I’ll cut to the chase: Columbia just handed Lina Khan a platform to teach and shape economic policy, and that move says a lot about elite echo chambers. This piece breaks down her record at the FTC, her role advising Zohran Mamdani, how elite institutions recycle failed ideas, and why conservatives should pay attention. Expect a clear look at the practical consequences of awarding influence over policy to people with a track record of courtroom losses and political activism. The takeaway is straightforward—institutions matter, and the people they elevate matter more.
Columbia University has announced a new Center for Law and the Economy with Lina Khan as a co-leader, and most conservatives will find that alarming. Khan left the Federal Trade Commission after a tenure that included high-profile losses against major tech companies, yet she now gets a cushy academic launchpad to teach a generation. That kind of revolving-door promotion among elites rewards ideology more than results.
At the FTC, Khan ran a combative agenda that targeted big tech and promised bold change, but the courts pushed back. The administration’s antitrust cases against Microsoft and Meta did not meet with success, and those failures matter because they show a gap between rhetoric and enforceable law. Court losses expose the limits of regulatory zeal when it clashes with established legal standards.
Khan then landed in New York City politics, advising Zohran Mamdani as he moved from candidate to mayor, and that connection should give pause. Mamdani campaigned on sweeping affordability and consumer protection promises that have proven difficult to deliver, and Khan’s involvement tied regulatory activism to municipal policy-making. When academic institutions reward that path, they signal that political alignment beats practical policy outcomes.
Lina Khan, the antitrust enforcer who challenged tech giants, wants to shape another generation of legal scholars to join her crusade.
Columbia University, where the 37-year-old has taught on and off since 2020, is launching the Center for Law and the Economy, which will be jointly run by Khan and Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia.
The center aims to offer Khan’s brand of antitrust enforcement and economic policy to law students and progressive policymakers nationwide. It will also focus on areas such as banking law, consumer protection and economic governance, Khan said.
“It’s just been clear that there is a huge hunger among students, and law students in particular, to be part of this work and to help advance it,” Khan said in an interview.
It’s not just about one wrongheaded hire; it’s a pattern. Elite academic posts are increasingly used to broadcast political positions and to recruit sympathetic legal thinkers, not to foster rigorous debate. That discourages intellectual diversity and hands students an echo chamber dressed up as scholarship.
We should also note who gets credit for real consumer wins. Contrary to the narrative trotted out by progressive circles, meaningful progress on some cost drivers, like certain hospital contracting practices, came from different policy avenues. The Trump administration pursued legal action that aimed at anticompetitive hospital contracts, showing that enforcement can work when it follows clear legal standards and practical remedies.
The FTC suffered court defeats against Microsoft and Meta Platforms; Khan left in 2025. In November, Khan became co-chair of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s transition team, advising the democratic socialist mayor. She helped vet the top legal jobs for the city, and advised the mayor on his affordability platform as well as on areas like consumer protection and utility costs. She continues to advise and support his agenda on affordability and the economy.
Columbia’s move raises a practical concern: what kind of training will law students get at a center that bills itself as advancing a singular enforcement style? Students deserve exposure to competing theories and a toolkit rooted in law and economic reality, not a one-note crusade. When universities go all-in on an ideological posture, they shortchange students and the public.
From a conservative perspective, the problem is larger than one hire; it’s the pattern of elites rewarding political loyalty over proven competence. Institutions that elevate activists as authorities normalize policy choices that look bold but falter under legal scrutiny. That has long-term consequences for governance and public trust.
Columbia may believe it’s planting seeds for future legal fights, but conservatives should treat this as a warning about how academia shapes policy debates. If academic centers become prize wheels for political actors, serious policy discussion loses ground to theatrical gestures. The public expects institutions of higher learning to seek truth and test ideas, not to amplify partisan campaigns.
Add comment