlines should tell you what the actual price of a flight is. Jean-Pierre’s response was, naturally, “It’s litigation, I don’t want to speak to the litigation.”

Ok then.

The Messaging Is Working

Even on non-litigation matters, the message from the White House is that everything involving conflict with big business, or doing something to intervene in the economy via tariffs, is something to avoid discussing.

Take the accomplishment of the Biden administration is to re-shore solar panel production. For the first time in decades, you can actually make every part of a solar panel in the U.S.. And one reason for that is industrial policy, and tariffs. Last week, Biden implemented an additional measure, to put a barrier against unfairly cheap Chinese solar components used in utility-scale solar generation. You wouldn’t, of course, know this from any announcement or event. Instead, the White House furtively put up a fact sheet on its website you had to track down.

In other words, the product development part of the administration is producing a lot of outcomes based on government structuring markets. Whether you like the policies, the outcomes are real. But the marketing arm has chosen, almost certainly deliberately, to sell a different product known as ‘We don’t do anything for you.’

In other words, the political problem that Biden has isn’t that he has ‘no message.’ The problem is that he does, and the public hears it loud and clear.

---

Thanks for reading! Your tips make this newsletter what it is, so please send me tips on weird monopolies, stories I’ve missed, or other thoughts. And if you liked this issue of BIG, you can sign up here for more issues, a newsletter on how to restore fair commerce, innovation, and democracy. Consider becoming a paying subscriber to support this work, or if you are a paying subscriber, giving a gift subscription to a friend, colleague, or family member. If you really liked it, read my book, Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy.

cheers,

Matt Stoller

P.S. A reader sent me what I thought was an interesting email exchange he had with a sales executive that hits at recent pricing trends.

I live in Minnesota and enjoy going to Timberwolves games. Their latest ticket package offering is below, and the main selling feature appears to be that they don't charge any fees that you pay for single game tickets. Per below, those fees can add as much as 25% to the cost. I just find this very interesting that they are able to waive fees like that. It is almost as if they are admitting that the fees are just bullshit but it is a great way to hide the final price. Buy this $100 ticket, it costs $125! I hate this crap.

---

—-Dear [XYZ]

Reaching out to pass along the last discounted package we'll be releasing this season, the 5 game Flex Pack. Simply choose 5 games in 2024 (*Warriors & Bucks games excluded as we are sold out*), get discounted pricing by avoid the fees associated with any single game purchases (savings of around 25% per game), PLUS playoff priority which will be the biggest benefit come Spring.

I have attached the pricing, tiered schedule, as well as the color-coded map. I also, included some set packages I put together to make things easier.

Any interest in locking in for 5 games in the New Year?

Respectfully,

XYZ
SENIOR PREMIUM SALES MANAGER
MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES AND LYNX