How Lina Khan Radicalized the Elite: Why the Donor Class Chose MAGA Over Being Treated Like You
When the gatekeepers lost their special access, they turned to authoritarianism.
Lina Khan’s legacy isn’t anti-business—it’s pro-competition, pro-innovation, and a case study in how the powerful react when forced to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
The narrative we constantly hear from the elite donor class—from Silicon Valley technocrats to VC “entrepreneurs”—is that Democrats are ‘hostile to business.’ I never understood this claim. It didn’t match anything I’d actually observed. So I set out to answer two questions: Do they truly believe it, and is it actually true? What follows makes a compelling case that the answer to both is no.
If you want to understand why certain donors and “business voices” insist Democrats are “anti-business,” don’t start with data—start with access.
“...the perception is, if you wanted to talk to them, they weren't available to talk to you. And no amount of donations, lobbying, or even just, hey, I want to have a goodwill discussion, were allowed.”
— Jason Calacanis (jason@calacanis.com), The Bulwark Podcast, “Anarcho Capitalism,” August 13, 2025 (TurboScribe transcript | Podbay episode card | Spotify)
Mark Cuban, echoed this sentiment when he told Tim Miller of The Bulwark that even he couldn’t get the White House’s time—and that every business leader he knew had the same experience:
“Even when I was out there trying to talk about Cost Plus Drugs… I wanted to meet with Biden… [he] wouldn’t meet with me.
…every single business person that I’ve spoken to said the same thing — that they wanted to get time with Biden and couldn’t do it. And whether it was about AI… crypto… other businesses… even Elon, when they were talking about EVs, he couldn’t get in the room.”
— Mark Cuban, The Bulwark Podcast, “Character Is Destiny,” June 20, 2025 (TurboScribe transcript | Apple | Spotify | YouTube)
(Massive credit to Tim Miller and everyone at The Bulwark, without them this article would not have been possible. They truly brought all sides of this question to light)
This is the subtext behind the “anti-business” narrative: not that the economy or innovation suffered, but that the donor class was treated like ordinary constituents. They were treated like you, everyday voters. Being treated like you radicalized them to support authoritarianism. Better a fascist takeover than being treated like the rest of us.
“No M&A” Myth — What the Numbers (and Khan) Actually Say
When asked how the Biden/Harris administration (and the Democratic Party broadly now) is bad for business, they generally point to Lina Khan as their boogey-man.
And they hired somebody named Lina Khan, as you know, and she basically froze our entire industry, no M&A.
…Since she's been removed and the wrath of Khan has ended, we've seen a flurry of M&A. We've seen a bunch of IPOs.
—Jason Calacanis, The Bulwark Podcast (TurboScribe transcript)
Lina herself paints a very different picture.
“The idea that deal‑making froze these last few years just doesn’t match reality.”
“Antitrust enforcers scrutinize less than 3% of all deals. We end up blocking an even smaller fraction.”
Lina Khan, The Bulwark Podcast, “The Impunity of the Elites,” September 3, 2025 (TurboScribe transcript | YouTube | Podbay)
That matches the public data: the agencies review thousands of deals every year and make “second requests” in only a tiny share—roughly 1.6% in FY2022 and about 2.0% in FY2023—while most transactions proceed without issue (FTC FY2022 HSR Report | FTC FY2023 HSR Report (PDF) | Morgan Lewis analysis).
So why did Calacanis make such an easily falsifiable claim? And if the Biden/Harris administration, through Lina Khan, weren’t “doing a socialism” what were they doing? Lena would say that the FTC under her ministrations was merely pro‑competition and pro‑consumer. Was she right?
Concrete Examples: When Blocking a Deal Boosted Innovation
NVIDIA/Arm — Innovation Thrives When Gatekeeping Fails
“One of the first mergers we blocked was the NVIDIA‑ARM merger… We blocked that. NVIDIA has continued to be extraordinarily successful … and ARM ended up IPO‑ing and is now basically trading at a multiple of what its value had been there. We’ve seen these independent firms continue to thrive.”
— Lina Khan, The Bulwark Podcast
Context: After the deal died, both firms innovated and prospered—underscoring that stopping certain vertical entanglements can increase competition rather than suffocate it (CNBC).
