The Federal Trade Commission announced a strange condition of the merger between two giant advertising companies. The FTC allowed the merger, but blocked the new company from being able to boycott media outlets based on political viewpoints.

The FTC announced Monday that Omnicom Group would be able to go ahead with its $13.5 billion purchase of The Interpublic Group of Companies. The merger faced antitrust concerns as the two companies are major players in the advertising industry. Currently, Omnicom is the third-largest ad agency in the United States, and IPG is fourth-largest.

Assuming the acquisition continues as planned, the enlarged Omnicom would be blocked from “engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers’ political or ideological viewpoints,” the FTC said.

READ MORE: Right Wing Lobbying Organization Pushing States to Shield Companies From Political Boycotts

“Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication,” Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said. “Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate. The FTC’s action today prevents unlawful coordination that targets specific political or ideological viewpoints while preserving individual advertisers’ ability to choose where their ads are placed.”

The new rule comes after Elon Musk, the owner of the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, complained that advertisers were boycotting the platform. Last August, X filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a coalition of advertisers, for boycotting X following Musk’s purchase of the company. Founding members of GARM include both Omnicom and IPG.

GARM was originally formed in response to the mass shooting in a Christchurch, New Zealand mosque by a white supremacist. The shooting was livestreamed on Facebook, and as such, advertisements appeared on the platform alongside the livestream. GARM aimed to block members’ advertisements from appearing on platforms that didn’t have safeguards prohibiting what the organization called “illegal or harmful content, such as promoting terrorism or child pornography.”

Days after the X lawsuit, GARM disbanded.

“GARM has disbanded under a cloud of litigation and congressional investigation. The Commission has not been a party to those actions, and I take no position on any possible violation of the antitrust laws by GARM. The factual allegations, however, if true, paint a troubling picture of a history of coordination—that the group sought to marshal its members into collective boycotts to destroy publishers of content of which they disapproved,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said Monday.

“GARM was neither the beginning nor the end of harmful and potentially unlawful collusion in this industry. Numerous other industry groups and private organizations have publicly sought to use the chokepoint of the advertising industry to effect political or ideological goals. Clandestine pressure campaigns and private dealings among these parties are less well documented but pose the serious risk of harm and illegality,” he added.

The proviso to the Omnicom merger is not the FTC’s only foray into this issue. This May, the FTC opened an investigation to determine whether or not advertisers coming together in agreement to not buy ads on certain websites due to political content constituted an illegal boycott, according to the New York Times.

The nation of Qatar has reportedly promised to give President Donald Trump a new deluxe jet for use as Air Force One—but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that it isn’t a quid pro quo situation, as they know not to expect anything in return.

This weekend, ABC News broke the story that Qatar’s royal family is planning to give the Defense Department a Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet. The jet is reportedly so tricked out that it’s been called a “flying palace,” according to ABC News. After Trump leaves office, the ownership of the plane will transfer from the DoD to the Trump presidential library foundation.

Some might see the gift as an attempt by the Qatari government to curry favor with the American president. But on Monday morning, Leavitt denied that the jet would earn the country special privileges.

READ MORE: During Aviation Crisis Trump Is Shopping for Used Luxury Jet to Replace Air Force One

“They know President Trump and they know he only works with the interests of the American public in mind,” told Brian Kilmeade on Fox News, adding saying the Trump administration and DoD had “[committed] ourselves to the utmost transparency and that the gift was fully legal.

KILMEADE: Do you worry that if they Qataris give us something like this that they'll want something in return?

LEAVITT: Absolutely not, because they know President Trump and they know he only works with the interests of the American public in mind pic.twitter.com/WnoBO4Beh3

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2025

Qatar’s gift to Trump has been controversial with many Americans, including some members of Trump’s base. The far-right influencer Laura Loomer—a longtime ally of the president—called the acceptance of the gift “a stain on the admin” in a post to X (formerly Twitter) on Sunday.

Other critics have said the gift violates the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which requires government officials to reject gifts unless they get explicit approval from Congress. While a president may accept small, token gifts from leaders, a federal law puts a cap on politicians from receiving gifts worth more than $480.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said the gift is in clear violation of the emoluments clause, and called on Trump to seek Congress’ approval to take the gift, according to The Hill.

“The Constitution is perfectly clear: no present ‘of any kind whatever’ from a foreign state without Congressional permission,” Raskin said on X. “A gift you use for four years and then deposit in your library is still a gift (and a grift).”

During President Joe Biden’s administration, Trump pushed a conspiracy theory that Biden had offered loan guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for the dismissal of a prosecutor investigating the Burisma energy company. The then-president’s son, Hunter Biden, was a board member of Burisma.

