Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division
Tampa, Florida – Alexander Justin McAfee (34, Tampa) has been charged by indictment with two counts of interstate communication of a threat to injure. If convicted, McAfee faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison on each count. McAfee made his initial appearance in federal court on April 17, 2026, and has been detained pending trial. U.S. Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe made the announcement.
Source: United States Department of Justice
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery, “‘The Business We’ve Chosen’ – Federal Antitrust Enforcement in a Changing Media Landscape”
Good afternoon — and thank you for inviting me to the town that Moe Greene invented as a stopover for GIs on their way to the West Coast: Las Vegas.[1]
Las Vegas embodies the dynamic character of media and entertainment competition in America. At one time, Las Vegas had a near monopoly on legal gambling in the United States. Over time, the Vegas gambling monopoly faced competitive pressure from other states. The dam finally broke with the legalization of federal sportsbooks less than a decade ago.[2] Yet Las Vegas remains alive and well, despite speculation it could not survive the competition.[3]
This city in the sand rises again today, having transformed itself into a media, sports, and live entertainment destination.
Let me start today with a simple idea. Antitrust enforcement is not personal. It is not about picking winners and losers. And it is not about taking sides in industry disputes. It is about competition that protects and benefits consumers.
That may sound straightforward, but in a moment like this — when the media landscape is rapidly evolving (with political fervor to boot) — it’s worth being clear about what that means in practice. And it’s worth addressing head-on the unique challenges an antitrust enforcer must grapple with when evaluating the media landscape today.
To state the obvious, the media and entertainment sector is not static. Today, consumers can access content through broadcast, through cable and satellite, through streaming platforms, through direct-to-consumer services, and through digital and social media platforms. Alongside unprecedented choice in distribution, we have also observed an increase in the total output of media content – I’ll address the quality question later.
Given these changes, how should an antitrust enforcer respond? What is the role of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division? I have two short answers that I would like to explore in my comments today.
First, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s enforcement priorities are rooted in federal interests. To use antitrust jargon, state and private interests are complements, not substitutes. Some may lament this divergence. But it’s a feature, not a bug in our Constitutional federal system. We have a federal Constitution that values subsidiarity – the principle that social and political questions should be handled by the least centralized competent authority.[4]
Second, technological change continues to disrupt industries, including media. Artificial Intelligence is the Big Data of the 2010s, and the Internet of 2000s. Evaluating the competitive implications of AI thus requires a cautious humility – along with the recognition that while much changes in the world, much also stays the same. That is a principle I think this crowd can appreciate.
Turning to my first point, we are not operating in a legal and regulatory environment in which a single institution sets the rules of the game. We are operating in a complex ecosystem that includes overlapping enforcers, regulators, new technologies, and shifting consumer behaviors. In this environment, effective antitrust enforcement requires more than reflex. It requires focus. It requires humility. And it requires a clear understanding of where federal antitrust enforcement is uniquely positioned to protect competition.
At a time when many seek to change antitrust law as part of a broader political movement, at the Department of Justice, we seek simply to enforce the antitrust laws that Congress has passed.
The Department of Justice Antitrust Division, where I serve as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for merger enforcement, is a federal enforcer with finite resources. Those resources are funded by the American taxpayers (as we were all reminded of last week).
Finitude is not a weakness — it is an inherent feature of human action that should impose discipline.[5]
We cannot and should not try to resolve every issue or commercial complaint that arises in markets. Nor should we assume that every competitive concern must be addressed through federal antitrust enforcement. The reality is that competition in media is overseen by a network of institutions, each with its own tools, unique expertise, and distinct mandates. At the federal level, we work closely with the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that our antitrust enforcement efforts are coordinated and complementary.
Beyond that, state attorneys general play an important role in antitrust enforcement, often bringing a localized understanding of market dynamics. Foreign competition authorities increasingly shape outcomes in global transactions. And in this industry, the Federal Communications Commission has its own independent statutory mandate, which focuses on licensing, spectrum, and specific public interest considerations.
