“Pay-to-Play” Lobbying, Not Security, Drove HP-Juniper Deal, Former DOJ Official Tells Congress.

toner · 2025-12-17T11:19:56-05:00

In testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, former Department of Justice (DOJ) official Roger Alford stated that national security concerns were never presented as a genuine argument during the agency’s internal review of the $14 billion HPE-Juniper merger. Key Testimony Points Alford, who served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division before being fired in July 2025, criticized the DOJ’s decision to settle its challenge to the merger. Contradicting Official Claims: While DOJ leadership previously suggested the settlement was influenced by national security concerns raised by the intelligence community, Alford told Congress this was "belied by the fact that it was never presented to the Antitrust Division as a serious argument". Absence in Legal Arguments: Alford noted that during ongoing court hearings in California regarding the settlement’s approval, the DOJ has failed to mention national security "even once" in its official legal arguments. Allegations of Corruption: Alford maintains that the eleventh-hour settlement resulted from "pay-to-play" lobbying by well-connected insiders rather than legitimate legal or security merits. Context of the Merger Dispute The merger, which officially closed on July 2, 2025, has been a source of intense controversy within the DOJ. Initial Opposition: The DOJ originally sued to block the deal in January 2025, alleging it would eliminate competition and raise prices by up to 14% for enterprise wireless networking. Sudden Settlement: Shortly before trial, DOJ leadership abruptly settled, requiring only the divestiture of HPE’s "Instant On" business and software licensing. Ongoing Review: A federal judge in the Northern District of California is currently conducting a Tunney Act review to determine if the settlement serves the public interest. Twelve state attorneys general have intervened in this process, echoing Alford’s concerns about potential "backroom dealing". The DOJ has dismissed Alford's claims as the "musings of a disgruntled" former employee, standing by the settlement as a merits-based resolution that addressed unique challenges, including international competitiveness.

Tonernews.com, December 17, 2025. USA

This topic is empty.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

Author

Posts
#720176
toner
Keymaster
In testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, former Department of Justice (DOJ) official Roger Alford stated that national security concerns were never presented as a genuine argument during the agency’s internal review of the $14 billion HPE-Juniper merger.

Key Testimony Points

Alford, who served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division before being fired in July 2025, criticized the DOJ’s decision to settle its challenge to the merger.
- Contradicting Official Claims: While DOJ leadership previously suggested the settlement was influenced by national security concerns raised by the intelligence community, Alford told Congress this was “belied by the fact that it was never presented to the Antitrust Division as a serious argument”.
- Absence in Legal Arguments: Alford noted that during ongoing court hearings in California regarding the settlement’s approval, the DOJ has failed to mention national security “even once” in its official legal arguments.
- Allegations of Corruption: Alford maintains that the eleventh-hour settlement resulted from “pay-to-play” lobbying by well-connected insiders rather than legitimate legal or security merits.
Context of the Merger Dispute

The merger, which officially closed on July 2, 2025, has been a source of intense controversy within the DOJ.
- Initial Opposition: The DOJ originally sued to block the deal in January 2025, alleging it would eliminate competition and raise prices by up to 14% for enterprise wireless networking.
- Sudden Settlement: Shortly before trial, DOJ leadership abruptly settled, requiring only the divestiture of HPE’s “Instant On” business and software licensing.
- Ongoing Review: A federal judge in the Northern District of California is currently conducting a Tunney Act review to determine if the settlement serves the public interest. Twelve state attorneys general have intervened in this process, echoing Alford’s concerns about potential “backroom dealing”.
The DOJ has dismissed Alford’s claims as the “musings of a disgruntled” former employee, standing by the settlement as a merits-based resolution that addressed unique challenges, including international competitiveness.
Author

December 17, 2025 at 11:19 AM

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty, or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the content on our site.