A senior Justice Department official is breaking his silence with explosive allegations that the agency’s antitrust enforcement has been corrupted by political influence peddlers, costing him his job and undermining the rule of law. The claims center on the controversial settlement of the DOJ antitrust scandal surrounding the proposed $14 billion merger between tech giants Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks.

Roger Alford, a law professor and former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, was forced out of his role after opposing the merger’s resolution. In a recent speech at the Technology Policy Institute in Aspen, Colorado, Alford pulled back the curtain on what he describes as a pay-to-play system where “cases are being resolved based on political connections, not the legal merits.”

How Did Political Influence Allegedly Sway a Major Merger?

Initially, the DOJ under the Trump administration had sued to block the HPE-Juniper deal, arguing it would harm competition. However, after HPE hired influential MAGA-aligned lobbyists Mike Davis and Arthur Schwartz, the department abruptly reversed course and reached a settlement allowing the merger to proceed. Alford asserts this reversal was not based on legal merit but on back-channel influence.

He placed direct blame on two top aides to Attorney General Pam Bondi: Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle and Stanley Woodward, a Trump nominee for the DOJ’s third-ranking official. “Chad Mizelle accepts party meetings and makes key decisions depending on whether the request or information comes from a MAGA friend,” Alford stated, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. He accused the pair of having “perverted justice and acted inconsistent with the rule of law” in this case, claims he says he does not make lightly.

What Does This Mean for the Future of Antitrust Enforcement?

Alford’s testimony paints a dystopian picture of a Justice Department where lobbyists, not lawyers, call the shots. He warned that this case sets a dangerous precedent, creating a “new normal” where corporations feel compelled to hire political influencers to “sidestep the litigation and merger review process.”

He described a department “overwhelmed with lobbyists with little antitrust expertise going above the Antitrust Division leadership seeking special favors with warm hugs.” This environment, he argues, directly undermines the Trump administration’s own stated populist antitrust agenda, ultimately hurting working-class Americans by allowing potentially anti-competitive consolidation to proceed.

Alford saved sharp criticism for the lobbyists involved, accusing Mike Davis and Arthur Schwartz of making a “Faustian bargain” and earning “million-dollar success fees by helping corporations undermine Trump’s antitrust agenda.” He questioned how their former peers in the conservative legal world, including Supreme Court clerks, view such “shenanigans.”

A Clash of Narratives and a Framed Termination Letter

Unsurprisingly, the DOJ has fiercely pushed back against these allegations. A department spokesperson provided a scathing rebuttal to Above the Law, calling Alford “the James Comey of antitrust—pursuing blind self-promotion and ego, while ignoring reality.” HPE also denied any wrongdoing, stating, “Any suggestion that HPE procured the settlement through unethical or improper means is false and irresponsible.”

For his part, Alford is resolute, believing his commitment to the rule of law over the “rule of lobbyists” led to his dismissal. He has framed his termination letter, which he received after a career spanning back to a job at a Dairy Queen in Texas, and hung it on his office wall at Notre Dame as a badge of honor. His final hope rests with the federal court overseeing the settlement, urging judges to “examine the surprising truth of what happened” and block the merger.

The allegations of a DOJ antitrust scandal fueled by political connections reveal a deep fracture within the administration’s enforcement machinery, suggesting that the battle for the soul of American antitrust policy is being waged not in courtrooms, but in shadowy corridors of influence where loyalty is currency and the law is for sale. This story demands continued scrutiny from Congress and the press to ensure equal justice under law.

Must Know

What is the HPE-Junimer merger?
It is a proposed $14 billion acquisition of networking hardware company Juniper Networks by Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE). The DOJ initially sued to block it on antitrust grounds before settling.

What are Roger Alford’s main allegations?
Alford alleges that political lobbyists with MAGA connections improperly influenced top DOJ officials, leading to a favorable settlement for HPE that was not based on the legal merits of the case.

Who did Roger Alford specifically name?
Alford named Chad Mizelle (Attorney General Bondi’s chief of staff) and Stanley Woodward (a top Bondi aide). He also criticized lobbyists Mike Davis and Arthur Schwartz, whom HPE hired.

How has the DOJ responded?
A DOJ spokesperson dismissed Alford’s claims, comparing him to James Comey and accusing him of “blind self-promotion and ego, while ignoring reality.”

What happens to the merger now?
The merger is proceeding under the terms of the settlement with the DOJ, though Alford has publicly called on the federal court overseeing the deal to reject it.

Why was Roger Alford fired?
According to Alford, he was terminated for insubordination after refusing to acquiesce to the political influence he says corrupted the merger review process.