Congress

Todd Blanche is trying to charm his way to confirmation

Published

3 months ago

June 16, 2026

Todd Blanche is mounting a charm offensive with Republican senators as his nomination as attorney general inches forward. So far, he seems to be saying the right things.

The scheduling of a confirmation hearing next month and positive early reviews from GOP swing votes are raising expectations that the acting Justice Department head and former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump could be permanently installed later this year.

In his meetings Tuesday with Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, as well as key senators off the panel, Blanche sought to assuage lingering concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” the department recently proposed as it settled a Trump lawsuit against the IRS.

The fund, which could have funnelled up to $1.8 billion in payouts to Trump political allies, was withdrawn after a bipartisan outcry on Capitol Hill, and Blanche assured senators during the closed-door sitdowns that it’s gone for good.

“We had an extensive discussion on the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which he has assured me with no equivocation at all that he is not for it, will not pursue it, that it will not exist,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters, calling it a “very good meeting.”

Blanche’s private assurances come ahead of his scheduled July 15 appearance before the Judiciary Committee, where he is certain to be grilled on the fund and his handling of other matters involving Trump. With Democrats on the panel unlikely to support Blanche’s confirmation, he will need to win over all 12 panel Republicans in order to advance to a floor vote, which could take place as soon as the first week of August.

The payout fund is a major issue Blanche will have to address, but it will not be the only one. The IRS settlement also included a provision indemnifying the president and his family against future tax audits, which has raised hackles with at least one Senate Republican.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said Blanche had committed to giving him a “further briefing on the tax audit issue involving President Trump and his family.” He otherwise said the two had a “positive” meeting.

More generally, Blanche has faced criticism over his close personal ties to Trump, having represented the president in various criminal cases across the country. He was on Trump’s legal team for both federal prosecutions out of former special counsel Jack Smith’s office and for the Stormy Daniels hush money case brought by local prosecutors in Manhattan.

That background has fueled the perception that Blanche has been unduly loyal to Trump in his stewardship of the Justice Department, and some Senate Republicans have indicated that they want to push Blanche on whether he understands the difference between being attorney general and being Trump’s personal lawyer.

But the mere fact that Blanche once represented Trump in a personal capacity is unlikely to derail his chances for confirmation. Every Republican present confirmed Blanche to be deputy attorney general last year knowing that history.

His actions since joining the Justice Department have garnered more scrutiny, however — especially the IRS settlement. He publicly defended the $1.8 billion fund before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee last month in the face of deep skepticism from Democrats and Republicans alike, including Collins.

Two days later, Blanche faced a brutal reception during a closed-door lunch where dozens of Republican senators grilled him over the fund. The controversy threatened to derail a GOP immigration enforcement bill, and it ultimately delayed its passage for more than a week.

Blanche subsequently helped break the stalemate when he told House appropriators that the administration would not move forward with the fund. Those remarks helped publicly assure Senate Republicans, who had been underwhelmed by his appearance at the Senate GOP lunch.

Some senators indicated he still has more assuring to do.

“I like Todd … but I think he’s going to have a rigorous confirmation,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), another Judiciary member. “I think he’ll ultimately be confirmed, but I’ve got some hard questions for him.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has been careful not to guarantee Blanche will be confirmed, noting he first has to get out of the Judiciary Committee where multiple GOP senators are keeping things close to the vest.

“If he can get a strong vote coming out of the Judiciary Committee, then my expectation is, we would be able to process him on the floor,” Thune told reporters this week. “You’ve got a couple people on that committee that he’ll have to convince, but I know that he’s prepared to do that.”

A critical Republican on the panel — retiring Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina — will meet with Blanche next week.

Tillis has previously tanked Trump nominees over concerns relating to the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including Ed Martin’s nomination to be U.S. attorney in D.C. But the senator gave no initial indications this week of disqualifying marks in Blanche’s background regarding the insurrection and its aftermath.

“I haven’t seen anything that, you know, from a Jan. 6 perspective would be a problem,” Tillis said Tuesday. “So now we’re just going through all the other vetting.”

Pressed on the payout fund, he added: “It will be an issue if the weaponization fund isn’t effectively dead by the confirmation hearing because I’ve got a real problem with it being out there.”

