In the waning days of the Biden administration, a flurry of regulatory activity sought to cement policies that would be difficult for President Trump to unwind. New trade and labor agreements, expanded spending commitments, and a slew of regulations were pushed through, ensuring that Trump’s administration would be forced to navigate legal and bureaucratic obstacles to implement its agenda.
Did Biden’s antitrust enforcers have one more parting gift: a last-minute lawsuit to block a proposed merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks? This lawsuit, filed just nine days after Trump’s inauguration and before his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, was confirmed, has all the hallmarks of a rushed effort by Biden’s holdovers to impose their will on a vital sector of the economy.
A Pro-Consumer Merger Blocked Without Justification
HPE and Juniper announced their plans to merge on January 9, 2024, with the goal of strengthening their AI-driven networking products and integrating complementary product lines where they did not compete. Customers of the market leader, Cisco, which dominates about 40% of the sector, saw the merger as a welcome competitive challenge to Cisco—a sign that the deal could benefit customers by injecting more innovation and price competition into the market.
Yet, despite a year of review with no known customer complaints, the Justice Department sued to block the deal. This move came six months after European Union and UK regulators—who are often skeptical of U.S. tech mergers—gave the merger their blessing. The UK Competition and Markets Authority concluded that the merger “does not give rise to a realistic prospect of a substantial lessening of competition,” while the European Commission determined that HPE and Juniper “are not each other’s closest competitors” and that the combined firm would still face strong competition from a “wide range of competitors.”
A Flawed and Anti-Competitive DOJ Case
The DOJ’s justification? A vague claim that HPE and Juniper’s union would “increase concentration in an already concentrated market.” This argument is both misleading and economically illiterate. The networking technology sector is evolving at breakneck speed, with the imminent launch of 6G, AI-powered infrastructure, and new computing-networking synergies rendering yesterday’s market structures irrelevant. The notion that a merger today would lead to harmful consolidation ignores the rapid innovation cycles that constantly reshape competition, often coming from unexpected directions.
In reality, the DOJ’s case primarily benefits Cisco. And while Cisco may enjoy this regulatory gift, a real concern should be American firms’ abilities to compete against Chinese tech giants like Huawei and H3C. Both firms stand to gain if the DOJ’s lawsuit succeeds in stifling U.S. competitors.
The merger could provide business customers with an American company offering a full suite of networking, routing, storage, and AI capabilities—something no American company currently offers. The only firm with comparable offerings is Huawei, which was banned in the U.S. for national security reasons during Trump’s first term in office. Given that many businesses prefer to use one company for their technology solutions, enabling an American company to be that supplier is a competitive advantage.
Trump’s DOJ Must Course-Correct
Trump’s Justice Department pressing ahead with a case that contradicts his business instincts and campaign promises raises a serious question: Why adopt the Biden-led regulatory overreach that stifles competition and innovation?
Trump’s nominee to lead the DOJ Antitrust Division, Gail Slater, has already signaled a commitment to restoring consumer-oriented practices in antitrust enforcement—something the Biden administration replaced with a blunt “big is bad” ideology. As she prepares for confirmation, her first order of business should be to review and withdraw this ill-conceived lawsuit.
America’s economic and technological future depends on fostering innovation, not smothering it under bureaucratic inertia. The DOJ’s case against HPE and Juniper reflects the Biden administration’s prioritization of regulatory activism over consumer welfare. The Trump administration must act swiftly to ensure that the Justice Department aligns with a pro-growth, pro-competition agenda—one that serves consumers rather than entrenched special interests.