All Eyes on the Executive Blanche

Todd Blanche’s confirmation hearing to be the next attorney general is scheduled for July 15 and 16. That leaves us with just three weeks to answer some big questions about Blanche — including whether he has used his role at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to shield President Trump from scrutiny.

This week, we sued DOJ to force it to fast-track two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for details about Blanche’s actions as deputy attorney general. We’re looking for information about Blanche’s role in two things: Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents and DOJ’s review of investigative files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The records could provide answers about whether Blanche was involved in attempts to bury the Jack Smith report or remove references to Trump in the Epstein files.

On Friday, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to demand DOJ quickly respond to our requests.

Blanche, who has served as Trump’s personal defense attorney, told the Senate last year that he has a “continuing duty of loyalty” to Trump. During his time at DOJ, Blanche has been central to the planning for Trump’s controversial $1.8 billion fund to compensate people who claim they were wrongly investigated by the Biden administration. He also announced DOJ’s prosecutions of the Southern Poverty Law Center and former Federal Bureau of Investigations Director James Comey. And he’s been involved in the battle over the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Earlier this year, we called on Blanche to step aside from any role reviewing or overseeing the release of presidential records from Trump’s first term under the PRA.

If he is confirmed as attorney general, Blanche will have even more power at DOJ. Before he is confirmed, the public needs to know if he is able to do the job with the kind of impartiality that Americans need from the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

OPM wants to make all federal employees sign NDAs. That’s a bad plan.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has proposed a governmentwide non-disclosure agreement for all federal employees to sign. This would expose federal employees to disciplinary actions — including potential criminal and civil consequences — for discussing their work. As a result, lawmakers, public interest groups, and members of the public could be left without the information they need and deserve to understand what their government is doing. 

On Friday, we sent OPM a public comment opposing its adoption of the NDAs. Many laws already exist to ensure federal employees do not share sensitive information. The governmentwide NDAs would make employees less likely to share information that is both legal and useful, because it would create new restrictions on what information employees can share, when, and with whom. As a result, the people who rely on information from federal employees — like Congress, inspectors general, and government watchdog groups — would be less likely to be able to access that information.

Read the full comment.

American Oversight in the news

• Lawsuit demands Todd Blanche records on Epstein, Jack Smith before AG vote (Tampa Free Press)
• How the Manhattan Institute turned anti-LGBTQ+ politics into conservative policy (Ms. Magazine)
• Georgia election board hears pitch from anti-voting activist on dodgy voter fraud tool (Democracy Docket)

Other stories we’re following

• Postmaster general confirms plan to hold back mail ballots in states that won’t share voter data (The Hill)
• ‘This is injustice’: how leftist zines were used to sentence anti-ICE protesters to decades in prison (Guardian)
• Todd Blanche ‘conceded’ violating law on Epstein files, judge finds (Politico)
• Trump’s acting chief of national intelligence fires 6 political appointees, removes dozens of career officials, sources say (CNN)
• Judge blocks use of federal database to check citizenship, saying it could wrongly purge voters (Associated Press)