[SCROLL DOWN FOR THE FULL LETTER]

To be honest, I was anxious about sending this, because I know from experience that Mr. Blanche does not like to be challenged. He’s already put me through the wringer once. But 16 months ago, after he fired me from the Department of Justice, I made a resolution to be brave and try new things. So far, it hasn’t steered me wrong.

So I’m putting myself out there again—nerves and all—and sharing my personal experience with the senators who will vote on whether to advance Mr. Blanche’s nomination. My story is just one of many reasons Mr. Blanche is unfit to lead the Department of Justice. I hope it helps. But even if it doesn’t, I know I’ll be on the right side of history. And Todd Blanche will be somewhere else.

Just a reminder that if you’ve written to any senators, you can share your note with me here. Thanks to so many of you who have already done this. I’ll post some examples soon for those who are still thinking about writing.

I am so sincerely appreciative of all of you who support my work. You give me the courage and inspiration to keep speaking up for what is right and just.

My letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee

July 1, 2026

Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary:

I am writing as a former career official of the Department of Justice to make this Committee aware of my personal experience with Todd Blanche, who has been nominated to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Blanche fired me last year after I refused a demand from his office to use my official position to facilitate a political favor for a friend of the President—specifically, restoring the federal firearm rights of a convicted domestic abuser. After I raised well-documented concerns about public safety (and made clear that the Department could legally proceed despite my objections), Mr. Blanche terminated my employment. Mr. Blanche then subjected me and my family to an extended course of retaliatory conduct, including attempting to prevent me from informing Congress about his actions by directing U.S. Marshals to deliver an intimidating letter to our home and initiating a baseless professional misconduct complaint against me with the bar where I am licensed.

I believe that this Committee should be aware of Mr. Blanche’s conduct, which bears upon his fitness to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. Blanche fired me after I refused to rubberstamp a political favor for a friend of the President.

Until March 2025, I was the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney—the senior career official responsible for advising DOJ leadership and the President on executive clemency matters. Mr. Blanche was my direct supervisor. He fired me on March 7, two days after he was confirmed to serve as Deputy Attorney General. My firing was a shock—but also not a total surprise. It happened just hours after I informed Mr. Blanche’s office that I would not rubberstamp a political favor for a celebrity friend of the President.

One day after Mr. Blanche’s confirmation, his staff instructed me to write a memo recommending that the Department reinstate the gun ownership rights of the actor Mel Gibson. Mr. Gibson had lost his federal firearm rights after he was convicted of a crime of domestic violence; his then-girlfriend reported that Mr. Gibson hit her while she was holding their infant daughter, punched her in the mouth breaking her teeth, threatened her with a gun, and verbally berated her. Shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, Mr. Gibson’s attorney sent a letter to DOJ requesting that the Department reinstate his federal firearm rights. The letter cited Mr. Gibson’s personal relationship with Mr. Trump and his catalogue of famous films.

Mr. Gibson’s request raised serious concerns about public safety. Data reported by DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women shows that over half of the women murdered in the United States are killed by a current or former intimate partner, and “the presence of firearms significantly escalates the danger in relationships where there is domestic violence by increasing the risk of homicide by 500%.”^[1]

Under longstanding DOJ policy, the Office of the Pardon Attorney does not recommend restoration of rights without careful vetting. Pardon candidates are required to provide detailed information about risk factors such as mental health and substance abuse history; to supply supporting documentation and character references; and to undergo a rigorous background investigation, conducted by the FBI, to ensure that restoring their rights would not endanger public safety. Rearming a domestic abuser without careful vetting was not consistent with the Department’s policies or its duty to protect public safety.

My office had not vetted Mr. Gibson’s application, nor were we given an opportunity to do so. For that reason, I informed Mr. Blanche’s staff that I could not make the recommendation they demanded. I had already sent forward a list of dozens of recommended candidates for restoration of gun rights who my office had fully vetted; Mr. Gibson’s name was not on the list.

My recommendation was not actually needed to grant Mr. Gibson’s request. The legal authority to restore firearm rights rests with the Attorney General. As a career official, I understood that my recommendation would lend a veneer of legitimacy to what could otherwise look like a political favor. But I made sure Mr. Blanche’s office knew that the Department could restore Mr. Gibson’s rights without my approval.

Nevertheless, on March 6, 2025 (one day before I was fired), Mr. Blanche’s senior staff instructed me to prepare a memo recommending that the Department reinstate Mr. Gibson’s gun rights. I informed them by email the same day that I could not make that recommendation because of my concerns about public safety. One of Mr. Blanche’s deputies called me that evening and asked me to reconsider, citing Mr. Gibson’s personal relationship with the President. I knew from the tone of the conversation that this request was highly consequential. I didn’t sleep at all that night. In the morning, I sent Mr. Blanche’s deputy an email reflecting that I had not changed my mind. A few hours later, I was notified that Mr. Blanche had fired me.

That took place on a Friday afternoon. A panicked colleague pulled me out of a meeting to inform me that security officers were waiting to escort me out of the building. I rushed back to my office, where I was handed a three-sentence memo signed by Mr. Blanche. It informed me I was terminated effective immediately. I got no notice and no explanation. The officers allowed me to pack my personal belongings into a grocery bag, and they walked me out of the building in front of my stunned and traumatized staff.

I am still in litigation with the Department seeking recourse for my illegal firing, which plainly violates federal civil service and whistleblower protection laws. I appealed my firing to the Merit Systems Protection Board well over a year ago, but DOJ has repeatedly delayed and obstructed any resolution of the matter.

Mr. Blanche retaliated against me and my family multiple times after I was fired.

After I was fired, I spoke about it publicly. I felt it was my duty to voice my concerns about the reckless and dangerous use of official powers of the Justice Department. In response, Mr. Blanche gave a statement to the press attacking me for speaking out and claiming that my “version of events is false.”^[2] But he has never actually disputed any of the facts I described. Mr. Blanche’s office is in possession of documents that corroborate everything I have said, but he has declined to produce copies of them pursuant to a FOIA request, which I am now litigating.

Mr. Blanche’s false and disparaging statements about me were only the beginning of his retaliatory actions. A few weeks later, I was scheduled to testify before Members of Congress in a bicameral spotlight hearing, at the invitation of Rep. Jamie Raskin and Sen. Adam Schiff. The hearing was scheduled to take place on a Monday (April 7). The Friday night before the hearing (April 4), Mr. Blanche directed the Department’s Security and Emergency Planning Staff to send armed Special Deputy U.S. Marshals to my home to intimidate me. I learned that the officers were en route to my house shortly after nine p.m., when a very decent career employee of the Department called to warn me. At the time, my teenager was home alone while my husband and I were out with my elderly parents. Knowing how traumatic it would be for my child if these armed men showed up at the door, the caller was able to get the officers to stand down, for which I am profoundly grateful.

I went forward with my testimony despite Mr. Blanche’s attempts to intimidate me. Copies of my written and oral remarks accompany this letter.^[3] I am also providing a copy of a complaint submitted on my behalf to DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).^[4]

Shortly after my testimony, I learned that Mr. Blanche had initiated a misconduct complaint against me with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the D.C. Bar, where I am licensed. I had to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to hire a lawyer, at a time when I was unemployed. After a months-long investigation, the complaint was finally dismissed in February of this year. Though the complaint lacked merit, the process took a toll on me and my family (which presumably was the objective).

Mr. Blanche has obstructed my efforts to seek legal recourse against the Department.

On a human level, dealing with the Department has been a nightmare since my firing. As noted earlier, DOJ has aggressively delayed and side-tracked my straightforward MSPB challenge to my unlawful firing, effectively denying me my day in court thus far. Additionally, shortly after I was fired, I requested some basic personnel documents from DOJ, including my annual performance evaluations, which show that I received the highest possible rating (“outstanding”) each year. DOJ responded that these were “complex” requests, and I should not expect a response anytime soon.

For weeks, DOJ also refused to provide me with documents about my benefits, including my health insurance and my retirement funds. Finally, after my requests received some media attention, I got an email advising me that my health insurance would expire in five days. To extend my coverage, the cost would more than quadruple. And to keep my family covered, I would have to provide proof of our familial relationships, including my marriage certificate, my child’s birth certificate, and proof of a common residence or joint tax filings.

I have also sought documents related to my firing pursuant to a FOIA request, which is now in litigation. Remarkably, the Department has claimed that Mr. Blanche’s office has no documents—none—related to my firing, despite the fact that Mr. Blanche himself dismissed me. DOJ FOIA staff claim that they searched Mr. Blanche’s files and found nothing—not a single page. They didn’t even find the memo he signed firing me in his files.

This raises serious questions about what channels of communications Mr. Blanche is using to conduct official DOJ business; where (or whether) he is preserving records required by federal law; and whether he is telling the truth about documents in his possession, custody or control. I respectfully suggest that this Committee should probe whether Mr. Blanche has complied with the Federal Records Act or is using forms of communication that evade oversight.^[5]

My treatment by Mr. Blanche is not an isolated case. Although many others have chosen not to speak out, numerous dedicated and high-performing senior career attorneys have been fired or driven out, without cause or explanation, from Mr. Blanche’s DOJ. The unmistakable message is that employees must keep their concerns to themselves about actions they view as unsafe or unlawful—or face losing their jobs.

The harmful impact of purging career officials is not limited to the dedicated civil servants who lose their livelihoods. My firing, for example, was traumatic to my entire team of hard-working career professionals. They watched in shock and horror as I was marched out of the building with no warning, no explanation, and no chance to say goodbye.

Since my firing, the pardon process has become a dangerous and chaotic free-for-all.

Removing career experts like me harms the Department’s ability to fulfill its vital mission of upholding the rule of law, and it makes America less safe. What has happened to the pardon process since my firing is just one example.

Though the President has absolute discretion with respect to pardons under the Constitution, for over 130 years the Justice Department has been charged with ensuring that the pardon power is not used recklessly, corruptly, or in other ways that are detrimental to the integrity of the justice system. Under federal regulations, the Pardon Attorney is charged with rigorously vetting applications for executive clemency and making recommendations in accordance with a detailed set of guidelines codified in the Justice Manual. By regulation, the Pardon Attorney’s recommendations are submitted “through the Deputy Attorney General,” who then exercises “such discretion and authority as is appropriate and necessary for the handling and transmittal of such recommendations to the President.” 28 C.F.R. § 0.36.

To guard against politicization of the pardon power, the position of Pardon Attorney has traditionally been reserved for a career expert. However, the job is now filled by Ed Martin, a political operative who failed to win confirmation as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Neither Mr. Blanche nor Mr. Martin has imposed any discipline on executive clemency. The lack of vetting has resulted in staggering rates of recidivism among recent clemency recipients—including at least 14 charged with sex crimes or offenses involving child sexual abuse material, and at least six with domestic violence crimes.^[6] Crime victims have been deprived of over a billion dollars in restitution owed as a result of pardons.^[7] A pay-to-play pardon system has developed that has advantaged the wealthy and well-connected.^[8]

Hardly anyone who has received clemency during this Administration meets the merit-based criteria historically enforced by the Justice Department. Most have not even applied through the Justice Department.^[9] Meanwhile, there is now a backlog of over 20,000 applications for clemency pending with the Office of the Pardon Attorney—an increase of more than 300 percent since my firing last year. Without question, some of those whose applications are languishing there for lack of political connections would merit the exercise of executive clemency.

