Warren, Klobuchar, Booker, Blumenthal Highlight District Court’s Responsibility to Question Whether DOJ Approved HPE Mega-Deal on Merits or as a Political Favor
This comes the day after two top antitrust officials were ousted.
“At a time when concerns continue to emerge regarding apparent pay-to-play schemes at other Trump administration agencies, the public deserves a rigorous application of the law.”
“If this or any other transaction is approved based on political favors rather than on the merits, the public will surely bear the cost.”
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote to Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, urging the court to use its power under the Tunney Act to determine whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) approved Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.’s (HPE) $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks (Juniper) based on political favors.
The senators argue that this move would provide the transparency necessary to make sure the Department made this decision based on the public interest and not as a result of influence peddling in the Trump administration.
On January 30, 2025, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division filed a lawsuit to block HPE’s proposed $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, citing concerns that the combination of the nation’s second- and third-largest providers of enterprise wireless networking solutions would result in two companies controlling 70 percent of enterprise-grade wireless networking solutions. The case was scheduled to go to trial on July 9, 2025. With less than two weeks remaining, however, DOJ notified the court that it reached a settlement with the parties and intended to drop its challenge to the transaction.
According to the senators, the DOJ’s settlement with HPE and Juniper requires scrutiny because:
- The settlement falls short of resolving the serious antitrust concerns identified in the DOJ’s original lawsuit;
- Recent news reporting suggests HPE and Juniper retained lobbyists and consultants with ties to the White House and the Office of the Attorney General to obtain a settlement that falls outside the public interest and that they likely would not have been able to obtain in the ordinary course; and
- There are allegations that officials in the Antitrust Division may have been sidelined because they opposed the backroom negotiations that led to this settlement.
The senators noted that the Tunney Act authorizes the district court to compel testimony under oath from individuals with information about the settlement negotiations.
“These are precisely the types of facts and circumstances that compelled Congress to pass the Tunney Act,” wrote the senators.
The Tunney Act is a transparency tool that requires district courts to ensure that final agreements between the United States and private parties are in accordance with federal law and are in the public interest. The federal law requires courts to consider a series of factors when determining whether a merger settlement is in the public interest, and grants courts ample authority to compel testimony and gather information in order to make that determination. Congress enacted the law after the Nixon administration’s settlement to resolve an antitrust suit against two merging companies, where reports of the settlement raised questions about secret negotiations unrelated to economic competition principles or the public interest.
“The Justice Department must stand as the lawyers for the entire United States. A settlement to resolve the challenge to HPE’s proposed acquisition of Juniper should not be made on the backs of the American people while enriching well-connected lobbyists,” wrote the senators. “At a time when concerns continue to emerge regarding apparent pay-to-play schemes at other Trump administration agencies, the public deserves a rigorous application of the law.”
Section 16(f) of the Tunney Act grants the Court broad discretion to solicit information that may be helpful in assessing whether the consent decree at issue in this case is in the public interest. The senators noted that the Tunney Act would help prevent deals that threaten to concentrate money and power in the hands of the few, out of view of and at the expense of the public. The senators submitted the letter as a public comment to the Antitrust Division as part of the Tunney Act process and simultaneously alerted the district court to their concerns.
“Without transparency, the public cannot have confidence in DOJ’s decisions,” wrote the senators. “If this or any other transaction is approved based on political favors rather than on the merits, the public will surely bear the cost.”
###
Next Article Previous Article