The abrupt dismissal of two senior antitrust officials at the Department of Justice has triggered significant shifts within an agency that plays a crucial role in tackling major tech monopoly cases.
This week, DOJ Antitrust Division head Gail Slater saw the departure of her top deputies, Roger Alford and Bill Rinner, amid accusations of “insubordination,” as articulated in an anonymous official statement. Reports from the antitrust publication MLex indicated that their termination letters did not clarify the reasons for their dismissals. Alford subsequently shared a copy of his dismissal letter, which he indicated was displayed in his office at the University of Notre Dame. Complications reportedly arose during a merger process, where Chad Mizelle, a chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, allegedly played a pivotal role in advancing the deal, despite pushback from the Antitrust Division’s leadership after interventions by President Trump’s close associates.
The firings have raised alarms about the potential erosion of bipartisan support for antitrust enforcement, particularly concerning critical actions against the tech sector. Slater, recognized as a respected authority in antitrust matters and a former aide to Senator JD Vance, has openly criticized Big Tech, continuing some of the aggressive antitrust initiatives from the Biden administration, albeit with an “America First” approach. However, the firing of Alford and Rinner, closely aligned with her strategies, casts doubt over the feasibility of maintaining her policy objectives in an environment hostile to dissent.
Traditionally, personnel decisions at the DOJ, including those in the Antitrust Division, have been insulated from direct presidential influence. Bill Kovacic, a former Federal Trade Commission chair, commented on the current situation: “There’s no illusion that this custom holds any longer. For observers, incidents like this illustrate that political interference is effective, allowing those with the right connections to influence decisions and undermine the will of the Antitrust Division.”
“This incident demonstrates that political interference is effective”
The merger in question involved Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s acquisition of Juniper Networks for $14 billion. The DOJ had previously sought to block this merger, claiming it would stifle competition in the enterprise-grade wireless networking segment. However, just this week, the involved parties announced they had “reached a settlement that addresses the government’s competitive concerns.” Reports from unnamed Trump administration officials disclosed to Axios suggest that national security concerns played a prominent role in these negotiations, particularly in relation to enhancing U.S. competitiveness against China’s Huawei.
Nevertheless, some speculations hint that political machinations may have significantly influenced the settlement outcome. HPE acknowledged in a legal submission that Mike Davis, a notable Trump confidant, was among its advisors who interacted with DOJ officials prior to finalizing the agreement. Despite Davis’ friendship with Slater, she reportedly did not consult with him during the settlement discussions, as per a report from The Wall Street Journal. Members of her team expressed their concerns about the involvement of politically connected lawyers like Davis and Slater was known to have opposed the HPE deal. Notably, her acknowledgment in a DOJ press release merely commended the “hardworking men and women of the Antitrust Division,” without reference to the settlement itself.
In a communication directed to the judge overseeing the merger case, four Senate Democrats criticized the approved deal for failing to adequately address antitrust issues. They expressed concerns that the settlement, which mandates HPE to divest a business that doesn’t directly compete with Juniper’s services, falls short of resolving the original competitive concerns. The lawmakers, Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), remarked, “These developments provoke questions about whether the settlement is in the public interest or merely serves a well-connected group of insiders. It remains unclear whether the agreement truly addresses the DOJ’s initial antitrust apprehensions.”
Bill Baer, who has held senior positions in antitrust enforcement at both the DOJ and FTC, noted, “This marks a significant shift from how the Justice Department has functioned for the past five decades. Since the Watergate era, a firewall has distinguished White House personnel from the Justice Department regarding investigations and cases. Recent events suggest this boundary may no longer exist.”
The Antitrust Division still has several high-profile cases to resolve, including appeals related to its dominance claims against Google, an upcoming monopolization trial involving Apple, and the scrutiny of Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s monopoly status. Given the prominence of these cases and their alignment with administration priorities, experts believe they are unlikely to see an uncomplicated settlement. Kovacic remarked, “This situation underscores the need to construct a deal that garners approval.”
“If the court begins to suspect that something other than professional judgment is influencing your decisions, respect for those decisions diminishes”
The departure of Alford and Rinner poses a setback for the agency’s technological expertise and public credibility. Alford previously offered his counsel to the Texas attorney general regarding its investigation into Google’s monopolization and played a key role in shaping international antitrust policy during the first Trump administration. Rinner was known for his leadership in merger enforcement. As Kovacic explained, “Success in the courtroom often relies on the ability to earn the trust of judges based on not only sound legal arguments but also demonstrated professional judgment. If there is a perception that decisions are influenced by factors other than professional considerations, that trust erodes.”
Further insights into the approval of the HPE-Juniper agreement and the surrounding circumstances of Alford and Rinner’s dismissals could emerge if the presiding judge opts for deeper investigations under the transparency provisions of the Tunney Act. Although reversing the DOJ’s position may prove challenging, testimonies from those involved might illuminate the negotiations and the nature of the agreement.
Kovacic further cautioned, “This paints a picture suggesting that political influences govern decisions in the U.S., something the country has historically warned against, and has urged other nations to avoid.”