* * * *

I welcome the opportunity to meet with the Members of this Committee in person or virtually. I am also willing to testify under oath. I am available to provide any additional information that would be helpful to you. I am sharing my personal contact information under separate cover. Thank you for your careful consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth G. Oyer

^[1] Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, Announcements: Resource Guide for Addressing the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Firearms, at https://www.justice.gov/ovw/announcements; see also id., Resource Guide, at https://www.justice.gov/ovw/resource-guide-addressing-intersection-domestic-violence-and-firearms.

^[2] See, e.g., Perry Stein, The Washington Post, Fired Justice Dept. Official Speaks About Her Ouster and Mel Gibson(Mar. 12, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/03/12/pardon-attorney-elizabeth-oyer-fired-speaks-out.

^[3] See Exhibit 1.

^[4] See Exhibit 2. OIG opened a preliminary investigation into the matter, but it is my understanding that the investigation was abandoned after the departure of the agency’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.

^[5] Notably, recent public reports indicate that Mr. Blanche’s then-boss, former Attorney General Bondi, “rarely” used her official DOJ email account. See Maggie Haberman & Jonathan Swan, Inside the White House Freakout Over the Epstein Files, The New York Times Magazine (June 10, 2026), at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/10/magazine/trump-epstein-files-white-house-vance-doj.html. Additional reporting reflects that many senior officials in the current Administration use the messaging application Signal to conduct official business. See Michael Scherer et al., Hegseth, Rubio, and Caine Had an Auto-Deleting Signal Chat, The Atlantic (June 29, 2026), at https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/06/trump-administration-signal-chat-marco-rubio/687735/.

^[6] See, e.g., Katherine Pompilio, The Jan. 6 Pardons: How Many Clemency Recipients Have Faced Other Charges, Lawfare (June 4, 2026).

^[7] See, e.g., Dan Greenberg, Cato Institute, President Trump’s Pardons: An Embarrassment of Riches (Feb. 11, 2026), at https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches.

^[8] See, e.g., Rebecca Ballhaus et al., Inside the New Fast Track to a Presidential Pardon: Lobbyists Close to Trump Say Their Going Rate to Advocate for a Pardon Is $1 Million, The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 23, 2025), at https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-presidential-pardon-process-dda97c15.

^[9] See, e.g., Marisa Taylor et al., How to Get a Trump Pardon: Forget the DOJ, Call “Bobby” and Other Influencers, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/investigations/forget-doj-trump-pardon-call-bobby-other-influencers-2026-06-11.

This breach of longstanding policy is a problem for Blanche as he faces a tough path to confirmation as Attorney General—and he knows it. This week, he tried a new tactic to deceive the public about the special treatment Maxwell is receiving and to conceal his role in facilitating it. In an act of brazen dishonesty, the Federal Bureau of Prisons—which Blanche controls—issued an indignant new statement claiming that Maxwell’s transfer was for legitimate reasons, that she has received no preferential treatment, and that Blanche had nothing to do with her transfer.

All of this is demonstrably false and deliberately designed to mislead. And in fact, while preparing this post, I stumbled upon what sure looks like an official admission that Blanche broke the rules when he orchestrated Maxwell’s transfer to the camp. I’m going to explain exactly how. It’s a bit of deep dive, but I hope you’ll keep reading.

Prison rules and regulations are complex, technical, and arcane. Most of the public—and even most lawmakers—have had no reason to study them. And that’s exactly what Blanche is counting on. He’s trying to exploit our ignorance so we’ll fall for his lies.

Unfortunately for Blanche, there are some people who have studied these rules closely and who know how they work in practice for ordinary people. I am one of them. I learned how the Bureau of Prisons really works during my ten years representing clients as a Federal Public Defender and my three years working in coordination with the Bureau of Prisons as DOJ Pardon Attorney. I want to walk you through exactly what’s happening here and unpack all of the lies.

I hope that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee—who will have the chance to question Blanche under oath next month—will read this as well. We need our senators to look closely at what Blanche’s DOJ has said and done regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, and to check it against the facts and the law. We need them to hold Todd Blanche to account before he becomes our next Attorney General.

A quick refresher on the basic facts and timeline

Four years ago, in June 2022, Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison after a jury convicted her of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually exploit young girls. Maxwell was sent to a low-security prison in Tallahassee, Florida, to serve her sentence. Maxwell remained at that facility as of last summer.

On July 24, 2025, Todd Blanche—then the Deputy Attorney General—traveled to Tallahassee to visit with Maxwell. He met with her for approximately nine hours over the course of two days. A friend of Blanche’s—a Florida lawyer named David Markus—was brought in to serve as Maxwell’s legal counsel during this meeting.

Blanche allowed Maxwell to have a special meal of her choosing during the meeting. According to Markus, “she requested Camembert cheese and fresh French bread.” Markus brought her the best he could find, and reports that she enjoyed “the greatest meal she had ever eaten in her life.” Maxwell, in turn, gave assurances on the record that Trump was “a gentleman in all respects” and “absolutely never” did anything inappropriate with Jeffrey Epstein.

Days later, Maxwell was transferred out of the Tallahassee prison to a minimum-security camp in Texas, where she remains today according to public records. Maxwell has said she is “much happier” at this new facility, which she has described as having significantly better food, amenities, and living conditions.

What DOJ is saying about Maxwell’s transfer

Blanche initially claimed that Maxwell was transferred because of threats to her safety. In an interview in December, he said: “At the time that I met Miss Maxwell, there was a tremendous amount of scrutiny and publicity toward her, and the institution she was in, she was suffering numerous and numerous threats against her life.” But Blanche never substantiated or elaborated on those supposed threats.

Fast forward six months to June 16, 2026. Democratic congressional staff traveled to the camp in Texas where Maxwell is now housed to investigate claims that she is receiving special treatment. They confirmed that Maxwell is the only sex offender in the facility, which they described as essentially “a park with ample green space,” and they questioned why Blanche sent her there.

In response, the Bureau of Prisons issued the statement below (emphasis is mine) purporting to “correct the record” on Ghislaine Maxwell. In short, it claims that (1) the decision to transfer Maxwell was made “independently by BOP,” not by Todd Blanche; (2) Maxwell’s transfer was necessary and appropriate to ensure her safety; and (3) Maxwell received no special or preferential treatment. All of these claims are demonstrably false.

In light of the recent congressional staff visit to Federal Prison Camp Bryan, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) must correct the record as it relates to the intense public interest in inmate Ghislaine Maxwell. While the BOP takes extraordinary efforts to protect the rights and privacy afforded to inmates, recent mischaracterizations have made this statement necessary.

BOP designates and transfers inmates based on established criteria, including required security and supervision levels, separation needs, medical considerations, and, most importantly, inmate safety. Political rhetoric over the last six months has perpetuated a false and dangerous narrative that has metastasized into outright lies perniciously spread online and in some irresponsible news outlets.

Inmate Ghislaine Maxwell’s designation and transfer were made independently by BOP and were based on these factors that required additional security measures. Inmate safety is a key consideration, and we could no longer ensure her safety at her original facility. The current facility provided BOP the opportunity for improved security measures and a leadership team specifically equipped to handle the management of these needs.

No preference, special treatment, or political influence played any role in these decisions. Claims that inmate Maxwell has received preferential treatment, enhanced living conditions, unusual privileges, or that her placement was the result of outside interference are categorically false and inaccurate.

How the federal prison system actually works

Federal law gives the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) the exclusive authority to determine where a person convicted of a federal crime serves their prison sentence. BOP designates a specific facility from among more than 120 federal institutions nationwide. That decision generally is not reviewable by any court. But there are rigorous requirements that BOP must follow. Among other things, federal law prohibits preferential treatment: “In designating the place of imprisonment or making transfers under this subsection, there shall be no favoritism given to prisoners of high social or economic status.”

BOP has extremely detailed regulations that govern every aspect of the process known as “security designation and custody classification” of federal prisoners. They are memorialized in a 100+ page manual called Program Statement 5100.08. I’ll walk you through the key aspects for purposes of understanding the Maxwell case.

The security classification process

Every person incarcerated in the federal system is assigned a security level, based on their individual history and characteristics. For women, security levels include: minimum, low, and high (as well as “administrative,” in cases of special needs like medical care). Most women “are classified at minimum or low security levels.”

The security level is calculated in accordance with very detailed criteria, considering factors like the person’s criminal record, the seriousness of their offense, and a series of “public safety factors”—like gang affiliation, prior escape attempts, and a history of sex offenses (among others). Specialists in BOP’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSSC) enter all of the relevant information into a system called Sentry, which calculates a point score and a corresponding security level.

Incarcerated people (I try to avoid words like inmate) are required to be confined in institutions that match their security level. That means, if your security level is “low”—like Ghislaine Maxwell—you will be assigned to a low security prison.

Special restrictions for sex offenders

BOP’s regulations strictly prohibit housing individuals convicted of sex offenses—like Maxwell—in minimum security camps. The purpose of this restriction is to protect public safety. Prison camps are the least secure of all federal prisons. They generally offer direct access to the surrounding community, without the protection of a secure perimeter. BOP describes these facilities as follows:

Sex offenders cannot be housed in camps because sex offenses are considered a “public safety factor.” Public safety factors “are certain demonstrated behaviors which require increased security measures to ensure the protection of society.” In other words, they are factors that require confinement in a higher-security facility for the safety of the surrounding community.

Because of the public safety risk, sex offenders are required to be housed in “at least” a low security facility, pursuant to BOP policy.

While “low security” might not sound all that restrictive, these facilities differ from minimum security camps in several important ways: low security prisons have “a double-fenced perimeter” (meaning residents cannot walk off into the community) and a higher staff-to-inmate ratio than camps. They may also offer more limited recreational programming and other privileges.

Waivers and changes in security level

Security classifications are generally reviewed on an annual basis. A person’s security level can change over time based on factors like their conduct in prison. Good behavior can lower the security level, while bad behavior can increase it. But public safety factors—like sex offenses—are generally fixed. That means, no matter how good their behavior in prison, a designated sex offender can never achieve a minimum-security level.

Under longstanding BOP rules, the only way a person with a public safety factor could be housed in a minimum-security facility is if the public safety factor (PSF) is “waived” and a “management variable” is applied.

Both PSF waivers and management variables require high-level authorization from a career official known as the DSSC Administrator (the official who runs the BOP’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center). The DSSC is the only staff member in the Bureau of Prisons who has the authority to waive a PSF or to apply a management variable. (Though presumably she could be directed to do so by her bosses, which include the Director of the Bureau of Prisons—more on him in a moment—and the Deputy Attorney General.)

