The acting attorney general tried to prove independence from the president he once defended in court. His answers showed why that may be the hardest part of his confirmation fight.
Todd Blanche made remarks during his hearing Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that were meant to separate him from Donald Trump. Instead, they highlighted the central tension of his bid to become attorney general: Blanche, Trump’s former defense lawyer and now acting attorney general, was pressed by senators about his relationship with Trump and the Epstein files, and his answers showed how hard it is to claim independence while leaning on the president’s personal trust.
“President Trump trusts me to give him counsel,” Blanche said, according to PBS NewsHour. “Counsel does not mean a ‘yes man.’” That line was designed as a shield. It also accidentally revealed the problem senators kept circling: the job he wants is supposed to serve the law, not the man who trusts him.
The line that defined the hearing
Blanche came to the committee trying to sound like an institutionalist. In his opening statement, he said he was there to earn lawmakers’ “trust once more” and welcomed fair questions about “the hard debates of the past year.”
Senators accepted the invitation. The hearing quickly became less about résumés and more about power: who Blanche listens to, what he will disclose, and whether he can say no to Trump when the Justice Department’s interests diverge from the president’s.
His “not a yes man” answer was memorable because it tried to resolve that conflict in a single sentence. But it also put Trump at the center of the argument. Blanche did not simply say the attorney general must act independently. He framed his independence through Trump’s confidence in him.
That may reassure Trump allies who see Blanche as a trusted operator. For skeptics, it was the tell: if the strongest evidence of independence is the president’s trust, the independence question is still unresolved.
A promotion with baggage attached
Blanche is not arriving as a blank slate. He previously served as Trump’s defense attorney before moving into senior Justice Department roles. PBS reported that he became acting attorney general after Pam Bondi was fired in early April, and that the Senate had confirmed him as deputy attorney general in March 2025.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, framed the hearing as a promotion review. “The Senate has already judged your fitness for high office and confirmed you as the department’s second in command,” Grassley said, according to PBS. “Today we consider you for a promotion.”
Democrats saw the same résumé differently. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey argued Blanche should not be confirmed, calling the proceeding “more of a performance review” and criticizing his record on Epstein victims, politically charged prosecutions and appearances of impropriety.
That split captured the broader fight around the Justice Department in Trump’s second term. Supporters see aggressive correction of what they describe as past government “weaponization.” Critics see a department too closely aligned with the president’s political and personal interests.
Epstein files became the pressure point
The Epstein files gave senators one of their sharpest openings. The federal government’s handling of records tied to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell has drawn bipartisan criticism, in part because of delays, redactions and mistakes involving sensitive victim information.
Blanche defended the department’s work, saying officials had undertaken a “herculean task” to review “millions and millions” of potentially responsive files after Trump signed the Epstein Transparency Act, which Congress passed to force the release of Epstein-related materials.
He also acknowledged mistakes. According to PBS, Blanche said the department made redaction errors and that lawyers were available to correct them quickly. Some released documents exposed personal information and images of survivors.
“That doesn’t excuse the mistakes, of which I take responsibility,” Blanche said. “But it does mean that we tried to fix them.”
Victims, trust and unanswered questions
Blanche pushed back on criticism that he had refused to engage with Epstein survivors. He said the Justice Department had spoken with more than 30 representatives for dozens of victims and had asked survivors and their lawyers to meet with the FBI.
He also said the department would indict and prosecute people if additional information warranted it. That statement matters because the public debate over the Epstein materials has often mixed legitimate demands for transparency with speculation, partisan pressure and mistrust of official explanations.
The unresolved issue is whether the Justice Department can restore confidence while avoiding harm to victims whose privacy may be compromised by rushed or poorly handled releases. Blanche’s answer was to emphasize scale and remediation. Critics wanted accountability and clearer safeguards.
For senators weighing his confirmation, the Epstein fight was not just a records-management dispute. It was a test of judgment under political heat, especially when Trump himself has pushed the issue into the national spotlight.
The IRS settlement raised another alarm
Blanche also faced questions about the Justice Department’s handling of Trump’s lawsuit over the IRS leaking his personal tax returns. PBS reported that the settlement involved Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit and included immunity from tax audits, along with the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion fund for people claiming to be victims of government “weaponization.”
That fund has since been scrapped after bipartisan criticism, according to PBS. On Monday, a federal judge said Trump’s lawsuit had been filed for an “improper purpose” that misused the court system.
Blanche told Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, that he did not speak with Trump about the settlement until after the Justice Department had determined the case would not move forward — “when it was dead.”
But when Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, asked whether Blanche had advised Trump against creating the fund, Blanche declined to discuss conversations with the president. That refusal may have been legally cautious. Politically, it reinforced the same question: where does confidential counsel end and public accountability begin?
The contract problem senators spotted
One detail kept the IRS settlement issue alive. Several senators pressed Blanche on why the department had not put in writing that the anti-weaponization fund was dead, especially after a judge asked for a sworn declaration.
Blanche said the department would not submit such a declaration because of “longstanding precedent” against judges asking Cabinet secretaries or officials like him to put in declarations. “It has nothing to do with whether the fund is alive,” he said, adding that he was under oath and had repeatedly said it was dead.
Cornyn pressed him on settlement language saying the agreement could only be modified in writing. Blanche said the settlement had not been modified and agreed the document was enforceable as a contract.
That left a narrow but important opening. Blanche said Trump could not force the Justice Department to create the fund, but Trump’s legal team could claim the department breached the contract by not creating it. Blanche added that he was not aware of any plan to do so.
Why the “yes man” denial mattered
Confirmation hearings often reward careful language. Blanche’s problem is that careful language can sound evasive when the central issue is loyalty.
He tried to argue that being trusted by Trump does not make him subordinate to Trump. That is a fair distinction: presidents are allowed to appoint people they trust, and attorneys general routinely advise presidents on sensitive legal matters.
The counterargument is just as obvious. Blanche is not merely a longtime legal conservative or an outside prosecutor joining an administration. He represented Trump personally, now leads the Justice Department on an acting basis, and is seeking Senate approval while fielding questions about matters touching Trump’s own interests.
That is what his hearing accidentally exposed. The most important question was not whether Blanche could produce one sentence denying he is a “yes man.” It was whether the Justice Department under Blanche can persuade the public that its most consequential decisions are being made for the law, not for Donald Trump.
What happens next
The Senate Judiciary Committee now has to decide whether Blanche’s answers were enough. Republicans inclined to support Trump’s Justice Department may view his testimony as steady, loyal and appropriately restrained. Democrats and some institutional skeptics are likely to see too many gaps around Epstein records, victim protections and the IRS settlement.
The hearing also showed why Blanche’s confirmation fight may not turn on a single scandal. It turns on accumulation: former Trump lawyer, acting attorney general, disputed files, a controversial settlement, and repeated refusals to detail private conversations with the president.
Blanche’s defenders can argue that confidentiality, executive branch prerogatives and legal ethics explain many of his answers. His critics can argue those same explanations are exactly why the Senate must be cautious.
The clean takeaway is this: Blanche went to Capitol Hill to prove he could be independent of Trump. By the end of the hearing, he had made clear that Trump’s trust is central to his case — and that is precisely why senators kept pressing.
Leave a Reply