A former top deputy in the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division today accused two DOJ officials of having "perverted justice" by pushing through approval of the $14 billion merger of Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, and he said he hopes a federal judge blocks the deal.
A former top deputy in the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division today accused two DOJ officials of having "perverted justice" by pushing through approval of the $14 billion merger of Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, and he said he hopes a federal judge blocks the deal."Although I am limited in what I can say, 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," said Roger Alford, who was fired from his position at the DOJ after objecting to the settlement that allowed the deal to go through. "I am not given to hyperbole, and I do not say that lightly."
Alford made the remarks (see here) during a speech in Aspen, Colorado*, titled, "The Rule of Law Versus the Rule of Lobbyists."
The DOJ rejected Alford’s assessment.
“Roger Alford is the James Comey of antitrust – pursuing blind self-promotion and ego, while ignoring reality. He was fired from the Department, and all should treat his comments for what they are – the delusional musings of a disgruntled ex,” a DOJ spokesperson told MLex.**
“As the Department has reiterated, resolution of the merger was based on the merits of the transaction, including national security concerns raised directly to Department leadership by the intelligence community,” the spokesperson said.
Alford had been principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Antitrust Division, which is led by Gail Slater. Mizelle is the chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Woodward, counselor to Bondi, has been nominated for the position of associate attorney general.
"As part of the forthcoming Tunney Act proceedings, it would be helpful for the court to clarify the substance and the process by which the settlement was reached, " Alford said. "Although the Tunney Act has rarely served its intended purpose, this time the court may demand extensive discovery and examine the surprising truth of what happened. I hope the court blocks the HPE/Juniper merger. If you knew what I knew, you would hope so too. Someday I may have the opportunity to say more."
Alford today confirmed that he was fired for "insubordination." He was removed along with Bill Rinner, the deputy assistant attorney general for mergers (see here and here).
The DOJ's Antitrust Division had filed suit to challenge the HPE-Juniper deal, and the trial was scheduled to begin July 9 in a California federal court. On June 28, the DOJ agreed to drop its challenge in exchange for requiring HPE to make a business divestment and for the merged company to license "critical" Juniper software to independent competitors (see here).
"All it took to be fired were lobbyists exerting influence on my superiors to retaliate against me for protecting the rule of law against the rule of lobbyists," Alford said.
Alford called for changes "in the wake of the HPE/Juniper merger scandal."
"To be clear, I have absolutely no reason to think the White House or other departments are involved in the current HPE/Juniper merger scandal," Alford said. "Nor do I think Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche is involved. I met with him almost every week and I never had a negative experience with him. There are things I don’t know, but I perceive him to be a man of character who is leading the DOJ under extremely difficult circumstances."
— DOJ 'crisis' —
"The core problem is simple: AG Bondi has delegated authority to leaders like her Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle and Associate Attorney General nominee Stanley Woodward who do not share her commitment to the rule of law and to one tier of justice for all," Alford said. "With the DOJ led by a mix of officials with varying commitments to restore integrity to the Department of Justice, good may yet prevail, but at least with respect to senior DOJ oversight of antitrust enforcement, we are on a path toward injustice."
Alford said he is speaking out now because it is still the early days of the second Trump administration, and correcting the problems at the DOJ is still possible, either through political will or judicial decree. "Hopefully this is a short-term aberration," he said.
"How will the Department of Justice recover from the current crisis? Will there be policy or personnel changes among the senior leadership at the Department of Justice? Will AAG Slater have the freedom to enforce the law and fire or hire her deputies consistent with the Administration’s true antitrust agenda?" Alford said.
"At a minimum, will the Department of Justice remove the compromised Chad Mizelle and Stanley Woodward from any antitrust oversight, and have Gail Slater report directly to Todd Blanche? In the absence of reforms at the DOJ, must State AGs now join every DOJ antitrust lawsuit and merger challenge as a check on influence peddling? The status quo is simply unsustainable," he continued.
— 'MAGA-in-name-only' —
Alford, who was a deputy assistant attorney general in the first Trump administration, said there is conflict within the Republican party over the future of the second Trump administration. Antitrust Division assistant attorney general Slater and her current and former deputies Mark Hamer, Dina Kallay, Bill Rinner and Chetan Sanghvi have been united in their desire to protect the average American by vigorously enforcing the antitrust laws.
Alford, a Notre Dame law school professor, said he wasn't talking about the disputes between traditional conservatives and Trump supporters, but rather about the "battle between genuine MAGA reformers and MAGA-In-Name-Only lobbyists." He characterized it as 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 DOJ under Slater is committed to common-sense populism that seeks to make housing more affordable, reduce the cost of higher education, promote choice and competition in healthcare and adopt economic policies that drive down the cost of living and prices for everyday goods and services, he said.