As a matter of practice, PSFs are rarely waived. I have not seen any historical precedent, in my research or my professional experience, for waiving the “sex offender” PSF. As a matter of policy, practice, and common sense, the DSSC Administrator—who is a career corrections specialist—would not have any reason to waive a PSF for a sex offender.

Safety issues and protective custody

So what happens if an incarcerated person is assaulted, threatened, or fears for their safety in prison? Prison staff remove that person from the general population and place them in a restrictive housing unit known as a “SHU” (Special Housing Unit). SHUs are specialized units inside regular prisons that are reserved for individuals who cannot be safely housed with other people for various reasons. Individuals who require protective custody—meaning separation from others for their own safety—are housed in the SHU.

Prisons of all different security levels have SHUs within them. SHUs have extra protections in place, including additional staffing, closer monitoring of residents, and more physical security than the rest of the facility.

According to BOP’s most recent data, over 10,000 people are currently housed in SHUs (out of a total prison population of approximately 139,000). About 10% of those are in the SHU for disciplinary reasons (i.e., punishment for bad behavior), while the rest are there for administrative reasons, such as protective custody. Placement in protective custody can be voluntary (i.e., at the request of the incarcerated person) or involuntary (i.e., at the direction of prison staff).

No matter what the institution’s security level, living conditions in the SHU are much more restrictive than in the general population. SHU residents are typically housed in cells (as opposed to cubicle- or dormitory-style housing). Their movements are restricted, their outside recreation time is limited, and they are walled off from contact with the general population. Their visiting and phone calls may be limited, and they generally do not have access to Trulincs—BOP’s email system which allows incarcerated people to send emails to an approved list of outside contacts.

Because of the restrictive nature of SHU housing (and the heightened costs of providing such housing), prison staff are required to investigate and verify the need for protection before keeping a person in the SHU. Staff are also required to periodically reevaluate whether protective custody is still needed after the initial placement is made.

A person who has a verified need for protection on an ongoing basis may be transferred to another facility where such protection will not be needed. However, as discussed above, BOP policy requires the individual to remain confined in a facility appropriate for their security level. So an individual housed in a low security prison, for example, could be moved to a different low-security prison—but not to a high or a minimum. Several BOP prisons have Reintegration Units, which are specifically designed for individuals requiring longterm protective custody.

Individuals who have special management needs may also be given a “Central Inmate Monitoring (CIM)” assignment, which requires heightened review and documentation of their movements. Those receiving CIM assignments may include cooperating witnesses or known gang members—as well as persons “who have received widespread publicity as a result of their criminal activity or notoriety as public figures,” among others.

Importantly, decisions about inmate safety are not ad hoc determinations. BOP has detailed policies that staff must follow. A rigorous review process is in place for application of heightened security measures like CIM assignments and special housing placements. Detailed documentation and appropriate approvals are required. Nothing happens without a paper trail.

The lies we’ve been told about Ghislaine Maxwell

Now that you know how things actually work, it’s easy to spot the lies that Blanche’s DOJ has told us. The statement issued by BOP last week is filled with them.

Lie #1: “Inmate safety” is the “most important[]” consideration in designating and transferring people in custody.

The Program Statement discussed above outlines all of the factors BOP considers in the security designation and custody classification process. Inmate safety is actually not one of them. But public safety is. Protecting the public is a paramount concern of the Bureau of Prisons under federal law.

BOP has determined that sex offenders and other detainees with public safety factors (like Maxwell) require increased security “to ensure the safety and protection of the public”—not for their own protection. Because BOP has a legal duty to protect the public, transferring an individual with a public safety factor to a minimum-security institution—“which would permit inmate access to the community”—is not a permissible mechanism for addressing a threat to the safety of a person in custody.

Lie #2: Maxwell was transferred because BOP “could no longer ensure her safety at her original facility.”

It’s not clear that there were any actual threats to Maxwell’s safety inside FCI Tallahassee, where she was originally confined. But even if there were, the facility was quite capable of ensuring her safety by placing her in the SHU. That’s what routinely happens to other incarcerated people who cannot be safely housed in the general population. The primary purpose of the SHU is to provide additional security for those who want or need it.

But it seems that Maxwell didn’t actually want more security. She wanted less security and more privileges. And now she’s got all of that, thanks to Todd Blanche.

Lie #3: The new facility has “improved security measures” to keep Maxwell safe.

FPC Bryan, where Maxwell is now housed, is a minimum security prison camp—the least secure type of federal prison. By definition, it has less—not more—security than FCI Tallahassee. As discussed above, prison camps have less staff to supervise the facility and more freedom of movement within the facility. People can come in and out more easily.

At the prison camps I’ve visited, I’ve been able to park right outside—where incarcerated people are often mingling—and walk right into the building. There are no gates or fencing or checkpoints to keep prisoners in or visitors out.

Even entertaining the fiction that a prison transfer was necessary to provide Maxwell more protection, she would have been sent to a facility with an equal (if not greater) security level. BOP has more than two dozen prisons that house women, including facilities in Connecticut, Alabama, South Carolina, and Minnesota that are classified as low security.

Lie #4: The decision to transfer Maxwell was “made independently by BOP.”

The idea that BOP made the decision to transfer Maxwell “independently” of Todd Blanche is absolutely preposterous, for lack of a more elegant word. As a practical matter, BOP staff would never initiate the transfer of a high-profile sex offender with a public safety factor to a minimum security camp—in violation of longstanding policy—in order to provide her with “additional security.”

But moreover, BOP is not independent of Todd Blanche. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons reports directly to the Deputy Attorney General—i.e., Todd Blanche. Here’s Blanche swearing in the current Director last April. And here’s Blanche this April congratulating the Director on “an outstanding first year” and talking about “working hand-in-hand” with him. (It’s also worth noting that Donald Trump fired the previous BOP Director on his first day in office and handpicked a replacement.)

Blanche has actually acknowledged this before, saying: “every decision that they [BOP] make lands on my desk to the extent it needs to.”

Lie #5: “No preference, special treatment, or political influence played any role in these decisions.”

Maxwell’s prison transfer is the very definition of special treatment. Ordinary people facing safety issues are sent to the SHU. As a public defender, I had clients who spent months at a time in the SHU because they were the victims of serious threats or assaults in prison. Maxwell was sent to a camp. She’s the only sex offender known to be residing in a camp—out of approximately 20,000 sex offenders currently in BOP custody.

Restrictive housing is awful, and I want to be clear about that. The limited movement and diminished communication with the outside world is punitive—even when it’s not intended to be. I believe that all incarcerated people should have humane living conditions. But I do not believe that special treatment should be afforded to the wealthy or well connected. And in fact federal law prohibits it.

A smoking gun?

In doing my research for this post, I came across what sure looks like a clear admission that rules were broken. About six weeks ago, on May 6, 2026, BOP Director William Marshall signed what’s called a Change Notice, amending Program Statement 5100.08—the longstanding policy on Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification. The change notice (“CN-3”) is only the third amendment to this policy since it was adopted in 2006. And what it says is pretty incredible.

It empowers the Attorney General “to designate or redesignate the place of a prisoner’s imprisonment” at his discretion. In other words, the AG can simply direct BOP staff to place a specific prisoner in a specific facility—without regard for any of the established rules. That means that Blanche now has the authority to send Maxwell to any prison in the country (if this holds up against legal challenges). He could potentially even transfer her to home confinement or a halfway house in the community. And the same goes for any other person in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. Blanche could force an enemy of the president to serve a sentence for a low-level crime in a maximum security prison. Or he could allow a friend of the president convicted of rape or murder to mingle with the community at a camp. The only apparent purpose of this amendment is to give Blanche carte blanche (pardon the pun) to dole out special treatment in the federal prison system.

The Change Notice adds, oddly, that BOP “may also facilitate communication or correspondence between the inmate and the Office of the Attorney General.” The idea that a federal inmate would need to communicate directly with the Office of the Attorney General is what my teen would call “sus.” Highly sus.

What the Senate can do about this

The Senate will have the opportunity to dig into all of this at Blanche’s confirmation hearing, which is scheduled to take place on July 15 and 16. Before that hearing, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee need to arm themselves with all of the facts. Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin should determine whether the following (required) documents were completed by the Bureau of Prisons and obtain all available records, including:

• Basic inmate information forms: Inmate Profile (PP-44), Inmate Activity Record (BP-381)

• Designation and classification forms: Inmate Load and Security Designation (BP-337), Custody Classification (BP-338)

• Transfer forms: Request for Transfer/Application of Management Variable/PSF Waiver (EMS-409), Transfer Order (BP-399), Transfer Notice (BP-284), In-Transit Data Form (BP-175), Transfer Receipt (BP-821)

• Administrative detention and protective custody documents (if any): Administrative Detention Order (BP-308), Special Housing Unit Record (BP-292), Special Housing Unit Review (BP-295), any threat assessments

• CIM documents (if any): Case Information Summary (BP-339), CMC Clearance and Separatee Data (PP10)

• Additional information: TRULINCS Contact Request Form (BP-1054); approved visitor and telephone lists; programming records (PEED); disciplinary infractions (PD-15)

Obtaining these documents in advance will ensure that the Committee is prepared to question Blanche effectively about this matter, to seek the truth, and to debunk the lies. Senators should also demand an explanation for the recent Change Notice, which now authorizes Blanche to unilaterally direct the placement and transfer of federal prisoners.

Senators of both parties should want to know the truth about what has happened here before voting on Blanche’s nomination. What it looks like is Todd Blanche cut a corrupt deal with Ghislaine Maxwell to protect Donald Trump. It looks like Blanche abused his position as Deputy Attorney General to give preferential treatment to a convicted child sex trafficker. It looks like he plans to keep doing that. And it looks like he is furiously weaving a web of lies to cover it up.

I’ll be watching this closely, and I’ll keep you informed. Make sure you’re subscribed to receive all my updates.

Here’s the current state of play. Trump formally nominated Blanche for the position of Attorney General on June 8. Blanche had been serving in that role on an interim basis since April, following Pam Bondi’s departure.

Blanche’s nomination is now in the hands of the Senate. He must win the approval of a majority of senators to keep the job on a permanent basis. This process is known as confirmation, and it is required by the Constitution.

Blanche will have to clear two hurdles to win confirmation. First, the Senate Judiciary Committee must vote to advance his nomination. The Committee has 22 members, including 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats. Blanche will need the support of all 12 Republicans to secure the required majority.

If the Committee advances his nomination, it will go to the full Senate for a final vote on confirmation. Blanche will need the support of a majority of senators to win confirmation. Currently, the Senate includes 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats. In the event of a tie, the vice president would cast the deciding vote.

Before any votes take place, the Senate will hold a confirmation hearing. That hearing is currently scheduled to take place on July 15 and 16. The first day will consist of Blanche’s sworn testimony. Senators of both parties will have the opportunity to question Blanche under oath about his record to date and his intentions for the future. The second day will include testimony of other witnesses—who have yet to be named—both supporting and opposing Blanche’s nomination. Party leaders will select the witnesses, with the majority party selecting most of the witnesses.

