House Democrats Launch Formal Inquiry into Controversial Removal of US Antitrust Chief
House Democrats have initiated a formal inquiry into the controversial ouster of Gail Slater, the former head of the US Department of Justice's antitrust division. The investigation centers on allegations of political interference and improper lobbying influence during her forced resignation earlier this month.
Demand for Justice Department Briefing
Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House judiciary committee, formally requested a comprehensive briefing from the justice department regarding Slater's removal. This move represents the initial phase of what is expected to become a much broader investigation, particularly if Democrats regain House majority in the upcoming midterm elections and obtain subpoena authority.
In his detailed letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Raskin specifically demanded information about the involvement of Trump-connected lobbyists in Slater's dismissal. The controversy stems from Slater's attempts to block a substantial $14 billion merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, a prominent cloud-computing and software company.
Leadership Vacuum and Corruption Concerns
"With the departure of AAG Slater, it appears there are no longer any principled antitrust experts left to guard the antitrust division from this cascade of corruption," Raskin wrote in his strongly worded correspondence. "The leadership vacuum is occurring just as the antitrust division is handling historic cases that will shape American business for decades."
According to previous reports, Slater's relationship with Attorney General Bondi and JD Vance deteriorated significantly following the Hewlett Packard Enterprise case. Vance, once Slater's most powerful ally within the administration, reportedly grew frustrated with her repeated invocation of his name at the justice department.
Conflicting Security Assessments and Alleged Deception
The conflict intensified when Slater informed Bondi that US intelligence agencies had not raised national security concerns about blocking the merger. This assertion was directly contradicted by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who questioned why he had not been consulted about the national security implications.
An exasperated Bondi later confided to associates that she believed Slater had deliberately misled her to continue pursuing the lawsuit. The justice department ultimately dropped the case in June 2025, opting instead to negotiate a settlement. Slater countered these allegations by claiming the department had been unduly influenced by Hewlett Packard Enterprise lobbyists.
Broader Antitrust Concerns and Multiple Investigations
The justice department's failure to respond to Raskin's earlier August request regarding internal turmoil within the antitrust division appears to have strengthened Democratic resolve to investigate multiple high-profile cases. Raskin's letter raised serious questions about several other significant antitrust matters currently under review.
These include a proposed merger between American Express Global Business Travel and CWT Holdings, the Live Nation and Ticketmaster merger, acquisition bids by Netflix and Paramount for Warner Bros Discovery, and an ongoing appeal concerning Google's alleged monopoly over online search markets.
Lobbying Influence and Political Connections
Regarding the American Express deal, Raskin wrote: "It appears the dismissal may have also prevented the disclosure of contacts between DOJ officials and Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with close ties to President Trump where you were a partner until January 2025."
Roger Alford, Slater's former principal deputy who was also removed from the antitrust division last year, made revealing comments at a Tech Policy Institute event suggesting political lobbying would likely influence the Live Nation case outcome. "Regarding Live Nation," Raskin's letter quoted, "Mr Alford has warned that these firms 'have paid a bevy of cozy MAGA friends to roam the halls of [DOJ's] Fifth Floor in defense of their monopoly abuses.'"
Potential Political Fallout and Executive Privilege Concerns
An investigation into Slater's removal could prove politically damaging for Trump allies who allegedly played roles in the controversy but are not currently part of the administration. These individuals would not be protected by any potential assertion of executive privilege by former President Donald Trump to block their testimony.
Among those likely to face scrutiny is Mike Davis, a prominent Republican litigator retained by Hewlett Packard Enterprise to advise on the merger. Davis has publicly taken credit for Slater's removal in social media posts, though he declined to comment when contacted directly. In previous statements on social media platform X, Davis wrote: "Dear Trump Appointees: If Senate Democrats would be upset if you got fired, you should just resign now. You're in the wrong administration."
The justice department has thus far referred all inquiries about Raskin's letter to Bondi's previous statement thanking Slater for her service, maintaining official silence on the growing controversy as Democratic investigators prepare to escalate their examination of antitrust enforcement during the current administration.
