SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
lobbyists
Ousted DOJ Lawyer Says Bondi Appointees Let Corporate Lobbyists 'Rule' Over Antitrust Enforcement
Roger Alford, who was fired over his objections to a corrupt tech merger last month, said MAGA lobbyists and DOJ officials are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves."
Aug 19, 2025
An antitrust lawyer fired from the US Department of Justice last month accused Attorney General Pam Bondi's underlings on Monday of giving MAGA-aligned corporate lobbyists the ability to "rule" over antitrust enforcement.
Roger Alford, formerly the deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ's antitrust division, was ousted in July, reportedly for "insubordination" after he objected to the involvement of politically connected lobbyists in the $14 billion merger between Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks.
The DOJ had sued in January to block the merger, arguing that HPE's acquisition of Juniper would unlawfully stifle competition, raise prices for consumers, and harm innovation, since the two entities control over 70% of the wi-fi relied on by large companies, hospitals, universities, and other entities.
But that suit was resolved in June in what the Capitol Forum described as a "highly unusual settlement" in which Bondi's chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, overruled the DOJ's antitrust chief, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, to allow the deal to settle.
At the time, left-wing consumer advocates, like Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, argued that the deal was "a corrupt and politically rigged merger settlement," which came after political operatives tied to Trump lobbied on behalf of the company.
Despite still describing himself as a staunch MAGA loyalist, Alford likewise feels that the settlement was a "scandal."
In a speech delivered Monday at the Technology Policy Institute in Aspen, Colorado, he said senior DOJ officials "perverted justice and acted inconsistently with the rule of law" by allowing "corrupt lobbyists" to hijack the process.
According to disclosures from HPE, it hired multiple top Trump allies as lobbyists to advocate for the merger. These included MAGA influencer Mike Davis—a right-wing critic of Big Tech and a notorious legal operative responsible for many of Trump's judicial nominations—and Arthur Schwartz, a close adviser and confidante to Donald Trump, Jr. and JD Vance.
According to reporting from the conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari in UnHerd last month, which cites one unnamed senior official, the DOJ's merger settlement was the product of "boozy backroom meetings between company lawyers and lobbyists, on one hand, and officials from elsewhere in the Department of Justice, on the other."
As Ahmari explained:
"Boozy backroom deal" here isn't a figure of speech, by the way. It captures what literally took place, according to the former official, who described a meeting between government officials and lobbyists that took place at one of Washington's "private city clubs" over cocktails.
In an essay for UnHerd adapted from his speech, Alford berated these "MAGA-in-name-only lobbyists and the DOJ officials enabling them," who he said are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves as long as their friends are in power."
The current DOJ, Alford continued, has allowed for the "rule of lobbyists" to supplant the "rule of law." While he says this was not true of those idealists serving with him in the antitrust division—including his embattled former boss, Slater—he says that others in the DOJ showed "special solicitude" to lobbyists they perceived to be on the "same MAGA team."
"Too often in the current DOJ," he said, "meetings are accepted and decisions are made depending upon whether the request or information comes from a MAGA friend. Aware of this injustice, companies are hiring lawyers and influence-peddlers to bolster their MAGA credentials and pervert traditional law enforcement."
Alford makes a distinction between these corrupt officials and those he calls "genuine MAGA reformers" who "strive to remain true to President Trump's populist message that resonated with working-class Americans."
While he does not group Bondi in with the officials he deems corrupt, he does blame her for having "delegated authority to figures—such as her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, and Associate Attorney General-Designee Stanley Woodward—who don't share her commitment to a single tier of justice for all."
"Some progressives may blanche at Alford's praise for [US President Donald] Trump's populist messaging, and insistence that it has been subverted by top DOJ officials selling out to lobbyists," writes David Dayen in the American Prospect.
But Dayen notes that Alford's audience is not progressives and that he is instead "attempting to reach the president and his inner circle by playing on Trump's demand for total loyalty."
The merger between HPE and Juniper can still be stopped under the Tunney Act, which requires it to be reviewed by a federal judge to determine whether settlements brought in federal "antitrust" cases are in the "public interest."
While the Capital Forum says this process is typically a "rubber stamp," they wrote that "given the settlement's atypical substance and process, plus third parties who may be motivated to intervene and a judge who may be inclined to approach the review skeptically, what's normally a quick judicial signoff could turn into a fraught process with wide-reaching implications."