If Blanche has the necessary support after the hearing, the Senate could vote on his confirmation before its August recess.

This is not the first time Blanche has faced Senate confirmation. Last March, senators voted along party lines (52-46) to confirm him as Deputy Attorney General, the number two position in the Department of Justice.

But a lot has changed since then, and Blanche’s confirmation as Attorney General will face a much more challenging path. He will have to clear new hurdles of his own making (including defending his track record on issues ranging from Epstein to the slush fund to revenge prosecutions), and still more hurdles of his boss’s making (namely, winning over newly unshackled Republicans, like John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, whose reelection bids were effectively ended by Trump).

Blanche will also have to account for broken promises, including his pledge to Senator Thom Tillis, during his first confirmation hearing, that the Department would steer clear of politically motivated investigations. (Tillis: I’ve got your commitment there will not even be a whiff of an investigation that appears to have a political motivation to it? Blanche: I commit to that.) Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, is retiring at the end of his term and has proven willing in the past to block Trump nominees who do not meet his standards. He singlehandedly killed Ed Martin’s prospects for confirmation as U.S. Attorney for D.C.

Blanche’s standing on Capitol Hill recently cratered, at least temporarily, after he signed off on Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund—which proved a bridge too far for even some loyal supporters. Uncertainty about the future of the slush fund remains a sticking point for at least some Republican senators. Public opinion on Blanche has also soured in some influential conservative quarters, with The National Review publishing a searing editorial entitled, “No to Todd Blanche for Attorney General.”

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a member of the Judiciary Committee, acknowledged this week that Blanche will face a tough confirmation battle. Several key Republican senators have identified themselves as undecided, including two members of the Judiciary Committee—Cornyn and Tillis—either of whom could block the nomination before it even reaches the Senate floor.

Blanche’s candidacy is further complicated by opposition from victims of Jeffrey Epstein, whose potential testimony at the confirmation hearing could place pressure on senators facing midterm challenges to distance themselves from Blanche.

If Blanche’s nomination advances to the Senate floor, he can afford to lose only three Republican votes. All 47 Democrats—even John Fetterman—are expected to vote no on Blanche’s confirmation. That means it would take four no votes from Republicans to sink him. Right now, there are at least six Republicans who have publicly expressed some reservations about Blanche. In addition to Cornyn and Tillis, they include Bill Cassidy of Louisiana (who, like Cornyn, lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger), Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (who is retiring at the end of his term), Susan Collins of Maine (who is up for reelection this year), and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. And there are several others facing competitive elections—including Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska—who will have to answer to voters in November if they choose to back Blanche.

What all of this means is: there is a plausible path to defeating Blanche’s nomination.

I won’t promise that we will succeed. A lot is sure to happen in the next month that could affect Blanche’s candidacy either positively or negatively. But I believe this is a battle worth fighting. It is a crucial opportunity to reclaim our power as citizens and to make our voices heard. Even if Blanche is ultimately confirmed, the objections we voice in the confirmation process will be part of the historical record of this moment. That record will later serve as the roadmap for holding Blanche accountable for his misdeeds and abuses of power.

What makes this confirmation fight different and weightier than the one Blanche faced last March is that we now know exactly how corrupt and dangerous he is. I reviewed Blanche’s record in detail in my last post, and I urge you to read it if you haven’t. The short of it is that Blanche has approved and even personally facilitated many of the worst abuses of the justice system in history. These include the sham settlement of Trump’s IRS lawsuit; the Epstein files fiasco; the prison transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell; the vindictive prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia; illegal purges of career DOJ lawyers; and politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of numerous Trump enemies. Among others.

Over the last 15 months, Blanche has frequently used his official position to undermine the very pillars of American democracy that the Attorney General is responsible for upholding: the Constitution and the rule of law. He has demonstrated that he will not allow the law to stand in the way of Donald Trump’s personal or political objectives. This is the exact opposite of what we need in an Attorney General. It’s also exactly why Trump wants Blanche in the role.

The Attorney General has one of the most important and most powerful jobs in the nation. They run the Department of Justice, an organization with over 100,000 employees. They manage the nation’s largest law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. They supervise the 94 federal prosecutors’ offices around the country. They direct civil litigation, all the way up to the Supreme Court, on matters of national importance.

The Attorney General’s core duties are to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect our civil rights. Although they are nominated by the President, the Attorney General is not the President’s personal lawyer. They are America’s lawyer. In and out of court, they represent the interests of the United States—not the interests of the President. They take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution—not to the President.

Todd Blanche has betrayed this oath time and time again. As Deputy and now Acting Attorney General, he has repeatedly placed the President’s personal and political interests ahead of the interests of the United States and its citizens. The primary objectives of Trump’s presidency are revenge and profiteering—neither of which serves the American people. Yet Blanche has proven a reliable enabler of both. He has shown that his loyalty is not to his Constitution or country, but to his once and forever client, Donald Trump.

The professed values of the Department of Justice are independence and impartiality, honesty and integrity, respect, and excellence. Blanche has none of those qualities. He is in no way, shape, or form qualified to serve as our next Attorney General.

Todd Blanche must be stopped, and it is our prerogative as citizens to stop him. We the people are the foundation of our democracy. Our Constitution created a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Our elected and appointed political leaders only have power because we gave it to them. What was ours to give is ours to take back. If you would like to take back Todd Blanche’s power, please join me in the fight to block his confirmation and to hold him accountable for the damage he has done to our country.

So what can we do? The first and most immediate step is to oppose Blanche’s confirmation as Attorney General, and to make our opposition known to the senators who we have empowered to vote our will. The next step is to pursue accountability for Blanche’s past and present misconduct through state bar associations and other authorities. If Blanche is confirmed, this step will be more important than ever. But for now, I want to focus on the first goal of stopping his confirmation.

We have four weeks before Blanche’s confirmation hearing. There are three things I want to ask you to do between now and then.

One: Contact Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Members. Urge Them to Block Blanche’s Nomination.

As I noted above, the first hurdle for Blanche will be a vote by the 22-member Senate Judiciary Committee. He will need the support of all 12 Republican members for his nomination to advance to a full floor vote. That means, any one Republican member could sink his nomination by voting against him in committee. The 12 Republican members are: Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Texas), Josh Hawley (Missouri), Thom Tillis (North Carolina), John Kennedy (Louisiana), Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee), Eric Schmitt (Missouri), Katie Britt (Alabama), and Ashley Moody (Florida).

The two viewed as most likely to defect are John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, both of whom are nearing the end of their terms. But again, any one of these senators could singlehandedly block Blanche’s confirmation.

Please contact these senators and urge them to stop his nomination. If you don’t have time to contact all 12, focus your energy on Cornyn and Tillis. You do not have to be a constituent to contact them and make your voice heard.

Below is a sample message you could adapt and make your own. There are many reasons to oppose Blanche’s nomination, so choose whichever ones are most important to you. I shared my top 10 here.

Two: Contact Vulnerable and Persuadable Republican Senators. Urge Them to Vote No on Blanche.

If Blanche’s nomination makes it through the Judiciary Committee to a floor vote, he will need the support of a majority of all senators. That means it would take four Republican “no” votes to stop his confirmation, as I explained above.

At the moment, the Republicans most likely to vote against Blanche are those who either (1) don’t need to stay in Trump’s good graces, because they won’t be in the Senate much longer, or (2) are facing competitive elections in November and could risk alienating swing voters by supporting Blanche. Senators in the first category include the two Judiciary Committee members I mentioned previously—John Cornyn and Thom Tillis—as well as Bill Cassidy and Mitch McConnell. Senators in the second category include Susan Collins (Maine), Jon Hustead (Ohio), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska). Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) has also expressed reservations about Blanche.

Please contact these senators and urge them to vote no on Blanche. There may be others worth contacting who I’ve missed (or who emerge later). If you have other suggestions or ideas, please share them in the comments. You can adapt the same template above, or send any message you see fit. And again, you don’t need to be their constituent to send a message. These senators have powers and duties that affect all Americans.

It’s important to act quickly. If Blanche is voted out of committee, there may not be much time before he gets a floor vote. So don’t wait until then to start making these contacts.

Three: Spread the Word Throughout Your Network. Urge Your Friends and Neighbors to Take Action.

We have our work cut out for us, and we need all the help we can get. To make our voices heard, we need a chorus of voices. To reclaim our power as citizens, we need a coalition of citizens. So please spread the word widely. Please share this call to action with your neighbors, your friends, and your networks. Help build our team of democracy defenders. We are stronger and more powerful when we work together.

Share

I’ll be keeping track of our progress and sharing updates here. Please leave a comment to let me know if you’ve sent a letter or an email or made a phone call. If you have other ideas or suggestions for the group, please share those in a comment as well. You can also share a copy of your letter or email by uploading it here. I’ll use your submissions to keep the team updated and informed.

Upload Your Letter

I’ll also have more to share closer to the date of the hearing about other ways to participate and make our voices heard. Thank you for being a part of this team and joining me in this fight.

It’s hard to even describe how bad things got—and how quickly—inside the Justice Department after Trump’s inauguration. With Blanche and Pam Bondi both awaiting Senate confirmation, management of the Justice Department initially fell to Emil Bove. Bove is a grim man who was known within DOJ from an earlier stint as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan. There, he had earned a reputation as an aggressive and temperamental manager who left amid a cloud of misconduct complaints. Bove later served alongside Blanche on Trump’s criminal defense team, which led to this early post at DOJ—and then a federal judgeship.

Typically, interim leaders cool their heels until the President’s political nominees are confirmed. But that was not the case with Bove. With astonishing speed, he assumed the role of relentless enforcer of the President’s policies. On Inauguration Day, Bove began purging career lawyers and FBI agents—including some of the Department’s most senior experts. After a shocking wave of early firings and demotions, a friend called to congratulate me on “surviving the first blood-letting.”

Bove did not limit himself to the internal affairs of the Department. He doggedly executed Trump’s immigration agenda. He threatened to prosecute local officials who refused to cooperate. He reportedly directed Department lawyers to ignore court orders limiting their authority and tell the courts, “f— you.” He caused a standoff with career prosecutors over the dismissal of the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Trump ally, triggering a slew of resignations.

On February 4, two weeks into Bove’s reign, Pam Bondi was confirmed. Unlike Bove, Bondi had never worked in the Justice Department. She assumed a largely ceremonial role as Attorney General. On her first day in office, Bondi sent a slew of stern memos to the career workforce underscoring the importance of loyalty to the President and vigorous pursuit of his political agenda above all else. We were told that those who resisted would be rooted out and terminated. Beyond her written missives, Bondi did not interact with the career workforce. She seemed disinclined to interfere with Bove’s ironfisted management of the Department’s day-to-day work.

Meanwhile, DOGE was operating in the background, gutting some federal agencies and threatening mass layoffs at others. There was a shared understanding among DOJ’s staff that neither Bondi nor Bove would protect us from Elon Musk’s chainsaw. Everyone on my team, and everyone around me, was panicked, demoralized, and afraid.

