March 23, 2017

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
Suite 4706
Washington, DC 20530
BY FAX: (202) 616-9881
RE: Avoiding Interference in Pending Antitrust Litigation
Dear Inspector General Horowitz:
We write to you about potential challenges to the integrity of the Department of Justice’s
ongoing litigation concerning the proposed Anthem-Cigna merger. As you may know, the
Department and several states sued to block this merger, and after a lengthy trial the federal
district court in Washington enjoined the merger. Recent news reports, however, raise
substantial concerns about potential improper communications or political interference with the
Department’s ongoing handling of this matter. Such contacts or interference could violate the
decades-old policy of restricting contacts between the White House and the Department of
Justice (“DOJ” or the “Department”) regarding specific legal and enforcement actions. These
issues go to the heart of the Department’s obligation of evenhanded application of the law, and
so fall squarely within your office’s jurisdiction.
The Department of Justice’s Mission Statement includes a commitment “to ensure fair
and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.” Evenhanded treatment under the law
is a bedrock principle of our democracy. The American people depend on the Department to
enforce our federal laws equally as to all parties, regardless of those parties’ size, influence, or
political connections. It would seriously undermine the rule of the law if the President or his
United to Protect Democracy
PO Box 170521
Brooklyn, New York 11217

 political advisors were to direct or encourage the Department to alter course in an ongoing
enforcement or litigation matter in order to benefit a political ally — just as it would were the
President to direct a new enforcement action against a political opponent. The Department must
be able to maintain public confidence in the fundamental integrity of justice, and political
influence that casts that into question activates an urgent duty for the Office of Inspector General
to identify such misconduct and respond to it.
To that end, for more than 40 years since Watergate, administrations of both political
parties have established and enforced written policies to ensure that the DOJ impartially
exercises its law enforcement powers by restricting the Department’s contacts with the White
House. These contacts policies have consistently set forth that communications between the
White House and DOJ about any ongoing case, investigation, or adjudicative matter should take
place only when necessary for the discharge of the President’s constitutional duties and must be
appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.1 Also, both the White House and DOJ policies
designate a small number of high-level officials who are permitted to contact each other in this
sensitive area to ensure that, when such communications are necessary, they are appropriate.2
The longstanding policies restricting contacts between the White House and DOJ are
most important in the context of enforcement and litigation actions involving specific parties. To
help educate the public and reinforce the importance of the contacts policies to the rule of law,
our organization, United to Protect Democracy, published a memo earlier this month describing
the contacts policies of previous Democratic and Republican Administrations.3
In the context of the Anthem-Cigna litigation, after the court ruled in favor of the
Department of Justice to block the merger, Anthem’s counsel told the court that it expected to
get another opportunity to clear the merger because of the new Administration. Subsequently, its
CEO received an audience with President Trump. Troublingly, Anthem has made statements
that indicate an expectation that political officials in the new Administration either have directed
or will direct a shift in DOJ’s legal judgment away from defending its victory and maintaining its
position in this matter. Last month, in a teleconference with the court, Anthem argued one
“pathway” the merger could go forward would be “through resolution with a new DOJ.”4 As
Anthem stated: “There’s reasons that we believe the merger is still able to clear. Notably, now
1

See Eric Holder, Communications with the White House and Congress, Memorandum for Heads of Department
Components and All U.S. Attorneys, May 11, 2009, https://lawfare.s3-us-west2.amazonaws.com/staging/2017/2009%20Eric%20Holder%20memo.pdf (“Holder Memo”); Michael B. Mukasey,
Communications with the White House, Memorandum for Heads of Department Components and U.S. Attorneys,
Dec. 19, 2007, available at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3371650/Mukasey-12-19-07.pdf
(“Mukasey Memo”).
2
Id.; see also Kathryn Ruemmler, Prohibited Contacts with Agencies and Departments, Memorandum for All
White House Office Staff, March 23, 2012 (“Ruemmler Memo”).
3
Memo from United to Protect Democracy to Interested Parties, White House Communications with the DOJ and
FBI, Mar. 8, 2017, at https://unitedtoprotectdemocracy.org/agencycontacts/ (“UPD Contacts Memo”).
4
Anthem, Inc. v. Cigna Corp., Transcript of Teleconference re Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order and the Court’s Ruling, Feb. 16, 2017, Statement by Glenn Kurtz, p. 7 at 19,
https://www.ismanet.org/pdf/news/2017-2-8%20Letter%20to%20Snyder%20re%20Anthem%20Cigna%20DOJ.pdf

