BURSTA former top official in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust division slammed several members of the agency’s senior leadership Monday for allegedly allowing politically connected lobbyists to influence decisionmaking.
Roger Alford, who served as principal deputy assistant attorney general, was fired last month amid internal divisions over the handling of the merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks.
In his first remarks since the ouster, Alford described a battle within the DOJ’s antitrust division between “MAGA reformers and MAGA-in-name-only lobbyists.”
“The MAGA-in-name-only lobbyists and DOJ officials enabling them are pursuing a different agenda,” he said at the Tech Policy Institute Aspen Forum.
“Their loyalty is not to the president’s antitrust agenda or to rebuild confidence and integrity in the DOJ,” he continued. “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 was dismissed for insubordination last month, alongside Bill Rinner, who was deputy assistant attorney general and head of merger enforcement.
At the center of the dispute is the HPE-Juniper merger, which the Trump administration sued to block in January.
However, the DOJ announced a proposed settlement in late June, allowing the merger to go forward as long as HPE divests its division for small and medium businesses and licenses Juniper’s software to competitors.
The settlement was approved after Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff Chad Mizelle stepped in and overruled Gail Slater, the head of the antitrust division, according to CBS News.
Alford took particular aim at Mizelle, as well as Stanley Woodward, who is nominated to serve as associate attorney general.
“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,” he said Monday.
“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,” Alford added.
He accused some at the DOJ and in the Trump administration of favoring parties and lobbyists considered as being on the “same MAGA team,” while disfavoring “enemies of MAGA.”
“Aware of this injustice, companies are hiring lawyers and influence peddlers to bolster their MAGA credentials and pervert traditional law enforcement,” he said.
Slater has reportedly told companies not to engage with the administration through Trump-affiliated lobbyists, spurring additional tensions within the antitrust division.
“The Department of Justice is now overwhelmed with lobbyists with little antitrust expertise going above the Antitrust Division leadership seeking special favors with warm hugs,” Alford said.
“On numerous occasions in a variety of matters we implored our superiors and the lawyers on the other side to call off the jackals,” he continued. “But to no avail. Today, cases are being resolved based on political connections, not the legal merits.”
A DOJ spokesperson dismissed Alford's comments Monday as the "delusional musings of a disgruntled ex," arguing that the HPE-Juniper merger's resolution was based on the "merits of the transaction" and national security concerns raised by the intelligence community.
“Roger Alford is the James Comey of antitrust – pursuing blind self-promotion and ego, while ignoring reality," the spokesperson said in a statement. "He was fired from the Department, and all should treat his comments for what they are – the delusional musings of a disgruntled ex."
Several Senate Democrats have called for the DOJ inspector general to conduct an investigation into the HPE-Juniper settlement, pointing to “possible politicization” in how the agency analyzes mergers and acquisitions.
They also pressed HPE over its hiring of consultants, which they described as “an apparent attempt to assert undue influence, if not coercion” to settle the DOJ lawsuit.
The company has argued its $14 billion acquisition of Juniper was "appropriately approved with certain remedies” and is “in the public interest and will promote further competition” in the market.
Updated at 5:03 p.m. EDT