Someone said to me, early on, that everything would be fine “once Todd gets here.” Ironically, that person was ousted by Bove before Blanche ever arrived. But still, I heard variations of that refrain repeated many times, by many people, up until the day Blanche was sworn in as Deputy Attorney General.

I didn’t know Blanche, so I had no real basis for an opinion. But many of my colleagues knew him from his eight-year tenure as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Manhattan—one of DOJ’s most prestigious postings. By reputation, Blanche was a capable prosecutor and well-liked by his DOJ colleagues. He also had other respectable legal credentials, including partnership at a top-tier law firm. These ties to mainstream legal circles—the optimistic logic went—had to be deeper and more enduring than a two-year stint in Trumpworld.

The idea that Blanche would be a lifeline or a savior for the Department became a hopeful refrain among career DOJ staff at a very grim time. No one wanted to believe that the early turmoil was actually a feature, not a bug, of Trump’s Justice Department. Nor did we consider that Blanche’s roots in the Department might have been severed clean by his later professional endeavors.

Blanche was sworn in as Deputy Attorney General on March 5, 2025. Two days later, he fired me.

Blanche’s tenure at the Justice Department has been nothing short of devastating—for the workforce, the institution, and the rule of law. The fundamental problem is that Blanche is operating as though he is still the President’s personal attorney. The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General serve the United States, not the President personally. But Blanche never made that adjustment. His unyielding loyalty to Donald Trump has compromised his loyalty to the United States.

In legal terms, Blanche has a conflict of interest. The interests of Blanche’s former client, Donald Trump, are frequently in conflict with the interests of Blanche’s current client, the United States. When he assumed the role of Deputy Attorney General, Blanche swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Trump’s demands are often contrary to the Constitution, which has created an untenable situation for Blanche.

Avoiding conflicts of interest is a basic obligation of all lawyers, because it is not possible to faithfully represent two clients whose interests are at odds. But Blanche has refused to take any steps to mitigate his conflict, knowing that doing so could cost him his job. Trump never forgave his first-term Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation to avoid a conflict of interest.

For Blanche, recusal from matters involving Trump is out of the question not just because it would anger the President. The issue is existential. Recusal would spell the end of his usefulness. Blanche’s unshakeable loyalty to Trump is the whole reason he was chosen to lead the Justice Department. He was not selected for his skills or intellect, which are middling. It was his willingness to put his thumb on the scales of justice that Donald Trump banked on.

In this respect, Blanche has not disappointed. As Deputy Attorney General, and now Acting Attorney General, Blanche has repeatedly used his official position to serve the personal and political interests of Donald Trump. He has approved the use of levers of justice as tools of retribution and political warfare. He has signed off on special treatment for the President’s allies and supporters. And when Trump’s interests have conflicted with the country’s interests, Blanche has placed Trump above America, every single time.

Blanche was asked during his Senate confirmation how he would manage conflicts of interest stemming from his prior representation of Donald Trump. He responded: “In the event of any potential conflict of interest, I will consult with the appropriate Department of Justice ethics officials and act consistent with governing regulations.” Once Blanche was confirmed, the Department’s senior ethics official advised him that he needed to recuse himself from matters involving President Trump. That official was fired by Pam Bondi shortly thereafter.

Blanche’s bad acts as Deputy and Acting Attorney General run the gamut from lying to cheating to stealing. It’s hard to compile an exhaustive list, because there have been so many—and there are likely many more that we don’t even know about. Here are some that certainly deserve consideration as the worst of the worst of Blanche’s transgressions.

1. The Sham Settlement of Trump’s IRS Lawsuit

My pick for the single most corrupt of Blanche’s actions is the settlement of Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. This sham settlement, approved by Todd Blanche, created the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and tacked on a staggeringly broad release of claims against Donald Trump and his affiliates. The fund takes nearly $2 billion of taxpayer money and redistributes it through a secret process to allies and supporters of the President, who have no legal entitlement to the funds. Among those who can expect a payday are a cadre of election deniers and January 6 rioters—including those who beat and injured police officers. In a television interview, Blanche scoffed at the idea this might be objectionable, asserting: “People that hurt police get money all the time.”

While emphasizing that Trump would take no money from the fund, Blanche gave Trump an even more valuable payday in the form of a general release of claims by the United States. The release is staggering in scope. It covers all claims, known and unknown, that the United States could assert against Donald Trump, his businesses, and his family members. It prohibits the United States from investigating, auditing, or suing Trump—even after he leaves office—for any actions up to the date of the settlement agreement. In effect, it signs away our rights to seek any recourse from Donald Trump for the corruption, abuse, and looting of our government perpetrated by him and his sons and their companies. We can’t try to recover the ill-gotten gains from the corrupt business endeavors, self-dealing government contracts, and insider stock trading that have lined the pockets of the Trump family. We can’t collect unpaid tax obligations, which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. And we get nothing in return.

All of this was orchestrated under the pretext of a “settlement” of Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS—which only makes it more corrupt. Trump’s lawsuit was utterly frivolous. The presiding judge made known that she smelled collusion between Trump and his Justice Department, and the parties were well aware that dismissal was imminent when they inked the settlement agreement. As a steward of taxpayer funds and the top attorney for the United States, Blanche had a duty to the American people to defend us against this frivolous lawsuit. But instead, he did exactly the opposite. He signed away our rights and our money for the benefit of his former client Donald Trump.

2. The Epstein Files Fiasco

Before she was ousted, Pam Bondi tasked Blanche with overseeing the Department’s release of the Epstein files. He has botched this responsibility at every stage—most egregiously by failing to protect the personal identifying information of dozen’s of Epstein’s victims. The Department still has not released all of the files as required by law. Blanche has made repeated misrepresentations in defense of his handling of the matter, including falsely claiming that the Department has released all the files when in fact it has released only about half.

Blanche’s legal failures have been accompanied by equally or more disturbing moral failures. In one of his first public statements as Acting Attorney General, Blanche declared his intent to close this chapter without completing it, saying that the Epstein files “should not be a part of anything going forward at the DOJ.” He has persistently refused to meet with Epstein’s victims—and lied about it, falsely claiming in recent congressional testimony that he has met with many Epstein survivors. His dismissive approach to the whole matter is encapsulated in a comment he made to Fox News in February: “the American people need to understand that it isn’t a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.”

3. The Quid Pro Quo with Ghislaine Maxwell

While Blanche has shown no compassion for Epstein’s victims, he has shown quite a bit for Epstein’s literal partner in crime, Ghislaine Maxwell. Last summer, Blanche personally traveled to Florida, where Maxwell was in prison, and spent two days there meeting behind closed doors with Maxwell and her attorney. (Notably, Maxwell retained David Markus, a longtime associate of Blanche’s, to represent her shortly before this meeting. Markus later spoke about bringing Camembert cheese and fresh bread to this meeting at Maxwell’s request.)

For the Deputy Attorney General to personally interview an incarcerated witness is highly irregular. I don’t know anyone who has worked at DOJ who has ever heard of this happening. For the Deputy Attorney General to personally interview this witness was a travesty of justice and an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The apparent purpose of the meeting was to get a statement from Maxwell exonerating Blanche’s former client Donald Trump from any involvement with Epstein’s crimes. As a convicted sex-trafficker of children serving a 20-year prison sentence, Maxwell of course had no credibility and every reason to tell Blanche exactly what he wanted to hear in the hope that he would return the favor.

And he did. Maxwell told Blanche that Trump was a perfect gentleman. And then she was transferred to a minimum-security prison camp in Texas. This move would not have been possible without Blanche’s intervention. Longstanding DOJ policy explicitly prohibits housing convicted sex offenders in minimum-security camps based on concerns for public safety. Only a top official like Blanche could waive this rule—and there are no known examples of it happening, until now.

4. The Vindictive Prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Blanche’s egregious misdeeds in service of the President’s immigration enforcement agenda are numerous. One that stands out among many is the retaliatory prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which Blanche orchestrated. Abrego is the Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador early last year. After a federal judge ordered the Justice Department to facilitate his return to the United States, Blanche opened a criminal investigation into Abrego that resulted in his indictment on charges of human trafficking.

Abrego’s attorneys moved to dismiss the case on grounds of vindictive prosecution, arguing that the retaliatory indictment violated his constitutional due process rights. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the presiding judge took the extraordinary step of dismissing the charges, blaming “Blanche’s tainted investigation.” The court called the case “an abuse of prosecuting power,” writing: “The objective evidence shows that absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution.”

The ruling is remarkable because vindictive prosecution challenges are almost never successful. The law establishes an exacting standard of proof for these claims, which gives every benefit of the doubt to prosecutors. It is even more remarkable that the ruling assigns fault to Todd Blanche personally. Blanche’s personal oversight and involvement in matters of particular political or personal interest to Donald Trump illustrates the extent to which he has abandoned his duties to the country.

5. Revenge Prosecutions of Trump Enemies

Aware of the President’s frustrations with Pam Bondi’s failure to prosecute his political enemies, Blanche has amped up those efforts as Acting Attorney General. In his first two months in that role, Blanche has initiated a new prosecution against James Comey (the seashell case), indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, and ramped up the “grand conspiracy” investigation targeting former CIA Director John Brennan and others who purportedly conspired to undermine Trump during his first presidency. Blanche ousted the respected senior prosecutor handling the Brennan matter and replaced her with a Trump loyalist, 81-year-old Joseph DiGenova (posting on his official X account, “Welcome to the fight, Joe!”). Blanche has also reportedly approved new investigations targeting Trump enemies including former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson; the Democratic fundraising organization ActBlue; and most recently, 82-year-old E. Jean Carroll, who won civil judgments against Trump for sexual abuse and defamation.

Blanche has wholeheartedly embraced the President’s desire to weaponize the justice system against his enemies. He has claimed the President has a “right” and a “duty” to use the justice system in this way. He has said Americans should be “happy” that the President is dictating the Justice Department’s prosecutions.

All of this is wrong and dangerous. It is the Attorney General’s job to exercise independent legal judgment—not to rubberstamp subversive and illegal actions by the President. It is the Attorney General’s duty to put brakes on executive actions that damage the rule of law and erode public trust in the justice system. Instead, Todd Blanche has enabled these actions. In myriad ways, Blanche has dishonored his oath to uphold the Constitution and violated his professional obligations as a lawyer.

6. Refusal to Investigate the Use of Force by ICE Agents

At the same time he has shown his readiness to open frivolous investigations into Trump’s enemies, Blanche has refused to open meritorious investigations into allies, supporters, and aides to the President. Nowhere has that been clearer than in cases involving the use of force by ICE agents. Perhaps most shockingly, the Justice Department refused to open a civil rights investigation into the killing of Renee Good, an unarmed citizen, by ICE agents in Minneapolis in January. Blanche declared that there was “no basis” for such an investigation. Federal prosecutors and FBI agents who attempted to investigate were ordered to stand down, prompting mass resignations that left the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office in chaos.

