- in India
- with readers working within the Healthcare and Property industries
- within Antitrust/Competition Law, Tax and Consumer Protection topic(s)
Key Takeaways
- 47% of survey participants expect a negative impact from the "politicization" of merger control enforcement.
- National security/FDI scrutiny is expanding: over 50 FDI regimes across 100+ jurisdictions now assess deals beyond traditional defense (e.g., advanced tech, data, critical supply chains). Sentiment is mixed (35% positive vs 43% negative), and governments are expected to link trade/tariffs to national security in 2026—making early exposure assessment essential.
Antitrust, merger controls and national security regulations, as well as sanction regimes and export controls, are reframing the investment landscape for GPs and having a direct impact on dealmaking.
Antitrust issues
Competition authorities are better resourced and more proactive, with greater scope to review a wider pool of deals.
Figures from the latest OECD Competition Trends report show that budgets and staff numbers at competition authority agencies are growing, that the number of cartel investigations is increasing, and that although merger notifications are decreasing, the share of mergers cleared with remedies is at its highest threshold since 2017.
The global antitrust backdrop is also more complex. The U.S. and the EU show signs of divergence on antitrust priorities, with U.S. scrutiny continuing under the Trump administration, while the UK has shifted its competition enforcement focus to the impact of deals domestically.
These dynamics have put merger control enforcement firmly on the radar for GPs. Nearly half (47%) of the 2026 Global Private Equity Outlook survey participants expect a negative impact from the politicization of merger control enforcement. This rises to 50% of APAC respondents and 49% of their North American counterparts, with a quarter of EMEA respondents (26%) expecting a significantly negative impact on dealmaking plans.
"Antitrust risk is very much on the radar for GPs, many of whom are now pulling forward regulatory mapping to build a picture on whether a deal will face merger control or national security review risk," says Markus Bolsinger, co-head of Dechert's private equity practice. "Even before GPs receive the book for a prospective deal, they will have done work on antitrust and have a clear picture on which jurisdictions and industries will be the most affected."
National security
Dechert's 2025 FDI and National Security Review notes that there are now more than 50 foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regimes in place across more than 100 jurisdictions, which means that deals are not only reviewed on purely competition grounds, but also on the basis of possible risks to national security.
The reach of "national security" regimes has expanded beyond traditional military-linked deals to include areas such as advanced technology, data and supply chains.
For all PE dealmakers, merger and export control analysis and national security reviews are becoming essential parts of pre-deal screening and due diligence, with a direct impact on willingness and ability to engage in deals.
Respondents are split when asked whether increased foreign investment and national security-related scrutiny from regulatory authorities will have a positive or negative impact on the willingness and ability of their firms to engage in deals over the next 12 months.
Just over a third (35%) expect the impact to be positive versus 43% who feel it will be negative. EMEA respondents, at 43%, are the group that most commonly believe their firms' willingness/ability to engage in deals over the next 12 months will be positively impacted by increased foreign investment and national security-related scrutiny from regulatory authorities, compared to just 27% of North American respondents.
Dechert notes that in 2026 the investment community should expect governments to continue to link tariff and trade policy with national security objectives, particularly in semiconductors, AI infrastructure, critical minerals and other critical supply chains. Early regulatory mapping to assess potential exposure and manage transaction risk remains essential.
Tariff and trade tussles
Shifts in global trade and tariffs have added further regulatory complexity for companies that transact globally and are reconfiguring how firms think about transactions strategically.
GPs will now be leaning into deals that can strengthen domestic supply chains in markets with high-tariff barriers or that offer consolidation plays in industries where scale can mitigate tariff-driven cost increases. GPs are also exploring dual-sourcing strategies, nearshoring, and structuring deals to include tariff-adjustment clauses to mitigate cost volatility.
A third of respondents expect the current tariff environment to have a negative impact on their firms' willingness to engage in deals over the next 12 months. This rises to 45% of respondents in the APAC region, where economies are highly export-driven. This compares to only 18% in North America, underscoring regional sensitivity to export-driven models.
"There will be added cost burdens on operations of companies in many regions. The ability to generate returns becomes limited and is not an ideal situation for business owners and acquirers," an APAC GP says.
However, 48% of respondents overall do not anticipate a discernible impact at all, probably reflecting the focus of many firms on technology and services deals No respondents expect tariffs and trade barriers have a significant positive impact.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