Sanofi/Maze — The Pill vs. the IV Monopoly
“Sanofi was already the monopolist for Pompe disease infusions… Maze was the upstart with an oral pill that could be a game‑changer. Letting the monopolist buy the upstart risked keeping that innovation off the market… We blocked it; months later Maze partnered with another company without that conflict.”
— Lina Khan, The Bulwark Podcast
Context: This is the killer‑acquisition problem in one frame: the gatekeeper has every incentive to buy‑and‑bury a disruptive product (FTC docket | Goodwin analysis).
Bread‑and‑Butter Enforcement (Who the FTC Was Fighting For)
“At the FTC, we’ve really had a front row seat to the financial and economic challenges that millions of Americans are facing … people who had lost family members because they had been rationing lifesaving medicines … people who are trapped by non‑competes … farmers who lost a harvest because of repair restrictions … lawsuits to make it easier to repair products, rules to make it easier to cancel subscriptions … and junk fees that inflate your bills, from concert tickets to rent.”
— Lina Khan, The Bulwark Podcast
Inline takeaway: This wasn’t “anti‑business.” It was pro‑competition and pro‑consumer—and it’s exactly why some elites, accustomed to concierge government, revolted.
It’s About Access, Not Economics
Calacanis’s complaint—echoed by Cuban—isn’t about macroeconomics; it’s about access. Cuban said the quiet part out loud: a White House that wouldn’t meet with him or other business leaders helped push many CEOs toward Trump (Yahoo Finance). That’s not “anti‑business”; that’s a White House choosing not to sell access.
“So their first initial response is, this guy doesn’t like us. So then the question becomes: Biden or Kamala versus Trump… [A lot of them said] ‘we have no reason to expect that he would change dramatically’ [from the first term]. Obviously, that was wrong, but that was their logic.”
— Mark Cuban, The Bulwark Podcast (TurboScribe transcript)
Mark Cuban’s Bluesky thought experiment captures the psychology of transactional politics:
“Hypothetically. If complimenting trump meant that there would definitely be 2026 elections and the Dems would sweep Congress in a landslide, would you compliment Trump? Or, Is is that thought so abhorrent, you couldn’t bring yourself to do it. Even at the expense of staying the minority?” (Bluesky)
Why should we, or anyone, be expected to bow and scrape to be granted our natural rights? Democracy demands that governance exists only with the consent of the governed. Mark Cuban’s transactional perspective on governance implies that our rights exist at the whims of Donald J Trump.
Elite Impunity (Why the Elite “Hate” Khan)
“It is true that for several decades, we’ve had a kind of bipartisan culture and a bipartisan system of elite impunity, right? If you’re an elite, if you’re somebody who wears a suit and works in a C‑suite and you break the law, you will face a very different system and a very different set of treatments than if you’re a pickpocket or shoplifting.”
— Lina Khan, The Bulwark Podcast
After Khan: The Rollback Arrives
And where are we now, with Lina gone? Consumer and worker protections that expanded under Biden/Harris are being pared back or abandoned. A sampling:
Airline cash compensation for long delays: The administration dropped Biden’s plan to require $200–$775 per passenger when the carrier is at fault—and may rescind fee-disclosure rules too (USA Today | CNBC).
FTC noncompete ban: The new FTC has moved to dismiss appeals and accept vacatur—burying a near‑total ban that, if implemented, would have lifted wages and mobility for tens of millions (FTC press release | Bloomberg Law).
CFPB credit card late-fee cap to $8: Vacated; the Bureau agreed to settle and vacate the rule (ABA Banking Journal | Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor).
CFPB $5 overdraft cap + supervision of big payment apps: Repealed under the Congressional Review Act (Bloomberg Law | Holland & Knight).
Net neutrality (Title II) restored in 2024: Struck down by the Sixth Circuit in January 2025; the current FCC majority is also re‑scoping broadband oversight to downplay affordability and constrain BEAD pricing rules (Forbes | Perkins Coie | Ars Technica).
Subscription “click‑to‑cancel” transparency: The Eighth Circuit vacated the FTC’s negative‑option rule days before it took effect (Cooley | DLA Piper).