7. Purges of Career Employees

Blanche has presided over the removal and reassignment of career experts throughout the Justice Department and the FBI. These personnel actions violate longstanding civil service laws that protect career employees from removal without cause and without due process.

I was among the first to be illegally fired by Blanche, last March, after I refused to comply with a directive to rubberstamp the reinstatement of gun ownership rights for the actor Mel Gibson—a friend of the President who had lost his right to own a firearm when he was convicted of a domestic violence crime. After I spoke out about my firing, Blanche accused me of lying, sent U.S. Marshals to my home, and filed an ethics complaint against me with the D.C. Bar, which was later dismissed (but only after I had to hire counsel to represent me).

Blanche also fired other senior experts, including the Director of the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (which investigates and punishes misconduct by DOJ employees) and the Director of the Office of Information Policy (which oversees compliance with public transparency laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act). These firings, like mine, were calculated to remove institutional guardrails against corruption and misconduct, which could slow or impede the political objectives of the President.

Blanche has personally or by proxy presided over a slew of other retaliatory firings. During the confirmation process, Blanche offered assurances that career employees who worked on cases involving Donald Trump “should have no fear of losing their jobs,” vowing that “no agent or prosecutor will lose their job if they simply followed assigned duties.” One year later, he announced: “There is not a single man or woman at the Department of Justice who had anything to do with those prosecutions.” In an interview this March, Blanche boasted that he “cleaned house” at DOJ and FBI, removing over 200 attorneys and agents assigned to investigations involving Donald Trump.

Under Blanche’s leadership, the Department’s workforce has been decimated by both voluntary resignations and forced removals. DOJ has lost approximately 25% of its lawyers in the last year, along with thousands of FBI agents. This unprecedented exodus of knowledge and experience has devastating implications for the Department’s ability to fulfill its vital mission of keeping America safe.

8. Attacks on the Judiciary

Blanche has chafed at any oversight of his actions—even by courts, which are required by the Constitution to judge the legality of executive actions and policies. Blanche has refused to accept limits on executive power, routinely condemning unfavorable rulings as the work of “rogue activist judges.” He has even gone so far as to declare that the Justice Department is at “war” with the judiciary. This attitude and this rhetoric is dangerous to judges, who have faced unprecedented threats to their safety. It is also dangerous to our constitutional order, which is premised on each of the three coequal branches of our government accepting the legitimacy and respecting the authority of the others.

9. Attacks on State Bars

Blanche has also worked to undermine independent oversight of DOJ attorneys by state bar associations. Every practicing lawyer is required to be licensed by the bar of at least one state (or the District of Columbia) and to follow the rules of professional conduct of that bar. Department of Justice lawyers are no exception. Under federal law, DOJ lawyers are required to abide by the rules of the state bar where they are licensed, and they are subject to the disciplinary authority of that bar. Historically, DOJ lawyers have also been subject to internal discipline through the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility—but Blanche effectively shuttered that office last year when he fired its director.

State bars—which have the power to suspend or even revoke an attorney’s law license for professional misconduct—are one of few remaining sources of accountability for Blanche and his colleagues. For this reason, Blanche has campaigned to shut them down. Earlier this year, the Department announced a proposed rulemaking—sure to be challenged in court—that would attempt to shield Department lawyers from state bar discipline at the Department’s request.

Blanche has been particularly focused on the D.C. Bar—where many DOJ lawyers are licensed due to the Department’s headquarters in Washington. Blanche has decried it as “one of the most activist, obnoxious bars when it comes to going after conservative lawyers.” He has called it “a blatantly Democrat-run political organization” and a “partisan arm of leftist causes.” In May, Blanche filed a lawsuit against the Bar’s chief disciplinary counsel and his office, accusing them of “weaponization of the bar disciplinary process against federal government attorneys.”

In a well-functioning Department of Justice, leadership welcomes and in fact demands oversight of its attorneys. DOJ lawyers are expected to adhere to the highest standards of ethics and professionalism, because this is vital to preserving the legitimacy of the institution. The job of a DOJ lawyer is not to win a case at all costs—it is to do justice. That means adhering to the law and playing by the rules. The fact that Blanche chafes at this idea is a dim reflection on his character, his methods, and his motivations.

10. Advancing Conspiracy Theories and Lies

Blanche has not hesitated to embrace conspiracy theories and tell outright lies if they further Trump’s objectives or reinforce his perceived grievances. Blanche has stoked Trump’s dangerous and false election-fraud narrative. He recently told Fox News: “There’s a ton of evidence that the election was rigged.” He has accused elected leaders in Minnesota of “terrorism.” He has stoked mistrust in the media, saying at his confirmation hearing: “I don’t believe what the media says as a matter of practice.” He has also made demonstrably false claims about the Epstein files, the $1.8 billion slush fund, the case against the Southern Poverty Law Center, and a host of other matters.

Blanche often delivers these false narratives in a manner not suited to the Attorney General of the United States, to put it mildly. He has signed his name to court filings on behalf of the United States that read like Truth Social rants penned by Donald Trump himself. He has used his official social media account to attack the press, judges, and his critics—at times deploying the vocabulary of a petulant child (clown emojis; “FAFO”). This pattern of irresponsible, dishonest, and embarrassing behavior by Todd Blanche has made a mockery of his office.

So what happened to Todd Blanche? That question is often asked within the legal circles to which Blanche once belonged. Those who knew him “before Trump”—from his days as a prosecutor or in BigLaw—are baffled by his transformation. I don’t know Blanche personally and I don’t have any special insight. But as a close observer, my perception is that Blanche has genuinely internalized Donald Trump’s grievances and made them his own.

Like Trump, Blanche followed an unconventional path to power. Blanche got his start in the Justice Department working as a paralegal, while he attended law school at night. After graduating, he worked for eight years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney before leaving the Department for private practice. Unlike many of his predecessors, he did not ascend through the intermediate political ranks of the Department. He didn’t hold any of the roles in the Department’s leadership offices that are common stepping stones to the top jobs.

The lack of traditional qualifications could, in theory, be fine and even healthy for the Department, which has long suffered from being too insular. The tradition of leadership ascending through the ranks has at times limited the Department’s ability to innovate, adapt, and even empathize with certain sections of the population it serves. I have long believed that the organization could benefit from leaders with different perspectives and more diverse personal and professional experiences.

But what Blanche brought to the table was an axe to grind. His work appears to be fueled by genuine feelings of moral injury based on his close relationship with Donald Trump. Blanche was Trump’s personal lawyer for two years before he was sworn in as Deputy Attorney General. During that time, Blanche has said he typically worked 70 hours per week on matters for Donald Trump. That’s 10 hours a day, every day. Blanche was in deep.

Even now, Blanche communicates with palpable anger about the past prosecutions of Donald Trump. He lashed out at Jack Smith, calling him “a proven liar,” who made “fake accusations” in “his failed vendetta against the President.” Apparently provoked by a reporter’s question, Blanche added: “The media should stop slopping up the trash dropped by the Democrats on their path to misleading the American public.” He has accused New York’s Attorney General of trying “to destroy the former President’s business and financially ruin him and his children” by suing Trump for civil fraud.

Blanche has derided his critics for their “short memories,” writing on his official X account: “Biden’s DOJ and the Democrat machine tried for years to put President Trump and his associates in jail. They did everything in their power to destroy livelihoods, reputations, and families. They weaponized the government, and that’s something that we cannot and will not forget—they’re corrupt enough to try again.” We will not forget.

It is apparent from Blanche’s public remarks that everything Trump experienced feels very personal to Blanche. Blanche often speaks in the first person about what he endured alongside Trump. Of the supposed weaponization of the Justice Department under Joe Biden, Blanche said recently: “I lived it every single day for two years.” At his confirmation hearing, Blanche said: “I stood next to and defended President Trump as partisan prosecutors and politicians abused our legal system in completely unprecedented ways to fulfill a political agenda—which was prosecuting and attacking President Trump.” Echoing Trump’s grievances about the press, Blanche has said: “I have firsthand knowledge that many members of the media outright lie in the way they ‘report’ facts.”

Blanche’s shared grievances with Donald Trump seem to be amplified by his own rejections and slights. To become Trump’s lawyer, Blanche was forced to resign from his partnership at Cadwalader, a white-shoe New York law firm, and hang his own shingle. The firm’s lack of support reportedly left Blanche bitter. Blanche uprooted his family and relocated to Florida. He bought a home near his client in Palm Beach and switched his party affiliation to Republican. Blanche’s onetime colleagues unsubtly questioned his life choices.

Now in Washington, Blanche has not had the warm reception typically given to the country’s most powerful lawyer. He has faced unsparing criticism from prominent professional organizations. Elite membership groups have shunned him. Blanche, in turn, has banned Department lawyers from participating in events of the American Bar Association—the nation’s leading professional organization for lawyers—which Blanche has accused of undermining the Department’s priorities through its support of “activist” causes.

These dynamics have pushed Blanche further and further into the fringes of the legal profession, at the same time drawing him closer to Donald Trump. The bond he feels with Trump seems to be not just professional but emotional for Blanche. He recently declared, “I love you, sir,” when asked how he would respond if Trump asked him to step aside. He has called his representation of Trump “an honor that I will cherish until the day I die.”

It appeared to some observers that Blanche held onto at least a few scruples during his tenure as Deputy Attorney General. For example, he reportedly opposed the firing of Erik Siebert, the U.S. Attorney in Virginia who found insufficient evidence to support indicting Trump’s enemies James Comey and Letitia James.

But any willingness Blanche may have had to push back on Trump’s demands was abandoned when he was named Acting Attorney General in April. As soon as the President tasked him with delivering the results that Pam Bondi couldn’t, Blanche threw himself all in. As Trump put it, Blanche has been “unleashed.” With eager rivals waiting in the wings, Blanche knows he needs to deliver what the President wants to keep the job.

What sets Blanche apart from other political appointees, including Pam Bondi, is that it appears he wants to settle Trump’s scores as badly as Trump does. Whereas Bondi was known for her performative outrage, Blanche’s outrage comes across as genuine. There is a bitter edge to his words. There is a simmering anger just below the surface.

Blanche is not a true conspiracy theorist in the vein of Ed Martin. But neither is he simply posturing for his boss in the manner of many of his colleagues—like Bondi and Jeanine Pirro—who possess mainstream legal qualifications and strong survival instincts. This makes Blanche a much more dangerous leader.

From my perspective as a lawyer, Todd Blanche is Donald Trump’s most culpable coconspirator. Blanche has made possible Trump’s corruption of our justice system and his looting of our tax dollars. He has been a willing, even eager, participant in the dismantling of the rule of law. All of this has required him to turn his back on his ethical obligations as an attorney and the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution.

What Blanche has done as Deputy and Acting Attorney General is an unfathomable betrayal of the American people. It is an incomprehensible display of disloyalty to the United States—the client he has a sworn duty to represent. Blanche seems to know this. Speaking at a conservative political conference in March, Blanche said everyone in the Trump Administration “is afraid they’re going to get indicted” once they lose control of the levers of power.

