We know Todd Blanche. His DOJ record shows why he shouldn’t be attorney general.
Todd Blanche is an experienced prosecutor and lawyer. Those are necessary qualifications to serve as attorney general, but they are far from sufficient. The office demands more, including a willingness to exercise judgment based solely on the law and the interests of the American people. Since becoming part of the Justice Department leadership in March 2025, Blanche has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to exercise that independence. For that reason, the Senate Judiciary Committee should reject his nomination to be attorney general.
We write as lawyers who worked alongside Blanche for several years in the Southern District of New York and once considered him a close friend. SDNY is known for its independence from politics and outside influence. Our office pursued investigations and cases vigorously, whether the target was rich, politically connected or famous, regardless of which political party was in power. As federal prosecutors, we were taught that our duty was to pursue justice fairly, impartially and independently — not to bring or win cases at all costs, to advance political agendas or to serve powerful individuals.
We write as lawyers who worked alongside Blanche for several years in the Southern District of New York and once considered him a close friend.
In our view, Blanche has turned his back on these principles. It has been painful to watch many of his actions as deputy attorney general and acting attorney general, especially his participation in the firing of career prosecutors and FBI agents based purely on political considerations. We regarded Blanche highly at SDNY, but we feel obligated as former officers of the Justice Department to speak plainly — as did more than 1,200 other DOJ alums opposing his nomination. Our concern is not political; all presidents are entitled to appoint senior Justice Department officials who share their law enforcement priorities. Our concern is institutional: whether the Justice Department will continue to exist to serve the American people and whether Americans will have faith in its decisions and actions.
This week brought further reason for doubt. On Monday, the federal judge overseeing President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS denounced the case as an exercise in self-dealing “brought for an improper purpose — to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a ‘settlement’ that had no viable basis in law or fact.” The judge referred all government attorneys involved, including Blanche, to state bar agencies for potential disciplinary proceedings. Blanche, formerly Trump’s personal attorney, announced a “settlement” that would have created a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that Trump pledged to share with supporters; he also signed an addendum to grant Trump and his family immunity from tax claims predating the settlement. In other words, Blanche used Justice Department powers to help facilitate a facially frivolous lawsuit against an agency the president controls and then claimed to settle it, including by signing away the IRS’ enforcement authority. This is Blanche acting to benefit Trump personally, not in the interests of the American public.
As acting attorney general, Blanche has been open about his willingness to allow Trump to dictate who the Justice Department prosecutes. In an April press conference, Blanche said that Trump has a “right” and a “duty” to shape federal probes of individuals who had investigated him. Blanche has overseen several indictments of individuals publicly criticized by the president, including an absurd second indictment of former FBI Director James Comey for a “threat” made via seashells. Just last week, a judge appointed by Trump ruled that the dismissals Blanche oversaw of convictions against members of the Proud Boys for conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riots were “without regard to the seriousness of the conduct at issue.” The judge made clear that the dismissals were sought because Trump wanted them, not because they were warranted based on fact or law.
