DOJ's Woodward tells staff wants to avoid antitrust trials: WSJ
The Justice Department’s antitrust enforcement strategy has shifted under the Trump administration, with senior officials reportedly seeking to avoid protracted legal battles in favor of expedited settlements, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, the DOJ’s third-ranking official, has been central to this approach, with sources indicating he has pushed for resolutions bypassing traditional scrutiny.
This strategy has raised concerns among current and former antitrust officials, who argue that political connections are increasingly influencing enforcement decisions rather than market competition or public interest. For instance, in the case of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, HPE’s politically connected lobbyists, including Mike Davis, successfully lobbied for a settlement sidestepping divestiture requirements. The deal was finalized in June 2025 without mandating the sale of Juniper’s Mist business, a key condition initially proposed by antitrust staff.
Roger Alford, a former deputy to Gail Slater, the DOJ’s top antitrust official, has publicly criticized the process, alleging that senior officials like Chad Mizelle and Woodward prioritized political ties over legal rigor. Alford and another official, William Rinner, were dismissed after voicing concerns about the influence of lobbyists in the HPE settlement.
The DOJ has defended its actions, stating that all settlements are based on merits of each case. However, critics argue that the department’s leadership has increasingly intervened in antitrust matters, overriding staff recommendations and favoring politically aligned interests. This trend has been observed in other high-profile cases, including the Compass acquisition of Anywhere Real Estate, where the DOJ leadership overruled antitrust staff to avoid a second request for information.
As the administration continues to prioritize swift resolutions, the integrity of antitrust enforcement remains under scrutiny, with some observers warning of long-term implications for market competition and regulatory independence.
