A former Justice Department official under Trump sharply criticized former colleagues in a Monday address, accusing them of having “distorted justice and violated legal principles” while identifying individuals involved.
Roger Alford, who held leadership roles in the DOJ’s antitrust division during both Trump administrations, aligned with conservative factions advocating stricter merger oversight. Alongside antitrust chief Gail Slater, he supported rigorous reviews of corporate consolidations in industries dominated by few competitors.
Following his dismissal last month, Alford publicly condemned alleged unethical practices, describing a system where corporations allegedly bribed influential MAGA-linked intermediaries to secure merger approvals—a scheme he claimed involved senior DOJ personnel.
“MAGA-aligned lobbyists are compromising DOJ allies for personal profit, betraying the President’s conservative vision,” Alford stated. “They enrich themselves by aiding corporations seeking to bypass antitrust regulations through financial incentives.”
“Distorted justice and violated legal principles”
While avoiding criticism of Trump or Attorney General Bondi, Alford singled out Bondi’s chief of staff Chad Mizelle and nominee for Associate Attorney General Stan Woodward. He accused Mizelle of prioritizing political affiliations over impartial decision-making and claimed corporations now deploy lobbyists to manipulate enforcement processes.
The allegations trace back to January, when the DOJ antitrust unit moved to halt Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s acquisition of Juniper Networks. By June, however, regulators unexpectedly softened their stance, permitting the merger with minimal conditions.
Alford suggested this reversal stemmed from Hewlett Packard’s retention of MAGA-connected figures—conservative operative Mike Davis and Trump family associate Arthur Schwartz—to sway outcomes. He described their actions as exploitative schemes benefiting corporate interests over public accountability.
Reports indicate Mizelle overruled antitrust leaders to approve the settlement, precipitating Alford’s termination. Public fallout drew attention from figures like activist Matt Stoller and commentator Laura Loomer.
In urging judicial scrutiny, Alford declared: “Mizelle and Woodward undermined legal integrity in the HPE-Juniper case—a serious charge I do not make recklessly.”
A DOJ spokesperson dismissed his claims: “Alford resembles James Comey in prioritizing self-interest over facts. His remarks reflect a dismissed employee’s bitterness, not reality.”
Underlying tensions in antitrust policy
Recent years saw bipartisan interest in aggressive antitrust measures targeting tech giants and concentrated industries. While Democrats rallied behind FTC Chair Lina Khan, some GOP figures like Senator JD Vance embraced similar populist rhetoric.
Most Republicans, however, opposed these efforts, maintaining traditional pro-business stances. Trump’s appointment of Vance ally Gail Slater initially signaled potential alignment with antitrust reformers, raising hopes for stricter enforcement.
Yet Trump’s governance style—emphasizing transactional relationships over policy consistency—created friction. As CBS News reported, Slater and Alford’s principled approach clashed with administration figures seeking leverage through regulatory decisions.
Alford’s speech highlighted broader concerns about power exploitation, indirectly reflecting Trump’s pattern of leveraging authority for reciprocal benefits. Though Trump’s direct involvement remains unclear, observers note that leadership often sets administrative tone.
Source: vox.com
