Whistleblower Alleges Corruption in DOJ Antitrust Decisions
A former official from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has raised serious allegations of corruption within the agency’s antitrust division. In a speech delivered on August 11, 2025, Roger Alford, who previously served as a top appointee during both terms of President Donald Trump, accused certain officials of engaging in unethical practices to influence merger approvals.
Alford, who was dismissed from his position last month, outlined what he described as a “pay-to-play” scheme. He claimed that companies were hiring well-connected MAGA influencers to facilitate the approval of mergers, with some DOJ officials allegedly complicit in these activities. “For 30 pieces of silver, MAGA-in-Name-Only lobbyists are influencing their allies within the DOJ and risking President Trump’s populist conservative agenda,” Alford stated.
In his remarks, Alford specifically criticized Pam Bondi, the current Attorney General, as well as her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, and Associate Attorney General nominee Stan Woodward. He asserted that Mizelle made critical decisions based on whether the request originated from a “MAGA friend.”
Alford’s comments come in the wake of a controversial merger involving Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks. Initially, the DOJ sought to block this merger but later reversed its position, allowing it to proceed with minor concessions. Alford alleged that this abrupt change was linked to the involvement of two MAGA figures, Mike Davis and Arthur Schwartz, who were reportedly paid substantial success fees to aid the merger’s approval.
Despite the serious nature of these allegations, a spokesperson for the DOJ dismissed Alford’s claims, labeling him as “the James Comey of antitrust,” and suggesting that his comments stem from personal grievances following his termination.
Background of the Allegations
Alford’s speech highlighted a growing tension within the DOJ regarding antitrust enforcement. During Trump’s administration, the antitrust division had aimed for stricter scrutiny of mergers, particularly in sectors dominated by a few major companies. This approach received mixed reactions from both political parties, with some Republicans expressing frustration over perceived overreach by the DOJ.
The situation escalated when the DOJ initially moved to block the merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks in January 2025. However, by June 2025, the agency had shifted its stance, agreeing to a settlement that allowed the merger to proceed. Alford believes that the change was influenced by the efforts of Davis and Schwartz, who leveraged their connections to secure favorable outcomes for corporations.
Alford’s remarks have reignited discussions around the integrity of the DOJ’s antitrust enforcement. He urged a judge reviewing the merger to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter, asserting that Mizelle and Woodward’s actions amounted to a perversion of justice.
Implications for Antitrust Policy
The allegations raised by Alford reflect broader concerns about the influence of money and political connections in the enforcement of antitrust laws. As a new antitrust movement gains traction across the political spectrum, questions about the commitment to enforcing fair competition practices remain.
Both the Biden administration and certain factions within the Republican Party have shown interest in challenging the monopolistic practices of large corporations. Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair, Lina Khan, has emerged as a prominent figure in this movement, advocating for stricter regulations on mergers and acquisitions.
In contrast, traditional Republican positions have often favored corporate interests, leading to a complex landscape regarding antitrust enforcement. Alford’s allegations suggest that the potential for political favoritism could undermine efforts to ensure a level playing field in the market.
The unfolding situation highlights the need for transparency and accountability within the DOJ. As the investigation continues, the implications of these allegations could have lasting consequences for the agency’s credibility and the future of antitrust policy in the United States.