"Indeed, the court should block the HPE-Juniper merger," Alford said. "If you knew what I know, you would hope so, too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Greenpeace Calls for Oil Giants' Ejection From Global Plastics Summit
"Corporate polluters that created this problem must not be allowed to stop the world from solving it," argued one Greenpeace campaigner.
Aug 07, 2025
With representatives from 175 nations gathered in Geneva, Switzerland for the final round of talks on a global plastics treaty, Greenpeace campaigners on Thursday created a symbolic trail of black oil and hung massive banners over the entrance to the event venue demanding the expulsion of fossil fuel industry lobbyists from the summit.
Greenpeace said 22 activists from 10 European nations climbed to the roof of the Palais des Nations, where the United Nations conference is taking place, to unfurl banners reading "Big Oil Polluting Inside" and "Plastics Treaty Not for Sale."
The environmental advocacy group said that fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumbered scientists 4-to-1 at the talks.
"Each round of negotiations brings more oil and gas lobbyists into the room," Graham Forbes, who is leading Greenpeace's delegation to the summit, said in a statement. "Fossil fuel and petrochemical giants are polluting the negotiations from the inside, and we're calling on the U.N. to kick them out."
"Governments must not let a handful of backwards-looking fossil fuel companies override the clear call from all of civil society—including Indigenous peoples, frontline communities, youth activists, and many responsible businesses—demanding a strong agreement that cuts plastic production," Forbes added.
The huge presence of these plastic-loving lobbyists threatens the Global Plastics Treaty.They don’t want real solutions, all they want is more profits.Tell the UN to kick them out of the plastics talks now👇act.gp/4licpMq
[image or embed]
— Greenpeace UK (@greenpeaceuk.bsky.social) August 7, 2025 at 8:55 AM
In 2022, participating nations agreed to draft a legally binding global treaty to reduce waste and toxic chemicals in some plastics contain; however, no such agreement has been reached.
"It is clear that the plastics treaty negotiators have a mountain to climb to reach an agreement by August 14th," Friends of the Earth International said Tuesday, referring to the summit's end date. "There remain substantive differences between the vast majority of states that want action and the few blockers looking to prolong the era of plastics."
There is strong opposition to curbing plastic production from the fossil fuel industry—99% of plastic is made from petrochemicals—and oil-producing countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.
Reuters reported Wednesday that the Trump administration sent letters to some countries participating in the Geneva talks urging them to reject "impractical global approaches such as plastic production targets or bans and restrictions on plastic additives or plastic products."
Oil producer pressure, Trump rollbacks threaten global treaty on plastics pollution. Plastics are derived from fossil fuels. www.reuters.com/sustainabili...
[image or embed]
— Antonia Juhasz (@antoniajuhasz.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 6:46 AM
Greenpeace noted that "the fossil fuel industry and its political allies are pushing hard to weaken the treaty's ambition."
According to the group:
If they succeed, plastic production could triple by 2050, fueling more environmental destruction, climate chaos, and harm to human health. A recent report from Greenpeace U.K. revealed that companies like Dow, ExxonMobil, BASF, Chevron Phillips, Shell, SABIC, and INEOS continue to ramp up plastic production. Since the global plastics treaty process began in November 2022, these seven companies have expanded plastic production capacity by 1.4 million tons. Over the same time period, they have also produced enough plastic to fill an estimated 6.3 million garbage trucks, or five-and-a-half trucks every minute. These companies also reaped enormous profits, with Dow alone earning an estimated US$5.1 billion from plastics, while sending at least 21 lobbyists into treaty negotiations.
A study published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that plastics are responsible for more than $1.5 trillion in "health-related economic losses" worldwide annually.
"These impacts fall disproportionately upon low-income and at-risk populations," the study's authors wrote. "The principal driver of this crisis is accelerating growth in plastic production—from 2 megatons (Mt) in 1950, to 475 Mt in 2022; that is projected to be 1,200 Mt by 2060."
Friends of the Earth International campaigner Sam Cossar-Gilbert noted that "coastlines across the Global South are drowning in plastic waste that isn't ours."
"Shipped in from wealthy nations under the guise of 'recycling,' the plastic waste trade forces marginalized communities to absorb the consequences of someone else's convenience," he added. "This is not just environmental degradation—it's environmental injustice. We refuse to accept false solutions that sacrifice frontline communities and the environment."
Forbes asserted that "this is a battle for our survival."
"Corporate polluters that created this problem must not be allowed to stop the world from solving it," he added. "Governments must show courage and deliver a strong treaty that puts people and planet first, not short-term corporate profits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Arsenal of Profiteering': Military Contractors Have Gotten Over Half of Pentagon Spending Since 2020
"These figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing," said the project's director.
