Justice Department Official Accuses Colleagues of "Perverted Justice" in HPE Deal Settlement

Former DOJ attorney Roger Alford accuses colleagues Chad Mizelle and Stanley Woodward of "perverting justice" in the antitrust settlement over Hewlett Packard Enterprise's $13 billion takeover of Juniper Networks. Alford calls for a court to block the deal and expresses hope for personnel changes within the DOJ. Alford was dismissed in July over a disagreement on how to handle antitrust reviews of pending transactions.

Former DOJ attorney Roger Alford has accused two of his former colleagues, Chad Mizelle and Stanley Woodward, of "perverting justice" during an antitrust settlement over Hewlett Packard Enterprise's (HPE) $13 billion takeover of Juniper Networks Inc. Alford, who was dismissed in July over a disagreement on how to handle antitrust reviews, made the allegations during a conference in Aspen, Colorado. He called for a court to block the deal and expressed hope for personnel changes within the DOJ.

Alford, who was the top deputy to the department's antitrust chief Gail Slater, alleged that Mizelle and Woodward acted inconsistently with the rule of law. He also pointed to highly paid lobbyists who helped broker the settlement, including William Levi and Mike Davis. Alford's speech, titled "The Rule of Law Versus the Rule of Lobbyists," was given to a room packed with lobbyists for the tech sector.

The DOJ settlement must be approved by a court before it can be finalized. Under a 1974 law designed to make antitrust settlements more transparent, federal judges must review them and allow public comment before determining whether they are in the public interest. Mizelle is currently serving as acting associate attorney general, while Woodward has been nominated for the associate position.

Alford's allegations come as the DOJ has been facing scrutiny over its handling of antitrust cases. The agency has dismissed several high-ranking officials, including Alford and William Rinner, who led the department's merger enforcement. The dismissals were reportedly due to disagreements over how to handle antitrust reviews of pending transactions.

The HPE-Juniper merger has been a contentious issue, with the settlement coming over the objections of Slater, Alford, and others days before a scheduled trial. The merger would have combined two major players in the networking equipment market, raising concerns about market concentration and potential anti-competitive effects.

The DOJ has not yet responded to a request for comment on Alford's allegations. However, the agency has faced criticism from some quarters for its handling of the merger and other antitrust cases. Critics argue that the agency has been too lenient in its enforcement of antitrust laws, allowing mergers that could harm competition.

In contrast, Alford and other critics argue that the DOJ has been too influenced by lobbyists and political considerations, rather than focusing on the rule of law. Alford's speech was a stark critique of this alleged trend, and his call for a court to block the HPE-Juniper merger reflects his belief that the settlement was not in the public interest.

The future of the HPE-Juniper merger remains uncertain, as the court must still approve the settlement. However, Alford's allegations have raised new questions about the DOJ's handling of the case and its broader antitrust enforcement policies. As the merger moves forward, investors and financial professionals will be watching closely to see how the court and other regulators respond to these concerns.

References:
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-18/doj-perverted-justice-in-hpe-deal-dismissed-official-says
[2] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/doj-perverted-justice-in-hpe-deal-dismissed-official-says
[3] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/doj-settles-challenge-to-unitedhealth-2324858/