Last month, senior Justice Department officials overruled their subordinates and allowed a major corporate merger to go forward after the companies hired well-connected Trump supporters to lobby the government, sparking allegations of influence peddling.
Some might say that’s just another day in the second Trump administration — but this controversy feels different for a few reasons.
The antitrust settlement, obscure to most people, led to the firing of two senior political appointees within the Justice Department and has deepened a rift among MAGA activists — one of whom publicly blasted the decision as corrupt before taking down her post.
Unlike most allegations of wrongdoing levied against the Trump administration, these seem likely to be independently investigated by a federal judge with the power to put people under oath.
Unlike most allegations of wrongdoing levied against the Trump administration, these seem likely to be independently investigated by a federal judge with the power to put people under oath.
“This is huge deal, and we are only at the beginning,” a former senior DOJ official said.
At issue is a case that looms large in the business world — a fight over a proposed $14 billion merger between computer giant Hewlett Packard Enterprise and rival Juniper Networks, both of which make and sell wireless networking equipment.
Justice Department lawyers first determined the merger was illegal on antitrust grounds because it would stifle competition. Just after Trump took office in January, the DOJ sued to block it. But last month, on the eve of trial, the Justice Department settled the case, allowing the merger to go forward over the opposition of senior antitrust lawyers inside the department, three former DOJ officials familiar with the matter said.
“The Department has consistently reiterated that resolution of this merger was based only on the merits of the transaction,” said DOJ spokesman Gates McGavick.
Two top political appointees in the antitrust division were fired after an internal power struggle over the deal, and two career lawyers who worked on the case resigned, according to the sources. One of them, Roger Alford, posted his termination notice on LinkedIn.
The two fired lawyers worked for the DOJ’s antitrust chief, Gail Slater, who has been labeled the face of a robust MAGA faction that favors strong enforcement of antitrust laws.
Neither Slater nor any other DOJ antitrust lawyer signed the settlement, which was instead inked by two senior aides to Attorney General Pam Bondi — Justice Department chief of staff Chad Mizelle and Stanley Woodward, who has been nominated to be associate attorney general. Former DOJ officials say lawyers in the division almost always sign the case filings, and that the lack of their signature is a red flag.
The DOJ’s change of position came after HPE and Juniper acknowledged in court filings that the companies retained Mike Davis, a lawyer and MAGA activist who has advised the Trump administration on judicial nominations and other legal issues. The filings say the companies also hired Will Levi, who served as a senior Justice Department official in the first Trump administration.
People familiar with the matter tell MSNBC that Arthur Schwartz, a consultant with deep MAGA ties, was also making the case for the merger. Davis declined to comment, and Levi and Schwartz did not respond to requests for comment. Schwartz was not listed in corporate filings, so it’s unclear who was paying him.
MAGA activist Laura Loomer, who has traveled with President Trump, criticized the arrangement in an extraordinary post on X that she later took down.
“Now that @ChadMizelle47 has made it clear that he is open for business at the DOJ to the highest bidder, other consultants are now putting big price tags on their lobby efforts to influence the DOJ to settle even more anti-Trust cases,” Loomer wrote.
“Insider trading? Influence peddling for million dollar contracts? Unregistered MAGA lobbyists? Why is @AGPamBondi, who is supposedly running the DOJ, allowing this kind of grift to take place under the supervision of her boy @ChadMizelle47? Why is she trying to create scandals for the Trump admin?”
Loomer’s comments reflect a faction of the MAGA movement that takes to heart Trump’s promise to drain the Washington swamp —a group deeply suspicious of the tech industry and corporate power in general.
Interestingly, another person who has sometimes espoused those views is Davis, who praised the lawsuit when it was filed in January.
Democratic senators have seized on the case as an example of possible misconduct.
“We are dismayed by allegations that officials in the Antitrust Division may have been sidelined because they opposed the backroom negotiations that led to this settlement,” wrote senators Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Cory Booker, D-N.J. and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. to Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 29.
“Unfortunately, it appears the settlement does not in fact address the concerns DOJ cited as the basis for its January 30 challenge,” the senators noted in their letter, adding that the circumstances of the settlement raise the question of “whether the settlement advances the interests of the public or a well-connected, well-paid group of insiders.”
Requests by Democrats for investigations are a dime a dozen these days, and they have tended to go nowhere. But in this case, the judge presiding over the legal case has extraordinary authority to conduct a probe.
In some past cases, judges have held what amounted to a mini trial in exercising their authority under the Tunney Act.
Under the Tunney Act, a law passed in the wake of a Nixon-era antitrust scandal, Biden-appointed Judge Pitts of the Northern District of California has leeway to thoroughly examine the Justice Department settlement to ensure it’s in the public interest. The judge is allowed to require the production of documents and witness testimony. In some past cases, judges have held what amounted to a mini trial in exercising their authority under the Tunney Act.
The settlement will allow the merger to go forward while requiring HPE to make what industry insiders are calling an unrelated divestment of part of its wireless networking business.
The three former Justice Department officials who are experts in antitrust law — and who declined to be named because they said they feared retaliation — told MSNBC the settlement did little to resolve concerns internally at DOJ that the merger will harm customers by reducing competition.
If a Tunney Act proceeding goes forward, key figures in Trump world may have to discuss their change of heart under oath. And senior Justice Department officials may have to explain why they adopted his point of view, over the objections of the career experts.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department dismissed another antitrust lawsuit that sought to block a merger between American Express Global Business Travel and CWT Holdings, a case the Antitrust Division filed in mid-January at the end of the Biden administration. But because that lawsuit was dismissed outright instead of settled, the Tunney Act does not apply, and no judge will be able to review what led to the decision.
“I don’t remember that ever happening,” a former DOJ antitrust lawyer said. “The Anti-trust Division has enormous power, and when they bring a case, they usually have the goods.”
Ken Dilanian is the justice and intelligence correspondent for MS NOW.