It is also important to recognize that enforcement is not limited to government actors. Private parties — competitors, distributors, and other market participants — often have standing to bring claims under federal and state antitrust laws. Those cases can play a meaningful role in shaping outcomes and mitigating competitive concerns expressed in the marketplace. We are seeing this play out in real time. In some instances, private enforcement can proceed in parallel with government review or address issues that fall outside the scope of federal enforcement priorities. That is not a flaw in the system; it is part of how the federal antitrust framework is designed to function.
In this broader ecosystem, the question for the DOJ Antitrust Division is not how to do everyone else’s job. The question is what are we uniquely positioned to do.
Our role is to protect the competitive process — to focus on structural issues, on exclusionary conduct, and on market dynamics that affect competition at scale. That means bringing cases where the facts and the law support federal intervention. It also means exercising judgment about where federal enforcement will be most impactful, rather than simply reacting to the loudest or most well-funded voices.
Discipline, humility, and creativity are essential to maintaining the DOJ’s credibility — with courts and with market participants. It is also paramount to preserving our limited, taxpayer-funded resources for the hardest problems. In those cases, the DOJ’s elite career attorneys and expertise are indispensable. We saw this in our successful and continued prosecution of Google for its monopolization of Internet Search and Ad-Tech markets. We saw this in our recent settlement with Live Nation to obtain immediate and guaranteed relief for consumers while a subset of States defend their recent trial verdict on appeal. We saw this decades ago in the DOJ’s success defeating Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct in the internet economy, laying the groundwork for a competitive internet ecosystem in which new business models in advertising and media have arisen.
Turning to the substance of competition in media markets, it’s useful to step back and consider how we got here.
About thirty years ago, around the same time as he was being deposed by DOJ attorneys regarding Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct, Bill Gates observed that “content is king.”[6]
Gates wrote: “Content is where I expect much of the real money will be made on the Internet, just as it was in broadcasting. The television revolution that began half a century ago spawned a number of industries, including the manufacturing of TV sets, but the long-term winners were those who used the medium to deliver information and entertainment.”
Bill Gates’ observation was made in a media environment in which broadcast television was a central pillar. But even then, the landscape was beginning to shift. Linear distribution through cable and satellite was already rising as a core competitive force, challenging traditional over-the-air broadcast distribution. At the same time, the internet — still in its early stages — was beginning to introduce the possibility of entirely new forms of distribution.
In many ways, that moment captures a dynamic that still defines the industry today. Content has always been at the core of media competition. It is what attracts audiences and drives engagement. But the ways in which content reaches consumers have continued to evolve, often in ways that expand competition rather than limit it. The internet did not simply replace existing distribution channels; it multiplied them.
Nevertheless, much of the concern we hear today in media markets is focused on distribution — on who controls access to audiences and how that access is governed. Those concerns are not misplaced, but they need to be understood in context. The competitive baseline for distribution is fundamentally different than it was in the past. The question is no longer whether alternatives exist, but how those alternatives function in practice, and whether new forms of concentration or control are emerging.
These market realities in distribution and content require adjusting the aperture in antitrust analysis. We cannot evaluate today’s markets using assumptions rooted in a period of relative scarcity. But we also cannot assume that increased choice eliminates the possibility of market power and related anticompetitive conduct. Emerging distribution channels can become gatekeepers in their own right. They can shape how content is discovered, how it is monetized, and how competition functions in media markets. When conduct or consolidation in those channels threatens to foreclose competition — either downstream in distribution or upstream in content — those are issues that warrant careful scrutiny.
If content remains central today, then it’s important to look upstream. From an antitrust perspective, two principles have long guided the legal analysis: quality and price. Those principles remain relevant today.
On quality, we are in the early stages of another technological shift. Artificial intelligence has the potential to reshape content creation in ways that are still unfolding. In some respects, AI today plays a role similar to the internet in its early years. It expands the tools available to creators, lowers certain barriers, and introduces new forms of competition. We have already seen this dynamic play out in the context of merger review. In a recent transaction the DOJ reviewed involving stock photography – an industry that survived the competitive pressures of the early internet and digital imagery – developments in AI capabilities during the pendency of the investigation had a meaningful impact on how we assessed likely competitive effects. That investigation required us to directly confront changing market realities, and it involved close coordination with foreign enforcers to arrive at a principled decision.
At the same time, it is important to approach AI with discipline. It is not a catch-all defense to competitive concerns or an invitation for unlawful consolidation or anticompetitive conduct. Assertions about future competition must be grounded in evidence. DOJ’s attorneys are the best of the best in antitrust enforcement, they test claims carefully, and they work with political leadership to come to principled decisions on the merits.
Career DOJ staff and political leadership are not static in our thinking. The quality of AI-generated content today may not define its role tomorrow. What appears limited now may become a substitute in certain segments over time. That creates both uncertainty and opportunity, and it reinforces the need for an approach that is forward-looking without being speculative. It also leaves room for continued differentiation and development through human creativity, which remains a significant driver of value in content markets. A healthy and cautious humility towards enforcement is thus critical, along with a recognition of the potential benefits of transactions that drive human ingenuity and creativity in content creation.
On price, the analysis is familiar, but no less important. In many areas — particularly live programming — content remains scarce. Rights to certain events are limited and highly valued, and competition among distributors to secure those rights is intense. That competition can drive prices higher, but the key antitrust question is whether the process by which those prices are set remains competitive. Are multiple parties able to bid? Are there constraints that limit participation or distort outcomes? The goal is not to regulate prices, but to ensure that they are the product of a competitive process.
For broadcast television, these dynamics are not abstract. Broadcast continues to play a vital role in local markets, in live programming, and in reaching broad audiences. It operates at the intersection of content and distribution, participating in both upstream and downstream markets. That position creates both opportunity and complexity. Broadcast companies are competing in a world with more distribution options than ever before, but they are also interacting with counterparties that may have significant scale or integration across the value chain.
From an antitrust perspective, that means approaching these markets with nuance. Broadcast is neither insulated from competition nor irrelevant to it. Broadcast remains an important part of the media ecosystem, and transactions or conduct affecting broadcast markets can have meaningful competitive implications. At the same time, the broader context in which broadcast operates must inform how those implications are assessed.
Let me close with a final thought. In a high profile industry like media, there is always a temptation to react — to focus on the most immediate concern or the most vocal complaint. But effective antitrust enforcement cannot be driven by shiny objects or loud voices. It has to be grounded in the law, in evidence, and in a clear understanding of how markets are actually working. Antitrust enforcement must consider how transactions and conduct will impact future incentives and constraints on the human ingenuity to bring new and better products to market.
These factors require DOJ to focus on the issues that matter most for competition, rather than trying to address every concern, particularly when other enforcers and regulators have authority and resources to address more local or industry-specific concerns. It requires engaging with new technologies and market realities without losing analytical rigor. And it requires a measure of humility — recognizing that markets change, that our understanding evolves, and that getting it right matters more than acting quickly or satisfying the loudest voices today.
The DOJ’s federal antitrust enforcement objective is not to preserve any particular model of media or to favor one set of participants over another. It is to ensure that as this industry continues to evolve, it does so in a way that preserves competition — so that innovation continues, consumers benefit, and the institutions represented in this room can adapt and thrive.
As my boss says: “It’s not personal. It’s strictly business.” Thank you.
[1] The Godfather Part II (Paramount Pictures 1974).
[2] Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453 (2018).
[3] As more states legalise gambling, what next for Las Vegas?, The Economist (Apr. 6, 2026), https://www.economist.com/united-states/2026/04/06/as-more-states-legalise-gambling-what-next-for-las-vegas.
[4] U.S. Const. amend X.
[5] See Augustine, Confessions, bk. 1 (Maria Boulding trans., New City Press 1997) (“You have made us and drawn us to Yourself, and our heart is unquiet until it rests in You.”).
Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA – United States Attorney David I. Courcelle announced that DANIEL HANKTON, (“HANKTON”), age 34, was sentenced on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, by United States District Judge Darrel James Papillion, after previously pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and ammunition, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8).
Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division
United States Attorney Ron Parsons announced that a jury has convicted Shane Bruguier, age 47, of Eagle Butte, South Dakota, of one count of Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child following a three-day jury trial in federal district court in Pierre, South Dakota. The verdict was returned on April 16, 2026.
Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division
On April 16, 2026, following a four-day trial, a federal jury convicted Alfredo Capote of kidnapping. Capote tied up the victim’s teenaged son, sexually assaulted the victim, abducted her, and drove her to several Georgia cities over the course of two days. At the time of the kidnapping, Capote was under indictment for fraud and money laundering.
Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, and Inspector in Charge of the New York Division of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), Ketty Larco-Ward, announced today the arrest of OPEYEMI OLUJOBI, a/k/a “Tyler Olujobi,” and JENNIE DAVIDSON.
Source: United States Army
PICATINNY ARSENAL, NJ – The U.S. Army’s Capability Program Executive Ammunition and Energetics (CPE A&E), headquartered at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, is spearheading a major transformation of the nation’s small‑caliber ammunition industrial base, advancing one of the Army’s highest modernization priorities. Central to this effort is the delivery of next‑generation 6.8mm cartridges that will equip soldiers with increased range, accuracy, and battlefield lethality as part of the Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) program.
The NGSW program, featuring the M7 Rifle, XM8 Carbine, and M250 Automatic Rifle, represents the Army’s most significant small‑arms upgrade in decades, replacing the M4 Carbine and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. These new weapons, enabled by advanced 6.8mm cartridges, are designed to provide decisive overmatch in operating environments.
To accelerate production and strengthen readiness, Project Manager Maneuver Ammunition Systems (PM MAS), in partnership with Project Lead Joint Services (PL JS), has established an interim 6.8mm manufacturing capability at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) utilizing a mix of new and repurposed equipment. As of March 2026, operating contractor Olin Winchester is producing and delivering 6.8mm ammunition from this capability. The Army is also supplying projectiles from this interim line to SIG Sauer to support additional cartridge deliveries while LCAAP expansion continues.
CPE A&E is executing a long-term modernization strategy to ensure the Army’s ammunition needs are met well into the future. A key milestone was the February 2025 groundbreaking for a new 450,000‑square‑foot 6.8mm production facility at LCAAP. This state-of-the-art complex will house advanced manufacturing systems for every component of the 6.8mm cartridge and serves as a cornerstone of the Army’s organic industrial base modernization. Construction remains on schedule, with production equipment installation anticipated to begin in 2028.
“CPE A&E is leading the development, procurement, and fielding of cutting-edge ammunition and energetics ensuring the Army and its international partners maintain a significant technological advantage,” said Col. Jason Bohannon, Capability Program Executive Ammunition and Energetics. “The work being executed is foundational to advancing the Army’s modernization goals and ensuring combat readiness across the force.”
Source: United States Airforce
The exercise focused on the 919th SOW’s core Mission Essential Tasks by establishing a FOB and executing complex operations in a simulated austere location. The training was specifically designed to replicate a challenging and restrictive operational environment.
Source: United States Army
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Army is implementing significant updates to its retention program in fiscal year 2026, reinforcing a performance-based approach that directly benefits Soldiers who maintain high standards, develop critical skills and commit to long-term service.
The updated program shifts reenlistment incentives toward a quality-centric model that prioritizes readiness, critical military occupational specialties and individual performance. While all eligible Soldiers may reenlist, incentive levels will now vary based on performance and Army needs.
“The primary mission of the revamped program is to maximize precision and quality in retention to meet end strength goals and drive readiness,” said Col. Angela Chipman, chief of the U.S. Army military personnel accessions and retention division. “This approach allows the Army to better recognize and retain Soldiers who consistently perform at a high level.”
For Soldiers who train hard, seek growth and take pride in their work, the updated system offers clearer returns on effort.
Under the FY26 framework, the Army will reduce reliance on short-term extensions and place greater emphasis on longer reenlistment contracts, reflecting the Army’s increased investment in advanced skills and long-term readiness.
At the center of the updated retention program is the Quality Tiered Incentives Program, or QTIP. The system evaluates Soldiers within cohorts of the same rank and MOS using a standardized, data-driven approach.
