A Justice Department shake-up that led last month to the departure of the antitrust division’s second in command arose over a DOJ decision to bend to lobbyists in the department’s review of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s (HPE) acquisition of rival Juniper Networks (JNP.SG), according to Roger Alford, the fired official.
The division’s former antitrust deputy, Alford accused DOJ officials Chad Mizelle, chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Stanley Woodward, an associate attorney general nominee, of allowing lobbyists to prevail over the rule of law in the review that green-lighted the deal.
Alford’s critique came during an address on Monday at the Tech Policy Institute Aspen Forum. “It is my opinion that in the HPE/Juniper merger scandal, Chad Mizelle and Stanley Woodward perverted justice and acted inconsistent with the rule of law,” Alford said. “I hope the court blocks the HPE/Juniper merger. If you knew what I knew, you would hope so too.”
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Alford, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, was one of two of the Justice Department’s most senior officials shown the door last month. He also served in the antitrust division during President Trump’s first term. Before his departure from the second administration, he was principal deputy to President Trump’s hand-picked antitrust chief, Gail Slater.
The other official, William Rinner, a deputy assistant attorney general, headed up merger enforcement. Rinner also served in Trump’s first administration.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the two had been working on the department’s challenge to the acquisition before a settlement was reached with HPE’s politically connected lawyers, who lacked antitrust expertise.
Alford said the HPE-Juniper review exemplified a broader, ongoing battle within the Republican Party over the future of the second Trump administration. “I am not talking about the well-known ideological battle between traditional conservatives and Trump supporters. I am talking about the battle between genuine MAGA reformers and MAGA-In-Name-Only lobbyists,” Alford said.
“It’s a fight over whether Americans will have equal justice under law, or whether preferential access to our justice system is for sale to the wealthy and well-connected.”
The former deputy went on to question whether the US under the balance of President Trump’s second term would be governed by the rule of law or the rule of lobbyists. He said the agency could correct course if it takes action to carry out the Trump administration’s original mission to enforce the competition rules.
“For the words ‘equal justice under law’ to be more than just a phrase etched in marble, it must be practiced by those privileged to enforce it,” he said. “I am speaking out now because it is still early days in this Administration and I think correcting the problems at the DOJ is still possible, either by political will or judicial decree.”
Alford praised his former boss, Slater, and department colleagues, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who Alford said he believes remain true to President Trump’s core message instructing that antitrust enforcement is not for sale and should deliver tangible “common sense populism”-oriented results for millions of Americans.
During a panel discussion at George Washington Law School in May, Alford emphasized that the administration’s focus was on mergers expected to drive up prices on goods and services that impact everyday Americans, like housing, education, healthcare, and everyday goods and services.
Merger challenges like the one against HPE — filed roughly a week after Trump took office — appeared to signal the administration’s plans to vigorously pursue competition concerns. Further underscoring its offensive approach, the administration pushed ahead with antitrust prosecutions targeting the biggest names in tech, including Google (GOOG), Apple (AAPL), Amazon (AMZN), and Meta (META).
The Justice Department sued Hewlett-Packard in January, alleging that the $14 billion tie-up to combine the nation’s second- and third-largest providers of enterprise wireless networking would substantially lessen market competition.
Five months later, in June, the department announced it had settled with HPE and would allow the deal to go forward by requiring HPE to divest its global “Instant On” WLAN business to a DOJ-approved buyer, plus ensure it would license key software assets to rivals.
Alford called on California Federal District Judge P. Casey Pitt to closely scrutinize the events that led to the merger settlement between the DOJ and HPE-Juniper court proceedings under the 1974 Tunney Act. The act requires companies seeking approval of merger settlements to disclose their settlement-related communications with the executive branch.
Democratic lawmakers also asked Judge Pitt to hold a hearing to review the settlement.
Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.