Not everything was rolled back. The FTC’s targeted “Junk Fees” rule for live events and lodging took effect in May, forcing upfront total prices—though enforcement capacity is a question as agency staffing is squeezed. Much of the enforcement of white-collar crime has been refocused on simple immigration enforcement. They’d rather raid a Home Depot than protect your pocket book. (FTC | CNBC)
“Now Trump has fewer [removals], but he’s doing more of the raids of random businesses and people that have worked here a long time… Do you want somebody walking in the door asking you for all your I‑9s and then… showing up at people’s homes?”
— Mark Cuban, The Bulwark Podcast (TurboScribe transcript)
Weaponization & Authoritarian Risk
“We are absolutely now seeing these legal regimes be weaponized to serve their cultural grievances, to serve their political agenda. That’s deeply troubling… Studies of the rise of fascism noted how comfort with concentration preceded it… An economy with few powerful actors is far easier to bend the knee.”
— Lina Khan, The Bulwark Podcast
A Note on Mark Cuban’s Contributions
Mark Cuban deserves genuine credit. He’s put real skin in the game supporting Democratic candidates against Trump, and his work in the healthcare space—especially with Cost Plus Drugs—has been a rare example of an elite using their power to try to bring down costs for ordinary Americans. Cuban is legitimately trying to do good, and any Democratic administration would be wise to consult him on healthcare reform.
But at the end of the day, he’s still an elite—and that perspective is colored by the idea that he’s entitled to a special hearing on his views. That’s the nature of power: even those who remember their roots can forget what it’s like to be just another voice in the crowd.
As for Calacanis? It’s hard to find anything redeemable. What do people like this actually contribute to the world? The difference is stark: Cuban, for all his flaws, is at least trying to make things better for ordinary people. Calacanis, by contrast, seems to offer little beyond grievance and self‑promotion.
The Bigger Stakes: Innovation, Growth, and American Power
If you actually care about innovation and markets, you have to care about macro policy as well as micro enforcement:
Tariffs and growth: Independent modeling projects the 2025 tariff regime will cut long‑run GDP by roughly 6% and reduce wages by 5%—with large lifetime losses for middle‑income households (PWBM).
Dollar leadership: Foreign‑policy and finance scholars warned this year that weaponized tariffs could erode the dollar’s reserve‑currency status; a Stanford analysis flagged anomalous “flight from the dollar” behavior after tariff shocks—an early warning that the safe‑haven premium may be weakening (Newsweek | Stanford GSB).
Demography is destiny: CBO now projects population growth to slow to ~0.1% annually in the 2030s–2050s—and to shrink outright without immigration. Restrictive immigration is a growth tax; the Dallas Fed underscores that declining immigration weighs on GDP (CBO | Dallas Fed).
And yet, Calacanis swears that this is the preferable business environment. Does he actually believe that, or is that just the story he tells?
…and there's no conversation. And so, yes, we will get into Trump's mercurial shaking of the snow globe of business— is the way I look at it—and the impact that has. But net-net, any businessperson you talk to, any CEO behind closed doors, will say this is a much better situation for business.
—Jason Calacanis, The Bulwark Podcast (TurboScribe transcript)
Anticipating the Rebuttals
“Khan lost in court a lot.” The litigation slice is tiny; most enforcement happens pre‑complaint via deterrence, restructuring, and abandonments. Post‑HSR trends show second requests are rare and increasingly concentrated in mega‑deals, with outcomes broadly consistent with prior eras (Morgan Lewis | FTC FY2023).
“She froze dealmaking.” HSR filings kept coming; second‑request rates remained historically low; and the FTC/DOJ litigated only a handful of mergers, same as usual (FTC FY2022 | Cornerstone Research).
What is the truth?
Lina Khan’s legacy is not “anti‑business.” It is the defense of a competitive economy where the best ideas can survive contact with entrenched power—where the pill gets a chance to beat the injections. The backlash from some elites isn’t about growth or innovation; it’s about a loss of special access and the end of a comfortable status quo. When the powerful are forced to play by the same rules as you, they’d rather burn it all down than be treated like the rest of us. And as the rollbacks continue—from airline rights to worker mobility to internet openness—the cost will be measured in fewer choices, higher fees, slower innovation, and diminished American leverage abroad.
So what is the truth? Does Calacanis, or even Cuban, believe this ‘anti-business’ nonsense? Or is it just cover? I think that the answer is obvious, but I’ll leave it to the reader to decide.
