Live Nation Entertainment has never hidden its belief that the quickest route out of the Justice Department’s sweeping antitrust lawsuit runs straight through the White House. Now, newly revealed lobbying efforts show just how aggressively the concert giant—and other merger‑minded corporations—are cultivating allies inside President Trump’s circle as they fight to preserve their business empires.
A Wall Street Journal investigation published Wednesday (paywalled) details how Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Live Nation and several other firms retained a network of Trump‑aligned lawyers and consultants, led by conservative operative Mike Davis, to win friendlier settlements from the DOJ’s antitrust division. The story describes a bitter internal clash that saw top antitrust officials fired after they objected to what they viewed as sweetheart resolutions. And it confirms that Live Nation has now hired Davis as it stares down a government case that seeks to unwind its 2010 Ticketmaster merger and possibly split the company into separate ticketing, promotion and venue businesses.
The disclosures land as the live‑events behemoth continues a massive public‑relations campaign aimed at portraying itself as an indispensable economic engine—while simultaneously showering Trump‑world with cash, appointments and praise for policies that critics say benefit Live Nation far more than consumers.
MAGA middlemen move antitrust mountain
According to the Journal and prior coverage by The Capitol Forum and The Lever, Davis and other powerbrokers promised regulators “job‑creation” commitments from HPE if it could acquire rival Juniper Networks. Those promises were never written into the consent decree, which nonetheless allowed the $14 billion deal to close last month. Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater—himself a Trump appointee—objected, only to be overruled by senior officials close to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Two of Slater’s deputies were then fired.
The episode sends an unmistakable signal: companies facing monopolization probes can buy inside access, reframe their cases as “America‑first” jobs plans and expect a softer landing.
Signs of success—at consumers’ expense?
Whether that strategy ultimately works is now the subject of a pending Tunney Act review in federal court. As The Capitol Forum reported July 24, Judge Casey Pitts has the power to demand disclosures on back‑channel contacts between HPE lobbyists and DOJ brass—and could, in theory, void the settlement if he deems it contrary to the public interest. No judge has ever rejected a merger consent decree on those grounds, but the unusual circumstances have antitrust scholars watching closely.
Consumer advocates argue that if the Justice Department caves to political pressure in the HPE matter, Live Nation will be next. “Such an outcome could … lead to meaningful hit to the credibility of the antitrust division—and the Justice Department more broadly—with the courts,” Capitol Forum warned.
Live Nation’s charm‑offensive checklist
Live Nation has already been ticking every box on the influence‑peddling checklist laid out by its tech‑sector counterparts:
- Lobby muscle. Davis—fresh off his HPE success—now works for the promoter, according to the Journal. So does longtime GOP fundraiser Brian Ballard, whose firm disclosed ticketing‑policy lobbying earlier this year.
- Board access. In May, Live Nation added Richard Grenell, a trusted Trump confidant and current Kennedy Center president, to its 11‑member board despite his limited entertainment résumé. Industry executives called the move “the most thinly veiled attempt to influence a legal proceeding that I’ve ever seen.”
- Venue investment blitz. In June, the company announced a $1 billion plan to build or upgrade 18 venues, lavishing credit on a March 31 Trump executive order aimed at “combating unfair practices” in ticketing. Internal timelines reviewed by TicketNews show most of those projects were conceived long before the order—and well before Trump’s return to office—raising questions about the real motive.
- Cold hard cash. Federal filings revealed this spring that Live Nation donated $500,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee, making it one of the top corporate backers of festivities surrounding the 47th president’s swearing‑in.
Together, the moves amount to a full‑court charm offensive as the DOJ presses forward with a civil case accusing Live Nation of leveraging Ticketmaster’s 70‑plus‑percent share of primary ticketing to lock out rivals and strong‑arm venues.
Public sentiment: “Break them up”
If the company hoped its goodwill push would win hearts and minds outside Washington, the early evidence suggests otherwise. When the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission opened a public comment docket this summer on Trump’s live‑entertainment executive order, more than 4,000 submissions poured in. TicketNews reviewed that record; apart from Live Nation’s own filing—which blamed every consumer gripe on ticket resellers—the overwhelming majority called for structural remedies, not price caps.
