Oregon AG Triples Antitrust Capacity with 16 New Hires in Mergers Division

On June 17, 2026, Oregon’s Emergency Board approved a dedicated Mergers Division within the Attorney General’s Office, dramatically expanding the state’s antitrust enforcement capacity. The move, which adds 16 new positions—five assistant attorneys general, four paralegals, six legal secretaries and administrative staff, and one economist—will double the attorney headcount and triple the overall capability of the Oregon Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. This escalation is a direct response to a vacuum in federal merger oversight under the Trump administration, where the FTC has had key commissioners fired and merger guidelines reversed, and where the Department of Justice’s top antitrust lawyer was forced out in February 2026, triggering a mass exodus of career attorneys. Attorney General Dan Rayfield described the action as essential because “corporations are being allowed to consolidate unchecked – with no federal oversight,” and noted that over half of recent constituent contacts to his office have been complaints about out-of-control corporate mergers and their impact on personal finances. The new division builds on Oregon’s demonstrated success in state-led merger challenges. The state co-led the litigation that blocked the Kroger-Albertsons merger—the largest grocery consolidation in U.S. history—and in April 2026, alongside a multistate coalition, went to trial in the Live Nation/Ticketmaster antitrust case. With dedicated in-house economic expertise and a larger litigation team, Oregon will be able to pursue more complex cases, initiate independent reviews, and serve as a model for other states. For merging companies, this introduces a new layer of regulatory risk: state-level enforcement is no longer tethered to federal action, meaning that deals may face challenges even if the FTC or DOJ is inactive. The legal community should anticipate more aggressive state coalitions, especially in sectors directly affecting consumers, such as healthcare, agriculture, and retail. The addition of an economist signals more rigorous, data-driven scrutiny, raising the bar for parties trying to settle cases with simple divestitures. While federal antitrust capacity continues to atrophy, states like California, New York, and Illinois may replicate Oregon’s approach, leading to a decentralized enforcement landscape. This shift could increase compliance costs for national businesses facing a patchwork of state standards, but it also fills a critical gap in protecting consumers. The Oregon model underscores that state attorneys general are now the last line of defense, and corporate merger strategies must adapt to a world where state-specific consumer impact arguments carry new weight.