Texas has long been home to companies that grow not because the government clears the road for them, but because they innovate, compete, and persevere. Kimberly-Clark, based in Irving, is one of those firms. For decades, it has shown that American manufacturing and consumer-product ingenuity can thrive when markets, not regulators, set the terms.
Its plan to acquire Kenvue, maker of well-known products like Tylenol and Band-Aid, is the latest example of market dynamism working as intended. Some in Washington view any large merger with suspicion. Texans tend to see something different. Mergers and acquisitions often lead to more investment, higher productivity, and better prices for families. According to Reuters and CNBC, this nearly $48.7 billion deal could deliver all three.
The combined company would be better positioned to compete in a global marketplace where scale matters. Producing consumer health and personal-care products requires large capital commitments. Companies must invest in supply chain resilience, product safety, research, development, and compliance. Inflation and regulatory costs have pushed those expenses even higher.
By joining forces, Kimberly-Clark and Kenvue can streamline manufacturing and logistics and eliminate duplication. These efficiencies free up resources for innovation and can help make essential goods more affordable for families.
Critics often claim mergers reduce consumer choices. That view ignores how competition actually works. Kimberly-Clark faces significant pressure from global players like Unilever, private-label brands offered by major retailers, and a steady stream of niche competitors. Market share is not guaranteed in this industry. It must be earned daily. The idea that acquiring Kenvue would suddenly give Kimberly-Clark the power to dictate prices or restrict choices does not reflect the reality of a crowded and highly competitive marketplace.
Strategic acquisitions also play a central role in supporting entrepreneurship. Many startups rely on the possibility of being acquired as a reward for early investors. This cycle encourages new entrants, experimentation, and risk-taking. When regulators attempt to block mergers simply because the companies involved are large, they choke off an essential channel of capital formation. The result is fewer competitors and less innovation.
This is why a more grounded antitrust approach developing in Washington is encouraging. Gail Slater, the head of the DOJ’s antitrust division, indicated that she intends to focus on mergers that genuinely threaten competition and allow transactions that do not harm consumers to move forward. This direction aligns with the consumer welfare standard, which has guided U.S. antitrust for decades. The standard requires evidence that a merger will raise prices, reduce quality, or slow innovation. It does not treat success or scale as a problem to be solved.
The Biden administration often treated size itself as a warning sign. Agencies pursued lawsuits based on political concerns about big companies rather than concrete evidence of anticompetitive behavior. That approach created uncertainty, discouraged investment, and made it harder for firms to grow and compete globally.
Kimberly-Clark’s proposed acquisition of Kenvue is a chance to re-center antitrust policy on what matters most: consumer outcomes. No merger is flawless, and no deal deserves a free pass. But there is no basis to stop a transaction simply because the companies involved are familiar names. The important question is whether the deal harms consumers. Nothing in this case suggests it will.
Competition comes from innovation and consumer choice, not from agencies trying to engineer outcomes from Washington. When the government steps back and lets markets evolve, companies invest more, hire more, and build more value for families. Kimberly-Clark’s bid for Kenvue reflects confidence in American competitiveness and in Texas as a place where businesses can grow.
That is a vision worth supporting.