Jul 08, 2025
Less than a week after U.S. President Donald Trump signed a budget package that pushes annual military spending past $1 trillion, researchers on Tuesday published a report detailing how much major Pentagon contractors have raked in since 2020.
Sharing The Guardian's exclusive coverage of the paper on social media, U.K.-based climate scientist Bill McGuire wrote: "Are you a U.S. taxpayer? I am sure you will be delighted to know where $2.4 TRILLION of your money has gone."
The report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft shows that from 2020-24 private firms received $2.4 trillion in Department of Defense contracts, or roughly 54% of DOD's $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending for that five-year period.
The publication highlights that "during those five years, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion)."
In a statement about the findings, Stephanie Savell, director of the Costs of War Project, said that "these figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing."
"This is not an arsenal of democracy—it's an arsenal of profiteering," Savell added. "We should keep the enormous and growing power of the arms industry in mind as we assess the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and globally."
Between 2020 and 2024, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. By comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. [5/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
The paper points out that "by comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. In other words, the U.S. government invested over twice as much money in five weapons companies as in diplomacy and international assistance."
"Record arms transfers have further boosted the bottom lines of weapons firms," the document details. "These companies have benefited from tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel and Ukraine, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. U.S. military aid to Israel was over $18 billion in just the first year following October 2023; military aid to Ukraine totals $65 billion since the Russian invasion in 2022 through 2025."
"Additionally, a surge in foreign-funded arms sales to European allies, paid for by the recipient nations—over $170 billion in 2023 and 2024 alone—have provided additional revenue to arms contractors over and above the funds they receive directly from the Pentagon," the paper adds.
The 23-page report stresses that "annual U.S. military spending has grown significantly this century," as presidents from both major parties have waged a so-called Global War on Terror and the DOD has continuously failed to pass an audit.
Specifically, according to the paper, "the Pentagon's discretionary budget—the annual funding approved by Congress and the large majority of its overall budget—rose from $507 billion in 2000 to $843 billion in 2025 (in constant 2025 dollars), a 66% increase. Including military spending outside the Pentagon—primarily nuclear weapons programs at the Department of Energy, counterterrorism operations at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other military activities officially classified under 'Budget Function 050'— total military spending grew from $531 billion in 2000 to $899 billion in 2025, a 69% increase."
Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this month "adds $156 billion to this year's total, pushing the 2025 military budget to $1.06 trillion," the document notes. "After taking into account this supplemental funding, the U.S. military budget has nearly doubled this century, increasing 99% since 2000."
Noting that "taxpayers are expected to fund a $1 trillion Pentagon budget," Security Policy Reform Institute co-founder Stephen Semler said the paper, which he co-authored, "illustrates what they'll be paying for: a historic redistribution of wealth from the public to private industry.”
Semler produced the report with William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute. Hartung said that "high Pentagon budgets are often justified because the funds are 'for the troops.'"
"But as this paper shows, the majority of the department's budget goes to corporations, money that has as much to do with special interest lobbying as it does with any rational defense planning," he continued. "Much of this funding has been wasted on dysfunctional or overpriced weapons systems and extravagant compensation packages."
The arms industry has used an array of tools of influence to create an atmosphere where a Pentagon budget that is $1 trillion per year is deemed “not enough” by some members of Congress. [9/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
In addition to spotlighting how U.S. military budgets funnel billions of dollars to contractors each year, the report shines a light on the various ways the industry influences politics.
"The ongoing influence of the arms industry over Congress operates through tens of millions in campaign contributions and the employment of 950 lobbyists, as of 2024," the publication explains. "Military contractors also shape military policy and lobby to increase military spending by funding think tanks and serving on government commissions."
"Senior officials in government often go easy on major weapons companies so as not to ruin their chances of getting lucrative positions with them upon leaving government service," the report notes. "For its part, the emerging military tech sector has opened a new version of the revolving door—the movement of ex-military officers and senior Pentagon officials, not to arms companies per se, but to the venture capital firms that invest in Silicon Valley arms industry startups."
The paper concludes by arguing that "the U.S. needs stronger congressional and public scrutiny of both current and emerging weapons contractors to avoid wasteful spending and reckless decision-making on issues of war and peace. Profits should not drive policy."
"In particular," it adds, "the role of Silicon Valley startups and the venture capital firms that support them needs to be better understood and debated as the U.S. crafts a new foreign policy strategy that avoids unnecessary wars and prioritizes cooperation over confrontation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular