Kroger’s plans to buy its grocery rival Albertsons hit a major roadblock Tuesday, when a federal judge put a halt to the deal, which would be the largest supermarket merger in U.S. history.

The decision is a blow to Albertsons and Kroger, which announced plans for the $24.6-billion acquisition of its rival in 2022.

The Federal Trade Commission, California and several other states had sued to stop the deal, arguing the merger would decimate competition in many parts of the country and leave customers at the mercy of a newly formed behemoth that could drive up prices.

“This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries—from milk, to bread, to eggs—ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets,” said Henry Liu, the FTC’s Bureau of Competition director, in a statement.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson in Oregon to issue a preliminary injunction in the case means the two companies cannot proceed with their merger and will have to make their case again before the Federal Trade Commission, which will conduct an in-house proceeding on the proposed deal before an administrative law judge.

“Any harms defendants experience as a result of the injunction do not overcome the strong public interest in the enforcement of antitrust law,” Nelson wrote in her 71-page decision.

Representatives of Kroger and Albertsons said they’re reviewing their options and are “disappointed” by the ruling. A spokesperson for Kroger added that the merger “is in the best interests of customers, associates, and the broader competitive environment in a rapidly evolving grocery landscape.”

The ruling comes after a three-week hearing that started in late August in a federal courtroom in Oregon and featured the grocery store chains’ executives, FTC lawyers, union leaders and antitrust experts. The high-stakes court battle centered on concerns that the mega-merger would add to the financial woes of consumers who have grappled with the rising cost of food.

The case garnered particular attention as it touched on hot-button issues of rising food prices and labor rights during a tight U.S. presidential race in which Donald Trump hammered Vice President Kamala Harris on people’s dissatisfaction with the economy.

In October, Albertsons agreed to pay nearly $4 million to settle a civil law enforcement complaint that alleged the company overcharged customers for groceries and lied about the weight of some products.

Kroger and Albertsons executives have defended their decision to merge, saying in court that joining forces would help them compete with big retailers such as Walmart, Costco and Amazon. Kroger Chief Executive Rodney McMullen told the courtroom that the grocery chains planned to lower grocery prices after the merger. The supermarket chains say they’ve kept their gross profit margins low as part of their efforts to lower prices and will reduce the disparity between the grocery prices at Kroger and Albertsons.

The judge, though, said in her ruling that courts should be skeptical of promises that can’t be enforced, noting that “business realities” might force the grocery chains to alter whether they follow through on their vows to lower prices.

The federal government also made the case that supermarkets are different than other retailers because people go to these stores to buy groceries in a single visit. Costco, for example, requires membership, has bulk packages and lacks services offered in grocery chains like Kroger and Albertsons.

“It is not surprising that consumers spend money at a variety of different types of retailers, but this does not necessarily show that those retailers are reasonably interchangeable substitutes for a consumer’s particular needs,” the judge wrote.

To address concerns that reduced competition would lead to higher grocery store prices, Kroger and Albertsons have proposed selling 579 stores to another company, C&S Wholesale Grocers. That includes 63 stores in California, mainly in Southern California. After hearing testimony from experts, however, the judge wasn’t swayed.

U.S. regulators argued that the merger would hurt consumers. In its lawsuit filed in February, the FTC alleged that a lack of competition would lead to higher grocery prices, reduce food quality and customer service and harm grocery workers who are pushing for better working conditions and wages. Because Kroger and Albertsons are rivals, they compete with one another for workers and will price-match competitors.

Nelson said it was “plausible” that the merger would reduce competition for union grocery store labor, but noted there’s “no economic modeling of how wages, benefits, and other compensation might change as a result of changes in bargaining power.”

Acquisitions have fueled Kroger’s and Albertsons’ growth. Albertsons owns the well-known brands Pavilions, Safeway and Vons. Kroger operates Ralphs, Food4Less, Fred Meyer, Fry’s, Quality Food Centers and other popular grocery stores. If the merger ultimately goes through, the two supermarket chains would operate more than 5,000 stores in 48 states, the FTC said in the lawsuit.

The competition among grocery stores has been intensifying. Nationwide, Walmart is the most popular retailer, according to consumer data company Numerator. On the West Coast, Costco is the most popular retailer, followed by Walmart, Albertsons, Kroger, Amazon and Target.

Whether shoppers would see their grocery prices rise or fall was a complicated question for the court because a variety of forces can affect food prices. Those factors include competition, the costs of ingredients, worker wages, management efficiency and disease outbreaks.

