The Consequence of Overzealous Antitrust Regulation
Antitrust regulators claim to protect competition. Their decision to block Amazon’s acquisition of iRobot did the opposite. It helped drive an American robotics pioneer into bankruptcy last December and pushed it into the arms of a Chinese creditor. Antitrust law is supposed to defend consumers and prevent monopoly abuse. In this case, regulators killed a deal that could have kept iRobot alive, preserved American jobs, and strengthened a U.S. company facing brutal Chinese competition. Instead, the collapse of the acquisition forced iRobot into a court-supervised restructuring in which Shenzhen Picea Robotics — its largest Chinese creditor and key supplier — will take the company’s equity and cancel roughly $264 million in debt. iRobot began in 1990, founded by roboticists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The company built military and space exploration products before it introduced the Roomba in 2002, the device that turned home robotics into a household category. For years, iRobot stood as a rare American success story in consumer robotics. Then the market shifted. Chinese manufacturers poured in with cheaper models, tighter supply chains, and rapid iteration. iRobot’s share price peaked in 2021, then slid hard over the next year. The company sought a lifeline and found one in Amazon, which agreed to acquire iRobot for roughly $1.7 billion.
That deal made strategic sense. iRobot needed capital, scale, and distribution power to compete against Chinese rivals such as Roborock, Ecovacs, Dreame, and Xiaomi. Amazon could have provided all three. Consumers likely would have seen faster innovation, deeper device integration, and lower prices, while iRobot kept more of its footprint and engineering talent intact. Regulators saw a different story. The European Commission objected on antitrust grounds and signaled it would block the acquisition. The commission argued the deal could restrict competition in robot vacuum cleaners by allowing Amazon to disadvantage rival products on its marketplace. American critics piled on, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who framed the acquisition as an attempt to buy out competition, along with privacy fears about Roomba’s mapping technology. Facing regulatory opposition, Amazon and iRobot terminated the agreement in January 2024. Amazon’s general counsel, David Zapolsky, warned that the decision would deny consumers faster innovation and more competitive prices, while leaving iRobot weaker against foreign rivals operating under very different regulatory constraints.
The warnings proved accurate. After the deal collapsed, iRobot announced deep cost-cutting, including a 31% workforce reduction. The company shifted more production to Vietnam to compete on cost. Chinese brands continued to eat the market. By December 2025, iRobot filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and announced a restructuring deal that hands control to Shenzhen Picea Robotics. According to iRobot’s own announcement, Picea will acquire the equity of the reorganized company through the court process and cancel about $264 million in debt.
That outcome should haunt every regulator who claimed to defend competition. Regulators blocked an American acquisition and ended up delivering a storied American company to a Chinese creditor. They did not preserve a competitor. They helped bury it. The iRobot collapse exposes a central problem with modern antitrust enforcement: Officials often substitute fear-driven hypotheticals for real-world consequences. They imagine a future in which Amazon squeezes competitors and consumers pay more. They ignore the present in which Chinese firms gain market power, American companies lose ground, and U.S. workers pay the price. Markets discipline failure quickly. Regulators rarely pay for their mistakes. They can block a deal, watch a company fall apart, and declare victory because they prevented a theoretical harm. This case produced the opposite of the intended result. Regulators killed a merger that could have strengthened an American company against Chinese competition. They weakened competition in the robot vacuum market by removing one of the few U.S.-based pioneers from the field. They also shrank the number of meaningful paths forward for iRobot until only one remained: a takeover by the company’s Chinese lender and supplier. Policymakers should learn the right lesson. Antitrust action should not operate as a reflex against size or success. Regulators should measure outcomes, not slogans. If officials claim they protect competition, they should not celebrate decisions that end in bankruptcy and foreign control.
Taxpayer Handouts to Insurers Must End
Health Insurance Companies Shielded from Competition
Signed into law in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has resulted in a cascade of taxpayer subsidies enriching large health insurers. Federal subsidies intended to help individuals pay for health insurance premiums increased dramatically, and a substantial share of these taxpayer dollars have flowed to private insurance companies in the form of higher gross premiums. The ACA’s premium tax credits, available to people with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, were expanded significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic (via the American Rescue Plan and later the Inflation Reduction Act). Because income restrictions were lifted, taxpayer funds subsidized well-off households’ insurance purchases even as federal debts and deficits ballooned and premiums skyrocketed for ordinary Americans. Lawmakers are fighting to bring back these now-expired “enhanced” subsidies, which would cost taxpayers $30 billion per year and further insulate insurers from market forces.