Many of us are asking what we can do as citizens to rein in Todd Blanche. One important thing is to keep fighting in court. The judicial process sometimes moves slowly, but it gets results. Late last week, a group of former federal judges successfully persuaded the court presiding over Trump’s IRS lawsuit to reopen the case to consider whether the settlement agreement is an illegal fraud on the court. We won’t know the final outcome of this proceeding for some weeks or months, but in the meantime, a different court has blocked payments from the settlement fund while another legal challenge is considered.

Another thing we can all do is seek accountability through those oversight authorities that are still available and functioning. Calls to our elected representatives (particularly Republicans) are especially important right now, as Congress considers whether to take action to cancel the $1.8 billion settlement pot.

Another avenue of accountability, mentioned above, is state bar associations. Todd Blanche is licensed in New York and subject to discipline under New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys. I would argue that Blanche has violated these rules in myriad ways. Anyone can submit a complaint against a member of the bar, for investigation by its Attorney Grievance Committee. I’ll be sharing more information in my next post about how that process works.

Stay tuned, thank you for reading, and please share.

Share

To save you some effort, I’m breaking down the highlights here, along with some legal background and suggested action items and reforms.

Trump’s Stock Trading Disclosure

The report in question is called a Form 278-T, also known as a Periodic Transaction Report. Executive Branch officials, including the President, are legally required to complete Form 278-T every time they buy or sell a stock or bond worth more than $1,000. The form is submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, which reviews and publishes these disclosures in a searchable database.

On May 8, Trump signed a Form 278-T covering the first quarter of 2026. His filing was months late—the law requires reporting within 30 to 45 days of a transaction—and Trump was fined accordingly, but to some observers, the fact he filed at all was a surprise.

Trump’s disclosure spans 113 pages. It lists more than 3,600 stock trades between January and March of this year. The filing reveals that Trump bought and sold hundreds of millions of dollars in stocks, including big tech, defense contractors, media companies, crypto, and more. The form uses ranges, not exact amounts, so the precise value of Trump’s trades is not known, but the total is between $220 and $750 million.

This report provides only a partial picture of Trump’s trading activity, because it includes only his personal holdings. His corporate assets, including his many business interests under the Trump Organization umbrella, are not subject to disclosure.

Notable Transactions

What’s notable about this is not just that Trump is staggeringly wealthy. It’s that he is heavily invested in companies whose businesses are directly affected by policies he is making. He is actively trading in their stocks at the same time he is making decisions that influence the value of those stocks.

The form is filled with notable examples, of which I will highlight just a few.

Trump invested in both Paramount and Warner Brothers while his Justice Department is reviewing their highly controversial proposed merger.

He invested in Oracle at the same time he brokered their deal to buy TikTok, setting aside concerns about national security.

He invested in Palantir as they competed for and won major government contracts, worth billions of dollars, in defense and other sectors.

He bought numerous crypto stocks while pushing a bill called the Clarity Act, which would benefit the crypto industry (which is actively lobbying for its passage).

One of Trump’s biggest buys was millions of dollars in Nvidia stock. Nvidia makes advanced AI chips, which they have been trying to sell to China for years. The U.S. government has restricted the sale of these chips to protect our national security. But Nvidia’s CEO lobbied Trump for months to change that policy, and in December, Trump agreed—raising alarm among foreign policy and security experts.

Then Trump went a step further. This week, he took Nvidia’s CEO to China with him—on Air Force One—to sell their AI chips to the Chinese government. During the trip, the U.S. government for the first time cleared 10 Chinese companies to purchase the chips. Nvidia’s stock price has now climbed 26% since January, and 70% over the last 12 months.

This week, Trump also took the CEO of Boeing to China with him—after buying millions of dollars of Boeing stock. On the trip, they reportedly sold 200 Boeing airplanes to the Chinese government, with the potential to sell hundreds more.

An analysis by Fortune observes that Trump’s stock account has repeatedly “traded around” domestic and international events, as well as the President’s official actions and public statements. For example, in January, during a severe egg shortage, Trump “bought Cal-Maine Foods, the country’s largest egg producer”; he sold this stock in a substantially larger amount two months later. In February, Trump bought millions in Dell stock. He then urged the public to “go out and buy a Dell”—after which Dell’s stock price surged 24%.

When he began the Iran war, Trump sold large positions in American companies and “traded into safe-haven stocks like gold and treasuries, even as he said the war would end soon.” He later bought up energy, defense, and aerospace stocks: “the companies that stood to profit if the war dragged on.”

Ethics and Conflict of Interest Considerations

It’s impossible to look at Trump’s trading and not ask: Is Trump actually acting in the interests of the American people? Or is he placing his own financial interests first? At this point, it may be a chicken-or-egg question. Trump’s personal portfolio is so thoroughly intertwined with his presidential portfolio that it is impossible to judge whether his investments are influencing his policies, or his policies are influencing his investments, or both because they are one and the same.

An analysis by the Cato Institute observed:

The Trump administration has spent the past year treating policymaking like a series of business transactions. So, when the president can decide which firms receive export permission, tariff relief, merger approval, or even a direct government ownership stake, his personal investments become a public concern.

Richard Painter, a leading presidential ethics expert and White House ethics counsel under George W. Bush, analyzed Trump’s trades during the Iran war. As reported by Fortune:

Painter said this is exactly the kind of trading a president shouldn’t do, because the president has both confidential information about overseas developments and the power to move commodities markets through his own decisions. Even with no one in the family directing the trades, he said, it misses the point. “He has no control over the accounts? That’s beside the point. He certainly has the control over the decision about whether we went to war or not.”

Contrast with Other Presidents

Other presidents have chosen to sell off their stocks or place them in a blind trust before assuming office to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. Painter, the ethics expert, told Fortune: “I’ve gone through every President. I don’t think we’ve had any President trade in the stock market.”

Unlike other Presidents, Trump has persistently refused to divest his stocks or employ a blind trust. As Fortune reported:

Since Lyndon Johnson pioneered the use of a presidential blind trust in 1963, every modern president has either placed their assets in a blind trust managed by independent trustees, held them in index funds and Treasuries, or, in Jimmy Carter’s case, liquidated all their assets (notoriously, his peanut farm). None have actively traded individual securities while in office. Until recently.

Trump’s son Eric has claimed that his father’s holdings are in a blind trust and that he does not trade individual stocks. This is clearly false. Trump’s Form 278-T lists hundreds of individual stock trades. Moreover, the form is personally signed by Trump; a defining feature of a blind trust is that the owner does not know what assets it holds.

Personal Profit and Corruption

The New York Times estimated that Trump pocketed at least $1.4 billion during the first year of his second term. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump family has generated at least $4 billion in profits from new business ventures since Trump was reelected. The Trump family is profiting from a staggering array of new business ventures, including drone manufacturing, a golf club in Qatar, a resort in Saudi Arabia, and crypto deals with foreign billionaires—as well as sales of bibles, sneakers, and guitars. The Associated Press recently reported that Trump’s net worth is now $6.3 billion, as estimated by Forbes—an increase of 60% since he returned to office.

When asked about potential conflicts of interest, Trump responded: “I found out that nobody cared, and I’m allowed to.”

The definition of corruption is using official power for private gain. By that measure, Trump is hands down the most corrupt President in history. His Form 278-T is a roadmap to the ways he is personally profiting from the powers of the presidency.

Legal Framework and Potential Reforms

After Watergate, Congress enacted the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as a measure to enhance transparency and accountability for public officials and to restore public trust in government. The Act created the Office of Government Ethics, which oversees compliance with federal ethics laws and the financial reporting requirements imposed on public officials.

In 2012, Congress enacted the STOCK Act, which prohibits Members of Congress and their staff from trading stocks based on nonpublic information learned through their official positions. The Act also created new disclosure requirements for a range of federal employees—including the President and Vice President—such as the stock trade reporting requirement reflected on Form 278-T, among others.

However, these rules have limited effect as far as the President is concerned. Most Executive Branch officials are expressly prohibited from participating in official matters in which they have a financial conflict of interest. Failure to disclose and avoid conflicts can result in criminal penalties. But the President and the Vice President are specifically exempted from that rule.

Dating back to his first presidency, Trump has repeatedly claimed that “the President can’t have a conflict of interest.” As a factual matter, that is incorrect. But as a legal matter, there is no enforcement mechanism in place that restricts the President from acting under conflicts of interest.

Congress can and should revisit the existing rules, which rely on the President to do the right thing voluntarily—a quaint aspiration in the era of Trump. The Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling may eliminate the possibility of criminal penalties. But monetary penalties—such as fines and disgorgement of profits—may be better suited anyway to deter a person motivated principally by personal gain.

Congress should also act to further restrict stock trading by government officials. Both Democrat and Republican voters broadly support a total ban on stock trading by Members of Congress. Legislation to enact such a ban has been proposed many times, including a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Ashley Moody (R-Fla.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) in January. Their bill, however, would not apply to the President.

Last year, President Trump sharply attacked Republican Senator Josh Hawley after he advanced a bill that would ban stock trading by the President and Vice President as well as Members of Congress. Trump accused Hawley of “targeting” him, calling Hawley a “second-tier Senator.” Trump’s most recent Form 278-T leaves no doubt about why he was so angry about Hawley’s proposed bill.

Another issue is the limited ability of the Office of Government Ethics to enforce existing rules. The Office is not an investigative agency with subpoena power. Moreover, it lacks independence from the President. Within weeks of returning to office, Trump removed the Office’s Director, who had been confirmed by the Senate to serve a five-year term just two months earlier. Since then, the Office has been led by a “revolving door” of political loyalists who answer directly to the President. Like many other executive agencies, OGE needs reinforcement.

Action Items

I know many of you will want suggestions for actionable items. I have two.

First, share this information widely. Use your voice to raise public awareness and keep a spotlight on the abuse and corruption of official power.

Share

I know this might not feel much. But it is actually one of the most important things we can do right now. There is no legal remedy for the kind of corruption we are now witnessing. Our laws were not designed with a president like Donald Trump in mind. The framers of our Constitution did not conceive of the possibility that we could elect a president who would loot and pillage our country without a shadow of shame.

So it falls to us, the citizens, to push back and demand change. We cannot afford to elect another leader like Trump. Educating our fellow citizens is how we ensure that we do not continue to empower officials who will put their personal interests ahead of the interests of the American people.

Second, call your elected representatives. Tell them this kind of corruption is unacceptable. Ask them to enact legislation that does the following things:

• Bans stock trading by ALL government officials

• Eliminates the President and Vice-President’s exemptions from federal conflict-of-interest laws

• Imposes new financial penalties for violating conflict of interest laws

• Bolsters the resources and independence of the Office of Government Ethics

There is no quick fix to the mess we are in. But that doesn’t mean we should give up. These are small steps, but they are a path to change.

There has never been a more important time to be a lawyer.

For me, this became painfully clear on March the 7th of last year—the day I was fired from the Justice Department. It was a Friday afternoon, and I was in my last meeting of the day, with about 25 people from around the Department. My deputy burst in and pulled me out into the hallway. She told me that security officers were waiting in my office with termination papers.