Some experts say the effect the merger would have on grocery prices could depend on where a shopper lives. Some grocery mergers in major cities with a lot of competition such as San Francisco and New York have led to lower prices. In cities with less competition such as Topeka, Kan., grocery store mergers have resulted in higher prices. Economists have also found that sometimes a merger results in relatively little change in prices.

Siding with economic analysis provided by the federal government’s expert, Nelson noted the proposed merger is “presumptively unlawful.”

“Plaintiff’s analysis is persuasive and shows that the loss of head-to-head competition will incentivize price increases in many markets,” she wrote.

Over the last two years, the Republican-dominated House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic conducted 38 interviews and depositions, held 25 hearings and meetings, and examined more than 1 million pages of documents.

Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), a podiatrist, called it “the single most thorough review of the pandemic conducted to date” in his introduction to its final report, issued Dec. 2.

Wenstrup and his colleagues must be hoping that nobody actually reads the 557-page report, which is notable for its reliance on cherry-picked data, misrepresentations and flagrant fabrications.

Let’s take a look at what the majority had to say.

We’ll start with its first headline, “finding,” which is that “SARS-CoV-2, the Virus that Causes COVID-19, Likely Emerged Because of a Laboratory or Research Related Accident,” specifically at the Chinese Government’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, or WIV.

In fact, the hypothesis heavily favored by the epidemiological and virological scientific communities is that the source wasn’t a lab leak, but “zoonosis,” a natural spillover from wildlife, which were actively farmed and sold — illicitly — throughout southeast Asia, encompassing the region of China that includes Wuhan, the teeming city where the COVID first emerged.

Nevertheless, the GOP report asserts with cocksure confidence that “the weight of the evidence increasingly supports the lab leak hypothesis.”

What evidence? We don’t know, because the report doesn’t cite any — not a single empirical finding, not a single study in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s unsurprising, because there doesn’t appear to ever have been any such study.

Although the nation’s intelligence agencies have been divided over COVID’s origins, no empirical evidence has ever been published to support the lab-leak theory.

The report does mention six scientific studies of COVID’s origin in peer-reviewed journals. Every single one supports the zoonosis theory. The Republicans cite assessments by some U.S. intelligence agencies favoring a lab leak, but no agency has ever disclosed what made them think so. A declassified report issued in June 2023 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI — which oversees the entire intelligence community — found no evidence that a “research-related incident” at WIV “could have caused the COVID pandemic.”

As part of its bill of particulars, the GOP report resurrects an old yarn, originated by Trump acolytes at the State Department in 2020 and promoted by the Wall Street Journal, that three researchers at the WIV became sick with what may have been COVID in the autumn of 2019. The GOP report states that the ODNI release “supports this conclusion.”

Is that so? Here’s what ODNI said in its declassified assessment: “While several WIV researchers fell mildly ill in Fall 2019, they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with COVID-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to COVID-19.”

The Republicans devote more than 50 pages of their report to an effort to denigrate a seminal paper supporting the zoonosis hypothesis. “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” drafted by five immunologists and virologists with international reputations, was published by the journal Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020. (SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19.)

The paper was a product of a conference among about a dozen high-level scientists convened Feb. 1, 2020, by Jeremy Farrar, who was then director of the Wellcome Trust, a British health research foundation, and is now chief scientist of the World Health Organization. Farrar’s goal was to foster a discussion of initial concerns voiced by several virologists that features of the virus appeared to be man-made.

The GOP report notes that in his 2021 book “Spike: The Virus vs The People,” an inside look at the British response to the pandemic, Farrar refers to a paper co-written by Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina and Zhengli Shi, a top official at WIV, as a “how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory.”

The report presents this as evidence that SARS2 could have been man-made. The Baric/Shi paper was brought to Farrar’s attention by Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, who would be a drafter of the Proximal Origin paper.

But the majority provides a misleadingly incomplete quote from Farrar’s book. What he actually wrote was, “At first glance, the paper Kristian had unearthed looked like a how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory.” (Emphasis mine.)

The GOP report doesn’t mention that Farrar devoted the next 15 pages of his book, nearly 5,000 words, to explaining why his initial judgment was erroneous and that “the new virus was more convincingly explained, scientifically, as a natural spillover than a laboratory event.”

Farrar concludes, “I had put two and two together and made five.” The features that seemed at first to have been unique turned out to be common in the natural world.

Despite that, the Republicans strained to make the case that the Proximal Origin authors dismissed a lab leak as “implausible” because they were “‘Prompted’ by Dr. Anthony Fauci to ‘Disprove’ the Lab Leak Theory.”

