Post hoc ergo propter hoc is often cited as a logical fallacy highlighting the important distinction between sequencing and causality. Still, sometimes one thing leads to another.

The Roku/Fox transaction has enough antitrust hair to make it plausible that the second request issued 8 September was done so based on traditional, legitimate competition concerns.

And yet it followed hot-on-the-heels of Fox parting ways with Trump surrogate Maria Bartiromo, an ouster White House senior counselor Peter Navarro described as emblematic of a “shadow ban” on MAGA voices at the network.

It’s a mark of this administration that we have to give serious consideration to whether that TV personnel decision has conditioned the new terms of the Roku/Fox review.

Such a suggestion may surprise some observers. After all, it’s easy to think the symbiotic Trump-Fox relationship could just as easily have led to expedited clearance.

So it’s worth acknowledging there are certainly some arguments for a deeper look on the merits that could historically have justified a more searching probe.

As this news service has reported, there are credible-enough concerns to warrant interest from the Department of Justice (DOJ) given the horizontal market share in ad-based streaming services and potential vertical integration effects that would result from a combination given Fox’s content library and Roku’s gatekeeper status.

It’s just tough to square any theory that the second request results from these technical concerns with a DOJ that has essentially renounced merger enforcement.

Stanley Woodward, Trump’s antitrust proxy at the agency, has reportedly bemoaned such enforcement as “a tax on dealmaking” and largely a waste of taxpayer resources.

So, if the technocratic rationale looks insufficient, what else might lie behind the DOJ’s move? After all, case handlers might well have intuited that Trump would look favorably on a deal involving a media ally firmly in the GOP camp.

That assumption certainly seems to have been shared by arbitrageurs, with the deal spread noticeably widening on the disclosure of the second request. A significant portion of shareholders must have believed political kinship would indeed streamline approval.

And this is where it’s necessary to understand some of the fractures emerging in the GOP politico-media ecosystem as Trump’s approval ratings head south ahead of the midterms.

By apparently firing Bartiromo, Fox has cut loose a steadfast Trump supporter who was one of the few on-air personalities that would still engage in 2020 election fraud speculation, even after the costly Dominion Voting Systems defamation settlement.

Trump responded to the separation by defending Bartiromo in a Truth Social post, and it’s not a stretch to imagine him taking his defense a step beyond that. Indeed, a scenario where officials, or perhaps the president himself, seek to flex their muscles to coax more favorable coverage from the network passes the smell test.

Even before the dismissal, we should have been thinking about the matter more strategically.

Our analysis of potential merger enforcement in this era – especially where politicized – needs to mature and take on more sophistication.

It may not be as simple as an ally/enemy dichotomy, nor a matter of rewarding loyalty. Instead, we need to look to the currency of favours.

What have you done for me lately? What can you do for me now?

More importantly, and something that can be gamed out in advance, is the notion that Trump holding sway over arguably the most important television network for his purposes – by withholding approval of a major acquisition – preserves useful leverage ahead of the midterms, the pivotal political moment of his second term.

Friend or foe, in the Trump era merger arb investors should be distrustful of base case assumptions made on perceived relationships.

Instead, maybe the lesson this second request teaches us is that what matters most to Trump and his unified executive is not loyalty – it’s utility.

Hell or High Water is a weekly column that offers commentary from our editorial team on the main deals undergoing regulatory reviews as well as the broader enforcement environment. The opinions expressed here are those of the writer only.