Trump DOJ Under Scrutiny for ‘Perverted Justice’ in HP-Juniper Deal.

A former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) official has made explosive claims about the agency’s handling of the Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks merger, accusing DOJ leadership of “perverting justice” in favor of corporate interests. The official, who was dismissed from their post, argues that external political and lobbying pressures—particularly from MAGA-aligned corporate figures—led to a distorted application of antitrust laws, ultimately enabling the controversial merger.

The accusations center around the idea that the DOJ, under the leadership of political appointees from the Trump administration, softened its scrutiny of the deal, which some critics claim could harm competition in the tech industry. Specifically, lobbyists with close ties to the administration are said to have swayed the DOJ’s decision-making process, putting business interests ahead of fair competition.

Antitrust experts, like Neil Averitt, have also weighed in on the HPE-Juniper settlement, warning that the deal may not serve the best interests of consumers or market health. These concerns underscore broader tensions over how corporate influence is shaping antitrust enforcement in the U.S., with some arguing that political interference has compromised the DOJ’s ability to protect competition.

This controversy has raised alarms about the integrity of antitrust enforcement in an era of intense corporate lobbying, prompting calls for greater transparency and accountability in the DOJ’s handling of such high-profile mergers. The situation exemplifies the ongoing struggle to balance corporate power with the public’s right to a competitive marketplace.