This is part and parcel of the right wing’s long campaign to falsely smear Fauci, who retired in 2022 as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and was one of the nation’s most trusted public health professionals, as somehow the perpetrator of the pandemic.

Here the subcommittee is undone by its own text. Every reference in the GOP report to Fauci’s contacts with the authors of the “Proximal Origin” paper, including his emails and testimony, shows him explicitly urging the authors to investigate the lab leak theory and bring their concerns that the virus was artificially made to “the appropriate authorities” such as the FBI.

In not a single statement or testimony cited by the report does Fauci argue against the lab leak hypothesis. Indeed, as the report itself documents, Fauci urged experts to look into various ways the virus might have been grown in a lab before escaping into the world.

The Republicans tried to rewrite history in other respects. They accused the American Federation of Teachers of exercising “influence” over the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the CDC’s guidelines for reopening schools during the pandemic, and asserting that the AFT “continually pushed for school closures throughout the pandemic.”

This is a flagrant misrepresentation. The AFT actually pushed to open schools as rapidly as possible “with appropriate safety protocols in place” such as “physical distancing, proper ventilation, deep cleaning procedures and adequate personal protective equipment.” Its concerns were not only for the children, but also for teachers and other school personnel, as well as family members who were exposed to the virus via children.

The truth is that neither the AFT nor the CDC had any authority to impose school closing policies. These were always the product of local decisions, not all of which paid attention to CDC guidelines.

The subcommittee’s Democratic minority produced its own report, which is more measured in all respects, though not entirely devoid of problems. The Democrats observed, accurately, that “Republicans spent the 118th Congress amplifying extreme claims against our nation’s scientists,” especially Fauci.

The GOP members “relentlessly attacked Dr. Fauci” by claiming absurdly that Fauci created the virus and is “responsible for the millions of ensuing deaths,” the Democrats wrote. They also refuted another smear, aimed at EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that was formed to oversee international virus research funded by government agencies.

The Republicans insinuated that EcoHealth played a role in inventing the COVID virus, which is utterly preposterous. As I reported earlier, however, the Democrats connived with the GOP to undermine EcoHealth by accusing it unfairly of mishandling government funds. EcoHealth responded that the “falsehoods and accusations” about its work “stem from political motivations.” That’s correct. Unfortunately its valuable work has been hampered by these smears.

The Republican report promotes other long-debunked notions about the pandemic. It criticizes the efforts by the Food and Drug Administration to discourage people from taking nostrums that have been shown to have absolutely no therapeutic value against COVID, such as versions of the livestock dewormer ivermectin and the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, beloved of right-wing medical quacks.

I asked the GOP majority to explain on the report’s misrepresentations and contradictions, and whether the absence of evidence for its brief against Fauci suggested that its accusation was a fabrication. I also asked for its response to letters entered into the subcommittee record disputing the report’s claims from representatives for Fauci, the AFT, the Department of Health and Human Services and Francis Collins, who was head of the National Institutes of Health during the pandemic. I got no reply.

In a supreme irony, the GOP asserts that arguments favoring the zoonosis theory of COVID’s origin rest on “assumptions rather than facts.” That would be a more appropriate description of the majority report, which advances no “facts” but rests on fabricated and tendentious assumptions.

If one seeks a guide to how not to perform oversight over the work of scientists, this report sets a dismal standard. It’s a disservice to anyone who lives in the real world, not in a partisan fantasy.

TAIPEI, Taiwan —  President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to impose new tariffs on Chinese imports when he takes office, a move that would deepen a trade war he started six years ago.

He has not offered many specifics, but China is already arming itself for economic battle.

“Six years of really intense, focused preparatory work has gotten the top leaders in Beijing ready to deal with whatever comes down the pike,” said Even Pay, an analyst with research firm Trivium China.

Here’s a look at how the showdown between the world’s two largest economies played out the last time Trump was in office and where things might be headed now.

What happened during Trump’s first term?

Trump kicked off a trade war in 2018 by imposing 25% tariffs on imports from China — including industrial machinery, cars, auto parts and television cameras. Those goods accounted for about $50 billion of the $540 billion the United States spent that year on Chinese-made products.

The aim was to spur U.S. manufacturing, reduce a trade imbalance and punish China for trade practices Trump said were unfair. China imported just $120 billion in U.S. goods in 2018.

China responded with its own 25% tariffs on about $50 billion of those goods.

Despite trade talks over the next year, each country continued to impose more tariffs. By 2020, tariffs had been applied to a total of $550 billion in Chinese goods and $185 billion in U.S. goods.

Experts said the trade war did little to mitigate the U.S. trade deficit or boost U.S. exports. Instead, they said it weighed on economic growth and cost jobs in both the U.S. and China.

