Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Doj Politicization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witnesses tell House subcommittee political influence and lobbying are reshaping U.S. antitrust enforcement
Summary
Professor Roger Alford and others testified that political pressure and lobbyist influence have altered DOJ merger review and enforcement, citing HPE‑Juniper and other cases; Democrats used testimony to press for transparency and reform while Republicans emphasized restoring vigorous, neutral enforcement.
At a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on foreign antitrust laws, a significant thread of testimony and questioning focused on the politicalization of U.S. antitrust enforcement and alleged backroom influence in merger reviews.
Professor Roger Alford, introduced to the committee as a professor at Notre Dame Law School and a former senior Justice Department official, told members that the DOJ manual requires impartial legal judgments and warned that recent practice shows the department at risk of acting under partisan pressure. He testified that lobbyists have been "pervasively involved" in efforts to influence outcomes and urged more transparency, greater involvement by state attorneys general, judicial oversight, and internal reform at DOJ.
Ranking Member Raskin described Professor Alford's decision to sound the alarm and accused the administration of allowing lobbyists and political appointees to override career staff in major merger reviews. Raskin and other Democrats pointed to the Hewlett Packard Enterprise‑Juniper Networks review as an example, arguing that the antitrust division's concerns were displaced by political intervention.
Republican members pushed back and framed the hearing's central concern as foreign regulatory discrimination against American firms rather than domestic corruption. They argued that DMA‑style laws abroad threaten U.S. competitiveness and that Congress should use trade tools to counter discriminatory foreign rules.
Members probed specific allegations: witnesses discussed media‑reported episodes involving Paramount/Skydance and HPE/Juniper, and Alford noted ongoing litigation and state attorneys general interventions. Alford also stressed limits on what he could describe publicly because of deliberative‑process and privilege concerns, but he pointed committee members to his written testimony for more detail.
No formal enforcement action or departmental decision emerged from the hearing. Committee Democrats used the record to call for stronger oversight of DOJ decisionmaking; Republicans signaled interest in pursuing trade and diplomatic responses to foreign regulation while urging effect‑based domestic enforcement.
The hearing concluded with the chair asking for additional materials to be entered into the record and adjourning the session.