2

 Vice President Pence was supportive of the transaction as the governor of Indiana.”5
Public reports raise substantial concerns that Anthem may be obtaining the political
interference that it seeks to alter the Department’s position in this specific litigation and
enforcement action. Last week, according to the White House, Anthem’s CEO Joseph Swedish
spoke by phone to President Donald Trump.6 In addition, Makan Delrahim, a senior official in
the White House Counsel’s Office, was previously a lobbyist for Anthem who lobbied about this
very merger.7 Now, reports have emerged indicating that Mr. Delrahim could be nominated to
become head of the Antitrust Division, which has direct authority over the Department’s position
in this action.8 While we expect that Mr. Delrahim would be recused personally from any
involvement in this matter, his potential nomination raises serious questions about discussions
between the White House and the Department regarding the Department’s position in this case.
The chronology of political involvement in the Anthem-Cigna matter is beginning to
resemble an earlier, infamous DOJ antitrust merger matter involving International Telephone and
Telegraph (ITT). In 1971, DOJ filed antitrust suits against ITT in order to block several mergers
that it concluded violated our antitrust laws. In 1971, ITT pledged $400,000 to the Republican
National Committee to support the 1972 political convention; within days of that pledge, a
settlement was announced. During confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on his nomination to be Attorney General, then Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst
denied talking to President Nixon about the ITT case before settlement. The Nixon White House
tapes ultimately revealed an April 1971 conversation between President Nixon and Kleindienst
during which Nixon ordered Kleindienst to drop the ITT suit. In early 1974 Kleindienst pleaded
guilty to the misdemeanor charge of failing to testify accurately before the Senate during his
confirmation hearings.
The questions surrounding the Department’s handling of the ITT matter undermined
public confidence in the integrity of antitrust enforcement. That led directly to passage of the
Tunney Act, which requires that consent decrees proposed by the Department in antitrust cases
be subject to public comment and judicial review. Importantly, the Tunney Act requires
disclosure of all contacts between settling defendants and any officer or employee of the United
States other than communications between counsel of record alone and the Department of
5

Id. at 7, lines 21-24.
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Mar. 13, 2017, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2017/03/14/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-3142017-23. The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Dr. Tom Price, was also present for the call.
7
Additionally, to avoid undermining the DOJ’s impartial approach to this litigation, if the President were to appoint
Makan Delrahim as head of the antitrust division, Mr. Delrahim should publicly recuse himself from this matter
because of his prior position as an Anthem lobbyist working on the Cigna merger. See Lobbying Report, Jan. 20,
2016, https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=D4ECBE8B-1C02-4E0D-A5888EECFCE8B15F&filingTypeID=78 (Lobbying for “antitrust issues associated with Anthem's proposed acquisition
of Cigna.”). Mr. Delrahim has recently been installed as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel.
8
Diane Bartz and Svea Herbst-Bayliss, “Exclusive: Delrahim to Head Justice Department’s Antitrust Unit Sources, Reuters (Mar. 17, 2017), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-antitrust-exclusiveidUSKBN16O2O2.
6