In the final year of Trump’s term, the two nations agreed to a truce, signing a trade deal that scrapped some tariffs and reduced others. China also agreed to purchase an additional $200 billion in U.S. goods and services — a pledge it failed to fulfill.

Did things cool off after President Biden took office?

Not really. The rhetoric coming from the White House was less hostile, but getting tough on China had become a political necessity for whoever was president, and the trade war only intensified.

Biden kept the Trump-era tariffs and added some of his own, including a 100% tax on imports of electric cars from China, a 50% tax on solar panels and a 25% tax on lithium-ion batteries and steel and aluminum products.

Biden has also continued the first Trump administration’s use of export bans to curb China’s access to U.S. technology. Last week, the U.S. expanded restrictions on sales of semiconductors and related manufacturing equipment to China and added 140 Chinese entities to a blacklist that limits trade with U.S. businesses on national security concerns.

What might Trump do this time?

For months he has advocated for raising tariffs on imports from China by 60% or more. He said on social media last month that he would impose a 10% tariff, “above any additional tariffs,” on all products from China.

His motivations are not entirely based on leveling trade or boosting U.S. manufacturing. Trump has also talked about using the threat of tariffs to spur China — as well as Mexico — to do more to help curb the U.S. opioid crisis. The two countries are the top sources of fentanyl and the chemicals used to make it.

How is China preparing for more tariffs?

China has already taken numerous steps to protect itself.

The country, which typically buys corn, soybeans and sorghum from the U.S., has been diversifying its sources and stocking up. Brazil has been one of the big winners. The damage could be significant for U.S. farmers, who sell about 77% of their sorghum exports to China.

China, though, is more vulnerable than the United States when it comes to tariffs — for the simple reason that it exports so much more than it imports.

The current economic situation in China doesn’t help. Growth has stagnated as the country struggles with a real estate downturn, growing debt, rising youth unemployment and a slowdown in consumer spending.

Larry Hu, chief China economist at the Australian bank Macquarie Group, estimated that a 60% tariff hike from the U.S. would reduce Chinese exports by 8% and GDP by 2%. If the U.S. enacts tariffs on goods from other countries as well, that would exacerbate the effect on China, which has been able to circumvent some tariffs by exporting products destined for the U.S. through third-party nations.

An employee works on the production line at Jiangsu Poppula Semiconductor Co. in Suqian, China, in October.

(Fang Dongxu / VCG via Associated Press)

How can China go on the offense?

Perhaps China’s biggest weapon in the trade war is its dominance in crucial materials that the U.S. needs to make products such as semiconductors and missiles. After the latest round of tech trade restrictions last week, China retaliated by banning exports of the rare elements gallium, germanium and antimony — cutting off at least half the U.S. supply, based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

The move was widely seen as a warning shot to the next administration of its ability to stall U.S. advancements in key strategic industries.

China can also fight back with monetary policy. During the last trade war, the country allowed the yuan to depreciate against the U.S. dollar, effectively making Chinese exports to the U.S. cheaper. The U.S. labeled China a currency manipulator, an accusation Beijing denied.

And after the U.S. began blacklisting Chinese companies during the first Trump administration, China launched its own list of entities deemed a threat to its national interests. This means the Chinese government can swiftly sanction U.S. individuals and businesses in retaliation for trade restrictions or other efforts to constrain development.

In September, China launched a probe into PVH Corp. — the parent company of apparel brands such as Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger — which it said has unfairly boycotted Xinjiang cotton. The U.S. has accused China of genocide against Muslim ethnic groups there and prohibits companies from using products suspected of being made with forced labor.

And on Monday, China opened an antitrust investigation into U.S. semiconductor giant Nvidia, whose value has soared this year amid an AI boom and increasing demand for advanced microchips. The U.S. has barred Nvidia from selling some of its most powerful chips to China.

If the trade war intensifies, the scope of targeted companies could broaden and China might also try to inconvenience U.S. businesses with operations in China by banning staff, restricting sales or initiating onerous compliance inspections or audits.

What are the downsides for China?

China may have the power to inflict serious damage on the U.S. economy, but it has to be careful about using it.

Ja-Ian Chong, associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, said that punishing U.S. operations in China could chill foreign investment and accelerate plans to move to other countries at a time when China is trying to attract more international business.

And preventing all crucial materials from reaching the U.S. would be difficult to enforce, considering the complex global supply chain, and might alienate other trade partners such as Taiwan or South Korea in the process.

“Beijing has options, but these options are not cost-free,” Chong said. “It comes down to how far China is willing to go.”