"The MAGA-In-Name-Only lobbyists and DOJ officials enabling them are pursuing a different agenda. Their loyalty is not to the President’s antitrust agenda or to rebuild confidence and integrity in the DOJ. Regardless of the outcome, their commitment is to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves as long as their friends and supplicants are in power," Alford said. "If the rule of lobbyists prevails, the Republican vision of a realignment toward the average American will die."
Alford said at the Antitrust Division, he had met routinely with lawyers who were known and respected, but also met lawyers "who are unethical scoundrels and malcontents — the kind who game the system and crow about it."
The leadership ignored the affiliations of the lawyers and sought to treat everyone equally, he said.
"Others at the DOJ and elsewhere in government consider some parties, counsel, and lobbyists to be on the 'same MAGA team' and worthy of special solicitude. They consider others to be 'enemies of MAGA' that merit particular disfavor," Alford said.
— 'Influence peddlers' —
"In my opinion based on regular meetings with him, Chad Mizelle accepts party meetings and makes key decisions depending on whether the request or information comes from a MAGA friend. Aware of this injustice, companies are hiring lawyers and influence peddlers to bolster their MAGA credentials and pervert traditional law enforcement," Alford said.
He said the DOJ is now overwhelmed with lobbyists with little antitrust expertise going above the Antitrust Division leadership "seeking special favors with warm hugs." On numerous occasions, the Antitrust Division leadership implored their superiors and the lawyers on the other side to "call off the jackals. But to no avail." Today, cases are being resolved based on political connections, not the legal merits, he said.
"Is this the new normal, with every law firm hiring an influence peddler to dual track and sidestep the litigation and merger review process? That’s what law firms are now considering," he said.
"Which case is the next casualty? Will the same senior DOJ officials ignore the President’s Executive Order just because Live Nation and Ticketmaster have paid a bevy of cozy MAGA friends to roam the halls of the Fifth Floor in defense of their monopoly abuses? I wonder what the national security arguments will be in that case. What must the antitrust bar think?" Alford said.
He questioned the role of ethical antitrust lawyers in such an environment.
"Why did the lawyers advising the parties in the HPE/Juniper merger scandal not appreciate the risk they were generating, not only for their clients and their law firms, but for the entire antitrust bar?" he said.
Alford said the Antitrust Division welcomes lawful competition and procompetitive mergers. Before he was fired from the DOJ, the topic for his talk at the Aspen conference involved praise for Little Tech innovation and procompetitive mergers.
He distinguished "legitimate lobbyists" from "corrupt lobbyists."
"But this new pay-to-play approach is so far removed from legitimate lobbying or traditional antitrust enforcement that it is creating massive legal and economic uncertainty," he said. Those that adopt the new approach, he said, care little about the instability it creates for the markets.
Under the rule of lobbyists, antitrust laws are nuisances or obstacles to overcome, Alford said.
Alford said there are real costs in this approach for the lobbyists and the companies and lawyers who hired them — and for the officials within government. Their reputations will be forever linked to unethical behavior, he said. He cited Mike Davis, Arthur Schwartz and Will Levi as examples of those who lobby improperly.
"Mike Davis and Arthur Schwartz have made a Faustian bargain of trading on relationships with powerful people to reportedly earn million-dollar success fees by helping corporations undermine Trump’s antitrust agenda, hurt working class Americans, break the rules, and then try to cover it up. Outside the small circle of transactional MAGA friends seeking and giving favors, do these lobbyists and their friends in power actually know what traditional or populist conservatives think about them?" he said.
"When lobbyists like Mike Davis and Will Levi go to their Supreme Court clerkship reunions, how do honorable conservative lawyers who clerked for the great Justices Alito and Gorsuch view their shenanigans? Do the executives and the lawyers who hire these lobbyists know what the antitrust bar and the Division’s leaders and lawyers think of their behavior? They have long memories," he said.
Alford said he maintained as a government official that lobbyists and lawyers are subordinate to the law. "Yet by stating this truth, I was dismissed for insubordination. My termination letter is now framed and hangs on the wall in my office at Notre Dame."
Alford said he had never been fired before, and he has been working since his first job as a young teenager at the Dairy Queen in Sherman, Texas.
"All it took to be fired were lobbyists exerting influence on my superiors to retaliate against me for protecting the rule of law against the rule of lobbyists."
*"2025 Technology Policy Institute Aspen Forum," Aspen, Colorado, Aug. 17-19, 2025.
**Updated Aug. 18, 2025, at 21:24 GMT; adds comment from DOJ.
Please e-mail editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.