3

 Justice.9
We are concerned that Administration officials may have engaged in inappropriate
conduct regarding the Anthem-Cigna litigation by allowing Presidential communication about
this very matter with the Anthem CEO, who has been a significant campaign contributor to
Republican causes, and by potentially nominating a lobbyist who worked on this matter to run
the Antitrust Division. For example, we cannot help but suspect that this matter may have arisen
during discussions between the White House and Justice Department about the potential
nomination of Mr. Delrahim. Were the White House to engage in any contacts with DOJ about
this ongoing antitrust enforcement matter, it would substantially undermine Americans’
confidence in the Department’s commitment to equal justice under law.
Furthermore, a change in the Department’s position as a result of political interference
could implicate standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch and other
rules of professional conduct, and could be the basis for a referral to the Office of Professional
Responsibility.
Our concern is heightened given the fact that, as we noted in the memo we released last
week, the White House appears to have already engaged in several contacts with the Department
of Justice in just the first forty days of the Administration that may have been in violation of the
decades-old contact policies.10 A complaint that the White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus
may have violated these policies by seeking the FBI’s assistance to attempt to refute news
reports of communications between Russian intelligence and Trump campaign advisors11 has
already been brought to your attention.12 Since the release of our memo, another questionable
contact has already transpired: the President’s reported call to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
9

See The Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (known as the Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(g).
See UPD Contacts Memo at 3. First, news reports indicated that White House Counsel Donald McGahn
attempted to access a surveillance order on Mr. Trump and others issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, though a White House official later attempted to recharacterize that effort. Michael D. Shear and Michael S.
Schmidt, Trump, Offering no Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones, N.Y. Times (March 4, 2017),
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-tap-phones.html?_r=0. Secondly, White House
Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller, who is not part of the Counsel’s office, reportedly called the U.S. Attorney
for the Eastern District of New York at his home to direct the argument for defending the travel ban. Harry Siegel,
Stephen Miller Called Brooklyn U.S. Attorney At Home and Told Him How To Defend Travel Ban in Court, NY
Daily News (Feb. 18, 2017), http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/stephen-miller-called-u-s-attorney-travel-bandefense-article-1.2975873. Third, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus reportedly requested FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe to refute news articles about communications between Russia and Trump campaign
advisors during the presidential campaign. Brian Naylor, White House Asked FBI To Publicly Refute Reports Trump
Associates Had Russia Contacts, NPR (Feb. 24, 2017), http://www.npr.org/2017/02/24/517011779/white-houseasked-fbi-to-publicly-refute-reports-trump-associates-had-russia-con
11
Isaac Arnsdorf, Priebus Talk with FBI Appears to Break White House Rules, Politico, (Mar. 17, 2017)
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/reince-priebus-fbi-discussion-white-house-rules-236192
12
See Letter from Noah Bookbinder, Executive Director, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to
Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Feb. 24, 2017, available here:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/24192302/DOJ-IG-PriebusMcCabe-2-24-17.pdf
10

4

 District of New York, Preet Bharara.13 Mr. Bharara declined to return that call on the advice of
DOJ leadership because of its apparent impropriety under the policy.14 Taken together, the
White House’s conduct in these situations undermines the importance of adhering to longstanding policies restricting White House interference in ongoing enforcement matters,
potentially from the perspective of Department personnel on the receiving end of such contacts,
and such interference cases substantial harm in the public’s trust in the Department.
Accordingly, we ask the OIG to initiate an investigation to assess whether any improper
communications between the White House and the Department have occurred or were attempted,
in violation of the Department’s policy and its mission “to ensure fair and impartial
administration of justice for all Americans.” Even if a contact was initiated from the White
House, a DOJ recipient maintains obligations under DOJ’s contacts policy to handle the
communication in an appropriate manner, including possibly declining it or reporting it to
relevant officials. We encourage you to investigate all forms of communication, including
telephone calls via cell phone and text messages, which have been reported as the favored means
of communication by senior White House advisors. The evidence to date detailed above
suggests that if immediate steps are not taken, further violations could take place that would do
grave harm to the American people’s confidence in the Department.
We look forward to your response and thank you for your important work.

Sincerely,

Ian Bassin
Executive Director

Enc.

United to Protect Democracy, Memo to Interested Parties, Re: White House
Communications with the DOJ and FBI, March 8, 2017.

cc:

Sen. Michael S. Lee, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights

13

Eric Lichtblau and William K. Rashbaum, White House Addresses Trump’s Unorthodox Call to Preet Bharara,
NY Times (Mar. 12, 2017) available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/12/us/politics/white-house-addressestrumps-unorthodox-call-to-preet-bharara.html
14
Id.

5