Roger Alford, recently dismissed as principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, has publicly accused senior leadership of turning antitrust enforcement into a pay-to-play operation that favors companies able to hire politically connected lobbyists. Speaking at the Technology Policy Institute’s Aspen Forum and in an accompanying essay, Alford said Attorney General Pam Bondi had ceded control to her chief of staff Chad Mizelle and associate attorney-general designee Stanley Woodward, whom he claims overruled the Antitrust Division after lobbyists intervened on behalf of well-financed clients. Alford pointed to Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s $14 billion takeover of Juniper Networks as the clearest example. According to his account, HPE hired advisers with close ties to former President Donald Trump who secured an undisclosed side agreement for U.S. job creation, allowing the company to settle antitrust concerns on terms Alford describes as a "sweetheart" deal. He urged U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts, who must approve the consent decree, to invoke the Tunney Act to determine whether political influence tainted the settlement and, if necessary, block the merger retroactively. The former official warned that the same dynamic could undermine ongoing cases, citing Live Nation and Ticketmaster as potential beneficiaries of what he calls a "rule of lobbyists." He argued that unequal enforcement creates legal uncertainty for businesses and corrodes public trust in claims that the administration is pursuing a populist antimonopoly agenda. A Justice Department spokesperson rejected the allegations, likening Alford to "the James Comey of antitrust" and accusing him of self-promotion. Bondi and Mizelle have not issued detailed public responses. The Antitrust Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, has no pending new merger cases, and several technology investigations have been curtailed since Trump returned to office. If Judge Pitts orders discovery or testimony under the Tunney Act, Alford has indicated he is prepared to provide further evidence. The court’s decision could determine the fate of the HPE-Juniper agreement and set a precedent for how much latitude political appointees have in shaping antitrust settlements.