While Trump’s claims were repeatedly debunked, Trump’s first impeachment was over proven reports that Trump blocked a $400 million military aid package to Ukraine—already approved by Congress—in an attempt to get the country to investigate Joe Biden and damage his presidential campaign.

That is not the only time Trump has been accused of making quid pro quo—latin for “this for that”—deals. Earlier this year, comments made by “border czar” Tom Homan on Fox News implied an agreement was made to drop federal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams  in exchange for his support.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) vowed to file legislation stopping federal district judges from ruling on orders issued by President Donald Trump. He claims it’s outside of their jurisdiction—but the Constitution disagrees.

On Wednesday, Hawley appeared on The Charlie Kirk Show to slam district judges who have issued injunctions against the Trump administration’s acts, including the mass firings of federal workers and the rollback of DEI initiatives.

“These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, ‘I’m not just going to issue an order that says what the executive branch can or cannot do in my district, I’m going to issue an order that binds the executive branch for the entire nation,'” Hawley said.

READ MORE: Conservative Rains Hell on ‘Dishonest’ and ‘Scummy’ Josh Hawley

“That is not a power that I think district courts have… what needs to happen is one of two things: Either the Supreme Court needs to intervene and make clear there’s only one court that can issue rules for the whole country, that’s the Supreme Court, that’s why we only have one of them. And or, if they won’t do that, Congress needs to legislate and make clear that district courts do not have the ability to issue these kinds of injunctions.”

Sen. Josh Hawley SLAMS local district court judges issuing national injunctions on the Trump admin, calls for SCOTUS or Congress to intervene:

"These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, 'I'm not just going to issue an order that says what the executive… https://t.co/e1lzI3cSP5 pic.twitter.com/0KzcpkkxnW

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 19, 2025

On Thursday, Hawley vowed on X (formerly Twitter) to file legislation that would strip power from district court judges, keeping them from issuing these sorts of injunctions.

“District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration – a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good,” he wrote, declining to include any details on what that legislation may look like.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution lays out the American judicial system. While the Supreme Court is the final authority, it is primarily an appellate court—meaning that lower courts make initial rulings which are then appealed up the chain. The Supreme Court can only be the original court in cases involving “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,” the Constitution reads.

District Courts are the lowest level of federal courts, and there are 94 of them throughout the U.S., with each state getting at least one, as well as the District of Columbia. Much like the state courts, district courts hear criminal cases—when federal crimes have been committed—as well as civil cases. Civil cases deal with legal and constitutional conflicts; the type of cases Hawley is referring to here.

As an example, let’s look at the recent case involving Trump’s attempt to ban transgender people from serving in the military. In a case like this, the judge can issue an injunction, which puts Trump’s order on hold, until it can be heard by the courts.

It all starts with a lawsuit—in this case, Talbott v. Trump. Talbott was initially filed by six active service members and another two people who wanted to enlist. The plaintiffs said that Trump’s executive order would keep them out of the military illegally; the defendant, the Department of Justice, disagrees, saying the order is legal.

Whether or not to issue an injunction is up to the particular judge. If the judge declines to issue an injunction, the government could continue to act on Trump’s EO. In this particular case, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes put an initial injunction on the order earlier this week. This keeps everything in a holding pattern; transgender people can remain in the military until the case is decided.

Given Reyes’ comments, it’s likely that she will rule that the EO is illegal. If the Justice Department chooses not to appeal the ruling, it will stand just as if the Supreme Court ruled on it. Of course, this is unlikely—the DOJ will almost certainly appeal. The case then heads to one of the 13 appellate courts.

Appellate courts review the original ruling. Often, both sides are given a brief time to argue their case—usually 15 minutes, according to the official U.S. Courts webpage—but not always. Sometimes, appellate courts look only at the written briefs in the case. Unlike district courts, appellate courts are ruled over by a panel of judges rather than just one.

The judicial panel will decide whether or not the original judge made an error in legal reasoning. The appellate court can decide whether to let the decision stand, to overturn it, or to send the case back to the district courts.

In this case, if Reyes rules in favor of the plaintiffs, and the appellate court upholds her ruling, the injunction keeping trans people in the military still stands. If the appellate court overturns the ruling, the injunction may still stand, if the plaintiffs decide to appeal. If the plaintiffs don’t choose to appeal, then the injunction would be lifted and Trump’s EO would be reinstated.

Either party can file a “writ of certiorari”, which asks that the Supreme Court to decide the case. So, in Talbott, it’s likely that either way the appellate court rules, either the DOJ or the plaintiffs would ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. The injunction would still stand until the Supreme Court either declines to take the case, or ultimately rules on it. At that point, whatever the Supreme Court decides would stand.

Image via Shutterstock