
The real question is not whether a company is big or small. It is whether consumers have choices, entrepreneurs can compete, and government is keeping its thumb off the scale.
A strange argument is taking hold in Washington these days. Somehow, we have reached the point where being a successful business can become evidence that you have done something wrong.
Grow too large, gain too many customers, become too efficient, and suddenly politicians start asking whether government should cut you down to size.
That is backward.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute makes an important point in its project, The Case for Small and Big Business in America: no business has a perfect size. Sometimes small works better. Sometimes big works better. Consumers, not bureaucrats in Washington, should decide.
That sounds too obvious to require saying, but it does.
Small businesses are indispensable to the American economy. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, there are more than 36 million small businesses in the United States. They represent 99.9 percent of American businesses and employ more than 62 million people.
Those are enormous numbers. Numbers don’t lie. Small businesses are often where new ideas begin. Small businesses are the largest Job creators. They can move quickly, specialize in something unusual, know their customers by name, and respond to changes without running every decision through six departments and three committees. That is the beauty of entrepreneurship.
Big businesses offer advantages as well. A large manufacturer can produce something at a scale a small company simply cannot. A national grocery chain can move huge quantities of food through an enormous distribution network. Technology companies can spend billions on infrastructure, cybersecurity, research, manufacturing, and data centers. They have the economies of scale they can purchase at a lower cost and pass it to the consumer.
Scale can mean lower costs, greater consistency, and more investment. Products are available to millions. CEI argues that this is exactly why regulators should stop treating size itself as evidence of wrongdoing. Antitrust law should focus on actual harm to competition and consumers. They should not focus on whether government officials believe a company looks too big. The government should keep its heavy hand off small business.
That distinction matters. A company that gains power through special government treatment is a legitimate concern. As is one that conspires to eliminate competitors, cheats consumers, or uses illegal tactics to shut others out of the marketplace.
However, a company that grows because millions of people voluntarily choose its products is a different matter entirely.
Politicians sometimes miss another point: small business and big business are not opposing armies.
They work together every day. Small manufacturers supply larger manufacturers. Independent contractors work for major corporations. Local firms provide construction, consulting, technology, transportation, catering, maintenance, accounting, and thousands of other services to bigger companies. It is also
The SBA has recently highlighted this relationship through supplier matchmaking programs that connect hundreds of small American businesses with large industrial buyers. That is what a functioning economy looks like. One company’s growth creates opportunities for another company.
Republicans should understand this better than anyone. We are, after all the party of small business, NFIB, not the US Chamber of Commerce. It is about Main Street’s success, not Wall Street’s success.
We should be the party defending entrepreneurship, competition, property rights, and economic freedom. But that also means resisting two bad ideas at once. The first is the progressive idea that government should punish companies simply for becoming large. Government should be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction, reacting to the whims of the week.
The second is the temptation to defend large corporations no matter what they do.
Neither makes sense.
Republicans should oppose corporate welfare just as vigorously as excessive regulation. No business should receive a protected market because it has better lobbyists. No company should be shielded from competition through government subsidies, special tax treatment, complicated licensing laws, or regulations written in a way that only giant corporations can afford to obey.
That is not capitalism. That is political favoritism.
A healthy free market needs room for the family-owned restaurant, the neighborhood contractor, the technology startup, the manufacturing company, and the multinational corporation.
Some businesses will remain small because being small is their advantage.
Others will grow.
And some giant companies that seem unstoppable today may eventually disappear because someone builds something better.
That constant movement is not a weakness of capitalism. It is the whole point.
Government’s job should not be to choose the winners, protect the losers, or decide when a successful company has become too successful.
Set fair rules. Punish fraud. Protect competition.
Then let Americans build.
Endnotes
1. Competitive Enterprise Institute, “New CEI Video: The Case for Big and Small Business in America.”
https://cei.org/blog/new-cei-video-the-case-for-big-and-small-business-in-america/
2. U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions About Small Business 2026.”
https://advocacy.sba.gov/2026/02/03/frequently-asked-questions-about-small-business-2026/
3. U.S. Small Business Administration, “SBA Celebrates Success of Detroit Supplier Matchmaking Expo.”
https://legacy.sba.gov/article/2026/06/18/sba-celebrates-success-detroit-supplier-matchmaking-expo
4. Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Free to Prosper: Antitrust.”
https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/antitrust.pdf
Cameron Sloan writes on Maryland governance and fiscal policy for Direct Line News.
Direct Line News is a Maryland-based free-access publication committed to the Republican reform tradition.