Antitrust Group Demands Probe of Bondi's Role in 'Corrupt' Merger Settlement

An antitrust advocacy organization on Thursday urged Congress to investigate U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's role in a merger settlement deal that the Justice Department struck with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks last month.

"Congress must immediately open an investigation into Attorney General Pam Bondi's involvement in what appears to be a corrupt and politically rigged merger settlement," Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement Thursday.

The deal in question allowed the two companies' $14 billion merger to proceed, capping off a legal fight that the Justice Department launched in late January. At the time, the Justice Department argued HPE's acquisition of Juniper would unlawfully stifle competition, raise prices for consumers, and harm innovation.

The Capitol Forum on Thursday described the terms of the settlement as strange and reported that the deal divided the Justice Department internally, pitting the head of the antitrust division against top DOJ officials including Bondi chief of staff Chad Mizelle, who ultimately "overruled" the antitrust chief.

"Mizelle's close involvement in the matter is highly unusual—as is the fact that no DOJ trial attorneys signed the resulting consent decree papers," the outlet noted. "It also raises questions that won't be quieted by HPE's July 7 disclosure that it retained MAGA-aligned antitrust thought leader Mike Davis to advocate for the deal."

"In addition to Davis, HPE, in working to short-circuit the antitrust division's case, hired multiple lobbyists close to the White House, including Arthur Schwartz, a close confidante of Vice President JD Vance," the outlet added.

The settlement still must undergo a Tunney Act review by the federal judge in the case, Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. While that process is "typically a rubber stamp," The Capitol Forum reported, "there's a meaningful chance that this time will be different" given the "substantive and procedural smoke around the HPE/Juniper matter."

As part of the deal with the Justice Department, HPE agreed to divest its Instant On business. But, citing an industry analyst and other unnamed sources, The Capitol Forum reported that "Instant On is targeted at small and medium-sized businesses and isn't an option for the large, 'enterprise-grade WLAN solutions' customers DOJ's complaint alleged the merger would harm."

The Capitol Forum's story drew fresh scrutiny to the settlement and raised alarm about the potential involvement of Bondi, herself a former corporate lobbyist.

Hegde of the American Economic Liberties Project said Thursday that "when DOJ leadership overrules its own antitrust staff and forces a weak settlement that clearly favors corporate interests, both congressional oversight and judicial review under the Tunney Act become essential safeguards."

"Every member of Congress, along with the judge in the case, should be alarmed by signs that DOJ leadership is auctioning off merger enforcement rather than enforcing the law. The integrity of our antitrust system cannot be compromised by backroom deals or political interference," said Hegde. "Given the clear signs of improper influence, along with the mismatch between the alleged harms and the remedy, Judge Pitts must also use his authority under the Tunney Act to scrutinize this settlement in the best interest of the public."