With a month to go until Blanche’s hearing and at least another week before he gets a committee vote, further Justice Department activity involving Trump adversaries could continue to weigh on his nomination. California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s disclosure this week that he and his wife are under federal investigation have newly fanned concerns that Blanche is pursuing a retribution campaign at Trump’s behest.

Tillis said he expects to question Blanche at the hearing on the apparent targeting of Trump’s political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey, who is under indictment in North Carolina for allegedly threatening Trump.

“I want to hear about what the details behind that Comey investigation are,” he said. “Because look, I know that the Biden administration was guilty of weaponization. I don’t believe the proper response is a mirror image.”

Blanche is also certain to face tough questioning next month on another matter: his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Ousted Attorney General Pam Bondi told Congress last month that Blanche oversaw the process of releasing Justice Department files concerning Epstein, the late convicted sex offender. The botched redaction process, which in some cases led to release of private material related to Epstein’s victims or the withholding of information about people who were not victims, has been the subject of bipartisan scrutiny.

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) has requested Blanche speak with his committee next month about the files’ release, which could put him in lawmakers’ crosshairs just weeks or days before a potential confirmation vote.

Congress

House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.

Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.

The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”

Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.

“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”

Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.

“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”

“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”

Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.

Gluesenkamp Perez represents a district President Donald Trump won in 2024.

But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.

Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.

Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.

Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”

“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”

“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”

Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”

“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”

Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.

Golden, left, is retiring after his term ends.

“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”

Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.

Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.

Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.

“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.

Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”

“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”

Congress

Tillis renews calls for Hegseth’s ouster

Published

12 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Thom Tillis renewed his call for President Donald Trump to fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, following the resignation earlier this week of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” the outgoing two-term North Carolina Republican wrote on X. “He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.”

Driscoll, whose long-rumored resignation became official this week, had clashed with Hegseth over the Defense secretary’s reluctance to modernize the Army and his firings of dozens of senior officers. Hegseth has focused more on cultural issues — including grooming and fitness standards — within the department.

“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” Tillis charged. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment on Tillis’ post.

Tillis, who is not running for reelection in November, has openly clashed with Hegseth since Trump tapped the former Fox News host to lead the Pentagon in 2024.

In May, Tillis told POLITICO he believed Hegseth had misinformed Trump on the dynamics of a war in Iran. Firing Hegseth, he said, was on “a Christmas wish list.” In a book set to be released next month, Tillis branded Hegseth — along with a handful of other White House officials — as “MAGATS” and accused them of “not looking around corners and taking care of this president.”

It hasn’t earned him friends in the administration.

“The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn’t brave, he was just the opposite – HE WAS A QUITTER!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in May. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!”

Congress

No immediate plans to punish rogue House Democrats for bailing out GOP

Published

12 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Despite a stern message from party leaders, a panel of House Democrats did not settle on any particular consequences for the pair of lawmakers who crossed party lines Tuesday to advance an otherwise troubled slate of Republican-led bills.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow leaders said the matter would be reviewed by the Democratic Committee on Caucus Rules, which convened Wednesday morning for a prescheduled listening session.

Attendees discussed possible changes to the rules that govern House Democrats’ conduct for next term. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), the panel’s chair, suggested to reporters that discussion included what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures like the one Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) supported Tuesday.

“There’s been a variety of suggestions to change our rules, not just regarding the last couple days, but several suggestions that have been percolating for some time,” Levin said, while adding that any changes would happen only “in the next couple of months.”

The lack of urgency stands in contrast to the stern statement Jeffries and fellow leaders made Tuesday about the rogue members’ “breach of trust” — not to mention the rage some rank-and-file House Democrats are expressing. Some have floated removing the pair from their committees — particularly Gluesenkamp Perez’ seat on the exclusive Appropriations panel.

“Somebody else who is willing to think about other people needs to be on that seat, that exclusive committee,” said one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Jeffries, who was not present at the meeting, also seemed to have a speedier timeline for responding to Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden. He told reporters after the meeting wrapped that he was waiting on feedback from Levin and that the caucus would have conversations “amongst the family about the best way to move forward.”

Asked about his timeline for action against the pair, Jeffries said, “Sooner rather than later.”