For readers who want the receipts
Full Lina Khan episode — (Apple | Spotify | Podbay | YouTube)
Calacanis access complaint (episode pages) — (Podbay episode card | Spotify)
Cuban access complaint & episode — (Apple | Spotify | YouTube) | coverage: (Yahoo Finance)
Mark Cuban — Cost Plus Drugs — (Official site)
“No‑M&A” claim vs. reality — (FTC FY2022 HSR | FTC FY2023 HSR (PDF) | Morgan Lewis)
NVIDIA/ARM outcomes — (CNBC)
Sanofi/Maze “pill vs. IV” case — (FTC docket | Goodwin)
FTC bread‑and‑butter agenda (examples) — (Non‑compete rule | Right‑to‑repair report | Negative‑Option (click‑to‑cancel) | Junk‑fees rule)
FTC noncompete ban abandoned — (FTC press release | Bloomberg Law)
CFPB late‑fee rule vacated — (ABA Banking Journal | Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor)
CRA repeal of overdraft cap + payment‑app supervision — (Bloomberg Law | Holland & Knight)
Net neutrality struck; FCC pivot on affordability/BEAD — (Forbes | Perkins Coie | Ars Technica)
“Click‑to‑cancel” rule vacated — (Cooley | DLA Piper)
Okay, so I’m no trained economist or trained historian for that matter, but what this article explores is what I’ve seen happen myself insofar as stifling of innovation by big business is concerned.
Some decades ago, a close acquaintance started a pest control business in Australia based on an invention for impregnated “mats” which when laid in your kitchen cupboard, for example, would kill cockroaches which set foot on them and yet could be chewed by marauding human babies without I’ll effect. Sounds good, yes? So rumour has it that a certain multinational chemical company J, based in the US, invited said acquaintance to come to the States to explore this product with a purported plan to buy him out and make him a very, very rich man. So, off he went to the US - at his own expense - for a meeting where he explained the whole invention to them and they oohed and aahed and said they’d get back to him with a fabulous offer imminently… and that’s the last he heard from them. After a year of fruitless enquiry from said acquaintance, J finally got back to him. They told him to piss off and not bother them again. They’d cracked the patent and didn’t need him anymore. Nice one, huh?
And then there’s my own experience as author and publisher of the Chinese Calendar Tales. Over 13 years starting 2007, my tiny HK publishing company publishes a series of stories by me about the animals of the Chinese zodiac, one per year, for primary school aged kids. I begin to have modest success around Asia. They’re funny and educational and kids and parents and teachers love them. There is nothing like them on the market. After @ five books have been published, I am approached by a famous US entertainment and publishing company N. They LOVE the idea! I tell them more. They are sooo excited they say. And I hear nothing from them ever again.
Within a year, a series appears on the mass market by said publisher, for kids, based on the animals of the Chinese Zodiac, one book per Zodiac animal. I only find out about it when, two years later, I find it in the library shelves of a school I’m visiting in Shanghai.
But here’s the difference. Whereas my books were set in China and included fantastic fact boxes about Chinese history and culture as well as characters including real Chinese emperors, pirates, explorers etc who interacted with each zodiac animal character in fun rhyming stories which included sophisticated language because I don’t believe in dumbing down for kids, the Nickelodeon stories were about a stereotypical little Chinese girl with glasses and buckteeth growing up - you guessed it- on a typical American farm with - you guessed it- each of the animals of the Chinese zodiac. Apart from said stereotypical little Chinese girl there wasn’t ONE SKERRICK OF INFORMATION ABOUT CHINA! You could replace each Chinese zodiac animal with a Goddamn American chicken, or cow, or pig. You get the picture. The writing was anodyne and about as intellectually challenging as a PB and J sandwich on white bread, hold the nutritional content. And when I later attempt to sell my series to another large publisher I’m told there’s no market for it - there’s already another “identical product on the market”. Nice one #2.
So, the integrity of US corporations hey? Or perhaps the words “US corporations “ and “integrity “ are oxymorons.
Now I’m not suggesting that it’s only the corporation of the US that do this. But by God do they lead the way.
But silence! What’s that I hear? Could it be the tumbrils of the carts carrying the French aristocracy to the guillotine?
Let’s wait and see…
I love Lina Khan, everything she did / tried to do at the FTC was inspiring. Thank you for this post!