QTIP measures performance across three weighted categories: physical fitness, technical expertise and command assessment. Army Fitness Test scores, documented qualifications and leader evaluations of performance and potential all factor into a Soldier’s tier placement.
Soldiers who maintain strong fitness, pursue professional development and demonstrate consistent reliability will rank higher within their peer groups and qualify for enhanced incentives.
The Army will also place greater emphasis on reclassification into priority and shortage MOSs. Soldiers willing to transition into critical roles while maintaining strong performance metrics will be among the most competitive for bonuses and reenlistment incentives.
Beginning in December, the Army will train career counselors, command teams and personnel sections on the updated retention framework. Soldiers approaching their reenlistment window are encouraged to engage early with leadership and career counselors, ensure records are accurate and pursue opportunities that enhance readiness and competitiveness.
The message is simple: Soldiers who invest in themselves will see the difference at reenlistment, while strengthening the Army’s ability to meet future challenges.
Source: United States Army
PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY, Calif. (April 20, 2026) — Emergency response on the Monterey Peninsula is a team effort, requiring constant coordination between agencies to ensure a rapid, effective response.
Those partnerships have been on display in recent weeks, from a childbirth call early on April 2 to a three-alarm fire at the Casanova Avenue apartment complex on March 9.
In the early morning hours of April 2, PoM firefighters responded to a medical call reporting a woman in labor. The crew arrived to find a full-term infant had been delivered moments before their arrival. Firefighters immediately transitioned to patient care, assessing both mother and newborn while coordinating with incoming medical personnel.
“You always prepare for everything,” said firefighter Andrea Kiser. “We bring all the equipment because you don’t know if you’re walking into a delivery or a complication.”
The infant, a girl weighing approximately 5.5 pounds, was assessed in excellent condition. Kiser accompanied the mother and newborn to the hospital, where both were reported to be in good health.
“Not every shift ends with a brand-new baby entering the world, so this one definitely brought some big smiles around the station,” said fire chief David Wilcox. “That’s the kind of call that reminds everyone why the job matters.”
Just weeks earlier, on March 9, PoM firefighters responded alongside multiple agencies to a three-alarm fire at the Casanova Avenue apartment complex in Monterey. Monterey Fire Department led the incident and directed crews to fight the fire and search for residents. Other agencies who responded to the call were from Seaside, Monterey County Regional Fire District, Marina, Salinas, North County, Hollister and Cal Fire.
“When the first crew arrives, they own the scene and start assigning incoming units based on what’s needed,” said Capt. Issac Johnson.
The response brought together multiple agencies operating under a unified approach, a routine reality for fire departments across the peninsula.
“We all work together regularly, so when something like that happens, it’s pretty seamless,” Johnson said.
That interdependence is formalized through the automatic aid and mutual aid agreements PoM maintains with neighboring jurisdictions, including Marina, Seaside and Monterey, as well as regional partnerships across the county. The agreements ensure the closest and most capable resources respond, regardless of jurisdiction, and allow agencies to coordinate personnel, equipment and resources when incidents require more.
“No single agency can meet every operational demand alone,” Wilcox said. “Our integration into the peninsula’s mutual aid network ensures both PoM and the surrounding community benefit from a unified, highly capable regional response.”
Training is just as collaborative as emergency response. The region’s highest risk remains a large-scale wildland fire, making interagency training critical to maintaining readiness across the peninsula. This week, April 20-24, PoM firefighters are participating in a wildland exercise led by Monterey Fire. The training takes place in Army housing on Navy property, forcing multiple agencies to practice together in a shared environment.
For deputy fire chief Travis Wondrash, that level of coordination is essential.
“Through the coordination and efforts of our partners, we’re able to get 70% of the department trained in two days,” Wondrash said. “Compared to taking nearly an entire month to accomplish that, this is a major win for us. It’s a big bang for the buck.”
Whether responding to emergency medical calls, structural fires or interagency wildland incidents, PoM firefighters serve as a vital link in the mutual aid partnerships that protect the Monterey Peninsula.