FURTHER READING: Live Nation pushes price caps; everyone else says breakup needed in FTC/DOJ comments
Even the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), a reliable partner in Live Nation‑backed “Fix the Tix” initiatives, broke ranks. In its comment, the trade group urged regulators to split Live Nation into four stand‑alone companies—ticketing, promotion, artist management and sponsorship—and establish a $300 million‑plus rebuilding fund for independents.
Sports Fans Coalition, National Consumers League and the Progressive Policy Institute took similar stances. PPI’s Diana Moss warned that caps on resale prices were a “gift to the monopolist” that would “wipe out legitimate exchanges and drive fans back to Ticketmaster’s platform.”
Moss, who also spoke to TicketNews about the venue‑investment PR blitz, offered perhaps the most concise summary of public sentiment:
“To the millions of concert‑goers and sports fans that attend live events in the U.S., Live‑Nation‑Ticketmaster is synonymous with a corrupt monopoly. That’s pretty clear in the company’s efforts to spin venue investment plans to curry favor with the Trump administration and installing its sycophants on the Live Nation board,” Moss said.
Attorneys General from across the country: “Break them up”
When announced a year ago, United States vs. Live Nation Entertainment was joined by the Attorneys General of 29 states and the District of Columbia – bipartisan support from the top prosecutors in states that represent more than 80 percent of the population of the country.
Last August, ten more states joined the lawsuit. The support comes from a full spectrum of political alignments – from deep blue Washington to ruby-red Oklahoma, population hubs like California and Texas, not to mention both of the states where President Trump primarily resides – New York and Florida.
“Mega-corporations cannot control entire industries to create anti-competitive environments, drive up prices, and take advantage of consumers. With this lawsuit, we aim to ensure fair competition for ticket sellers, concertgoers, venues, and others in the entertainment space who have been affected by this merger,” says Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) in a press release detailing his state’s involvement in the lawsuit.
“For too long, Live Nation and Ticketmaster have unfairly and illegally run the world of live events, abusing their dominance to overcharge fans, bully venues, and limit artists,” reads comments from New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) issued at the time of the initial lawsuit’s filing. “When companies like Live Nation control every aspect of an event, it leads to bad blood – concertgoers and sports fans suffer and are forced to pay cruel prices. Everybody agrees, Live Nation and Ticketmaster are the problem, and it’s time for a new era. Today, we are taking this important action to protect consumers and force big companies to stop abusing their influence and get in formation.”
FURTHER READING: What They’re Saying” Attorneys General comments on USA vs. Live Nation Entertainment
What industry stakeholders are saying
- Independent promoters. “This isn’t about job creation,” one promotion executive told TicketNews. “It’s about regulatory positioning. They’re repackaging years‑old projects under a fresh headline to win favor with an administration that could decide their fate.”
- Artists. Publicly, most superstars remain quiet, though music‑business commentator Bob Lefsetz has urged top acts to withhold touring deals until Live Nation drops Grenell. Bruce Springsteen, fresh off on‑stage Trump criticism, is viewed as a bellwether for whether performers will flex bargaining power.
- Consumers. Commenters bombard the DOJ docket with stories of crashed onsales, hidden fees and Ticketmaster queue purgatory. “Break them up,” wrote one Chicago fan. “That’s the only fix.”
Next procedural mileposts in United States vs. Live Nation Entertainment
- Sept. 30: Live Nation’s answer to the government complaint is due. Observers expect it to echo the HPE defense: the merger created efficiencies, technology advances and “American jobs.”
- Oct.–Nov.: Tunney Act public‑comment period in the HPE case closes; DOJ must file responses. Judge Pitts could then order an evidentiary hearing—likely spilling into 2026.
- Early 2026: Barring settlement, trial in United States v. Live Nation Entertainment is scheduled to open in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
Stakes beyond ticketing
A negotiated climb‑down would resonate far beyond concerts. Visa, Google and Apple each face high‑profile DOJ actions; all are undoubtedly studying whether Live Nation can parlay political capital into leniency.
“If the department settles with Live Nation rather than pursuing a full‑stop break‑up, working Americans will know for sure that antitrust isn’t working to protect them—it’s working to protect powerful companies that curry favor with the Trump administration,” Moss told TicketNews.
For now, the case for dismantling the Ticketmaster empire enjoys rare bipartisan and cross‑industry backing. The question is whether that consensus can outmuscle a well‑funded, well‑connected campaign that views antitrust not as a legal battleground, but as just another lobbying venue—one where a strategic donation, a headline‑grabbing investment or a newly minted board seat might be worth billions.