Congress Should Reject Federal Favoritism
Competition can transform the healthcare system, lowering costs for consumers and improving the quality of services provided. That’s simply not possible, though, when insurers are “rewarded” for oft-arbitrary coverage decisions, administrative bloat, and fraud with increased access to taxpayer dollars. Many consumers would prefer to end ties with insurers altogether and use a combination of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and surplus pension funds from their employers to purchase healthcare as they see fit. This is currently far too difficult because of HSA eligibility and contribution limits, restrictions on providers starting and expanding hospitals, and onerous limits on pension funds. It’s time for a new approach to healthcare policy.
Five Simple Solutions for Fixing Healthcare
- No more “enhanced” taxpayer subsidies to insurers.
- End ACA cap on physician-owned hospitals
- Permit employers to use surplus pension funds to finance healthcare.
- Allow all Americans access to HSAs.
- Hold Pharmacy Benefit Managers accountable.
Members of Congress must expand patient choice and remove hurdles to affordable high-quality care. Insurers need competition, not more handouts from taxpayers.
BLOGS:
Tuesday: TPA Testifies Against Proposed AI Regulation in Washington State
Wednesday: The Real Story Behind America’s Debanking Crisis
Thursday: 2025 Data Highlights FDA Failures
Friday: TPA Testifies Before FDA on Nicotine Pouches and Tobacco Harm Reduction
TPA Urges Senate Subcommittee to Support FirstNet Reauthorization Ahead of February 2027 Expiration
Media:
January 15, 2026:
Real Clear Markets ran TPA’s op-ed, "Credit Card Rate Caps Are Bad News for Individuals and Businesses."
January 16, 2026:
The Herald (New Britain, Ct.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Paul’s plan to expand healthcare choice is a win for America.”
January 16, 2026:
The Bristol Press (Elbert, Co.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Paul’s plan to expand healthcare choice is a win for America.”
January 16, 2026:
Tobacco Tactics mentioned TPA in their story, “Health Diplomats.”
January 16, 2026:
Racket News quoted TPA in their story, "The Weaponization of the Weaponization of Government."
January 17, 2026:
The Bristol Press (Elbert, Co.) and 4 other sources ran TPA’s op-ed, “Pet Care Costs are Rising, but Not Because of Private Equity.”
January 17, 2026:
Germanic News mentioned TPA in their story, “Arts advocates in Maryland are celebrating after Congress voted to fund the NEA and NEH.”
January 17, 2026: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their news segment on Maryland’s public school spending transparency.
January 17, 2026:
The Blaze ran TPA’s op-ed, “Antitrust panic helped kill an American robotics pioneer."
January 17, 2026:
Eye on Annapolis quoted TPA in their story, "OPINION: Benefit the Needy — Not the Greedy."
January 17, 2026: The
Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Arts advocates in Maryland are celebrating after Congress voted to fund the NEA and NEH.”
January 19, 2026:
American Family News quoted TPA in their story, "Kaiser Permanente settlement could be tip of $100 billion Medicare-Medicaid scandal."
January 19, 2026: The
Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Councilman joined nonprofit while trying to regulate it; Raised concerns about potential conflict of interest, watchdogs say.”
January 19, 2026: The
Washington Examiner (Washington, D.C.) ran TPA’s op-ed, "'Investors' not to blame for high housing prices."
January 19, 2026: I appeared on WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) to talk about a proposal to bring a professional soccer team to Baltimore.
January 19, 2026: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, "Baltimore City councilman joined board of taxpayer-funded nonprofit he wrote a bill on."
January 20, 2026:
USSA News mentioned TPA in their story, "Inside RFK Jr.’s Plan to Overhaul Vaccine Liability”
January 20, 2026: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, "State funding for CASA sparks debate over taxpayer dollars and nonprofit activism."
January 21, 2026: The
Los Angeles Daily News (Woodland Hills, Ca.) and 11 other sources ran TPA’s op-ed, "California’s government broadband gamble will cost taxpayers"
January 21, 2026: Atlas Point Media interviewed Ross Marchand for their Health Podcast episode, "Ross Marchand on the 340B Drug Program and the Hidden Cost to Patients and Taxpayers"
January 21, 2026: American Energy Alliance mentioned TPA in their press release, "AEA Signs Coalition Letter In Support of HJ Res. 140.”
January 22, 2026:
TabakNee mentioned TPA in their story, "Former Member of the European Parliament Nissinen is now a nicotine lobbyist.”
January 22, 2026: I appeared on WBOB-AM (Jacksonville, Fl.) to talk about President Trump’s proposal to ban institutional investors from buying homes.
January 22, 2026: I appeared on WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) to talk about Governor Wes Moore’s 2027 budget proposal.
January 22, 2026:
Digital Edition Chain Drug Review mentioned TPA in their story, “Over 36 groups join the Biosimilars Council and AAM to reiterate support for interchangeability legislation.”
January 22, 2026:
Digital Edition Chain Drug Review mentioned TPA in their story, “Over 36 groups join the Biosimilars Council and AAM to reiterate support for interchangeability legislation.”