When I got back to my office, they handed me a one-page memo from the Deputy Attorney General informing me that I was fired effective immediately. It gave no reason. They watched me pack my personal belongings into a grocery bag, and they walked me out of the building in front of my staff. Everyone was stunned. That was the last time I set foot inside the Justice Department.

There is a famously misunderstood line from Shakespeare about lawyers. In King Henry VI, the character Dick the Butcher converses with Jack Cade, the rebel leader who is plotting an uprising against the King. Dick says, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” This line has often been read as disparaging the value of lawyers. But in fact, its meaning is the opposite. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in a 1985 opinion: “Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.”

****

Disposing of lawyers has been a major theme of the last sixteen months. Particularly inside the Justice Department. I was fired seven weeks into Donald Trump’s second presidency. Pam Bondi had been installed as Attorney General, and Todd Blanche as her deputy.

I had expected that these leadership changes would affect my work, but I had assumed my job was safe. I held a career position in the Senior Executive Service, which came with extensive statutory job protections.

And I did not plan to give this job up, because I believed in the work I was doing. As Pardon Attorney, my job was to review the thousands of applications for executive clemency that come through the Justice Department each year. I led a team of career staff who rigorously investigated and vetted these applications. Most came from incarcerated people seeking a second chance at freedom. In every case, we crafted a detailed recommendation to grant or deny relief, based on factors like rehabilitation and changes in law and policy.

My team and I took our work very seriously, because we understood that the stakes were extremely high for the applicants—as well as their loved ones. We got piles of mail, every day, from people whose hopes were resting on the possibility of clemency.

Even when the Administration changed, I believed there was a path forward for the work. I thought that if I stayed in my post, I would be able to help some deserving people get the second chances they had earned.

****

It took about half a day to be proven wrong. I was at home the evening of January 20th—Inauguration Day—watching television with my family, when a news alert popped up announcing that the President had pardoned all of the January 6 defendants. About 1,500 people in total. As Pardon Attorney, part of my job was to make sure the President’s clemency directives were carried out. Yet no one had consulted me. No one had even given me a heads up.

Frantic calls started coming in from the Bureau of Prisons. There were 400 people who needed to be released from facilities around the country THAT NIGHT. There were families showing up at prisons and banging on doors demanding the release of their loved ones. It was chaos.

Still, I didn’t give up all hope at that point. I thought, well, that was a campaign promise—and now that it’s fulfilled, we can get into the real work. But over the next few days, dozens more pardons were granted. And I was not consulted on any of them. My team was repeatedly surprised and left scrambling to implement directives that had never been shared with us.

By February, it was clear that we were not going to have a role in advising the president on clemency. Instead, we were given a different task. The Attorney General was establishing an initiative to begin restoring gun ownership rights to those who had lost the right to possess a firearm due to a criminal conviction. Over 25 million people would be eligible to apply for this relief. I was told that the project would be administered by my Office.

This was rather shocking given the magnitude of the task. But I rolled with it. What you have to understand about working as a federal employee at that time is the atmosphere of intense panic that had consumed the workforce. Out of nowhere, DOGE emerged and started slashing jobs. Agencies were directed to start planning for Reductions in Force. The “Fork in the Road” memo advised federal workers to consider taking a buyout and looking for work in the private sector. Elon Musk was making public appearances with a chainsaw.

Federal workers were terrified. I was holding on for my team. They were counting on me to lead us through this nightmare. This was growing harder every day. We had no guidance from DOJ leadership. Rumors and speculation were rampant. I held daily staff meetings that routinely ended with half the room in tears.

So, when we got this new assignment—the gun rights project—my team was relieved that we would have something to do, to justify our existence. I jumped in and got to work.

****

But almost immediately, things became extremely fraught. Early in the project, there was discussion of whether those with domestic violence convictions should be eligible for reinstatement of gun rights. DOJ’s own data highlighted the dangers of arming domestic abusers. Nearly half the women murdered in this country are killed by an intimate partner, usually with a firearm. An abuser’s access to a gun makes it five times more likely that a victim will be killed.

Despite this data, there was a seemingly urgent desire to reinstate the gun rights of a specific individual with a domestic violence history: the actor Mel Gibson—who had been named a “special ambassador to Hollywood” by Donald Trump. Gibson had lost his right to own a firearm when he was convicted of battering his girlfriend. After Trump returned to office, Gibson asked the Justice Department to reinstate his gun rights, citing his personal relationship with the president and his catalogue of famous films.

I, in turn, was asked to write a memo for the Attorney General recommending that she grant Gibson’s request. I could not do that. I had grave concerns about the public safety implications of arming a convicted domestic abuser. I voiced my concerns. And then I was invited to set them aside and make the recommendation anyway.

The Attorney General didn’t actually need me to make this recommendation. She could grant Gibson the relief he was seeking with or without my blessing. (In fact, she did so after I was fired.) But as a nonpolitical official, I understood that my recommendation would add a veneer of legitimacy to what could otherwise look like a political favor for a friend of the President.

This request came at a time when the loyalty of the Department’s career workforce was being vigorously tested. We were told that we should consider ourselves the President’s lawyers. We had been warned that if we failed to “faithfully” follow directions, and “zealously” carry out orders, we would be fired. Everyone was walking on eggshells.

So, I knew the Mel Gibson request was fraught. I knew there were possible consequences for my future. The afternoon before I was fired, I sent a message to my colleague asking, “Is Mel Gibson going to be my downfall?” And he was. But I have no regrets, because I left the Justice Department with my integrity intact.

****

I decided to speak out about my firing. I gave an interview to The New York Times a few days later. I went on CNN and MSNBC. Seeking publicity made me feel vulnerable and afraid. But I was more afraid of the consequences of staying quiet. I was afraid of what was happening inside the Department of Justice and the consequences it would have for our country.

I was right to be apprehensive about speaking out. The Deputy Attorney General immediately accused me of lying. I later learned that DOJ filed an ethics complaint against me with the D.C. Bar, where I am licensed. But I decided I wasn’t going to be bullied into silence.

A few weeks after my firing, I was asked to testify in Congress. Democratic Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees were convening a spotlight hearing on threats to the rule of law. That’s when things took another ugly turn.

The hearing was scheduled to take place on a Monday. The Friday before, I got a phone call around 9:00 at night from a DOJ number. I was in the car with my husband and my parents, driving them home from an evening out. A very decent former colleague was calling to alert me that the Deputy Attorney General had sent armed U.S. Marshals to my home to deliver a warning letter about my expected testimony. The officers were on their way to my house as we spoke. The caller knew it would be very upsetting to my family when armed officers arrived at my doorstep late that night. When I told the caller that my teenage son was home alone, they helped to get the officers called off.

I eventually received DOJ’s letter by email. It warned me about the legal risks of proceeding with my congressional testimony. I then spent the entire weekend looking for a lawyer. My husband and I spent two days calling everyone in our network. Over a dozen lawyers and law firms turned us down before I found someone willing to help.

This was at the height of the Trump Administration’s use of Executive Orders to target law firms. Some of the most prominent defense firms in the country were facing retaliation for working on matters adverse to the Administration’s agenda—or for employing lawyers who the President considered enemies. Firms that had not been targeted sought to avoid it by keeping a low profile. In this environment, I quickly discovered that even the most lauded litigators in Washington were afraid to stand up for the rule of law.

The lawyers I spoke to thanked me for what I was doing. They praised my bravery and my integrity. They offered to help “behind the scenes.” But they did not want to sit behind me at a congressional hearing. No law firm wanted to put their name on a letter to the Department of Justice. I have never felt more vulnerable or more alone.

It never crossed my mind, though, not to testify. I showed up that Monday, and I sounded the alarm. Here’s part of what I said that day:

My experience is just one example of a much broader pattern of attacks on career experts across the Department of Justice. These pervasive assaults by the political leadership of the Department are terrorizing the career workforce. This is not by accident or oversight—it is by design. The very purpose of systematically forcing out career employees is to invoke fear, so that fear will give way to blind loyalty.

It is dangerous and wrong to prioritize political loyalty over the laws of this nation, the safety of its citizens, and the fair and responsible administration of justice.

Since my firing, things have gotten much worse. My former office has lost most of its staff. It is now managed by Ed Martin, a conspiracy theorist and election denier whose motto is “no MAGA left behind.” Clemency has become a cash industry. Pardons have been granted freely to donors and allies of the President, while the applications of ordinary Americans have been ignored.

****

What has happened to the pardon office is also happening across the Department of Justice.

Leadership has systematically removed career experts who present roadblocks to their political agenda. They have fired or forced out the senior officials responsible for enforcing institutional rules, including: the Director of the Ethics Office, the Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility, and the Director of the Office of Information Policy—which oversees compliance with FOIA.

Experienced prosecutors have been ousted for refusing to pursue political vendettas, like the prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Others have resigned amid pressure to take corrupt actions, like dismissing the prosecution of Eric Adams, the former New York City Mayor charged with taking bribes. Some quit over the Department’s refusal to investigate the killing of Renee Good by ICE agents in Minneapolis, and the directive to investigate her widow instead.

Even more prosecutors and FBI agents have lost their jobs simply because of the cases they were assigned to work on during the previous administration. The Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, recently boasted about “purging” hundreds of staff who worked on investigations of the President. Dozens more were fired over their work investigating the January 6 Capitol riot.

In total, the Department has lost over 11,000 employees since Donald Trump returned to office. That is about 10% of its workforce. Among those who have left are more than 4,000 federal law enforcement personnel and 3,400 lawyers. That is one quarter of DOJ’s entire attorney staff.

Offices that have been particularly hard hit include the National Security Division, which has lost 38% of its staff, and the Civil Rights Division, which has lost more than half its staff.

The Department’s reputation has become so degraded that it is struggling to fill these positions. It has hired fewer than 800 new attorneys to replace the 3,400 who have departed. DOJ is now offering signing bonuses of $25,000 to anyone willing to take the job. The lawyers coming in often have little or no relevant experience.

In fact, DOJ is now explicitly recruiting lawyers on the basis of political affiliation rather than experience. The former Chief of Staff to Pam Bondi has urged lawyers who “support President Trump” to reach out to him on X about working at DOJ. The head of the Civil Rights Division shared a post on X saying: “if you are remotely rightwing” “you can go straight into DOJ” from law school. This is unprecedented.

****

The staff who remain are making difficult calculations every day. Employees have been directed to “vigorously defend” presidential policies or face termination. That has forced many lawyers to choose between obeying their bosses and honoring their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Those who have chosen the Constitution have been ousted. In one instance, a lawyer was fired after he admitted to a judge that the United States had wrongly deported Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. That prompted a federal appeals court to take the unusual step of reminding government attorneys that “the duty of zealous representation is tempered by the duty of candor to the court … and the duty to uphold the rule of law.”

That admonition had little effect on the Department’s conduct. A recent analysis by Just Security documents dozens of cases in which federal courts have found that government lawyers presented false and misleading information. Federal judges have documented hundreds of cases in which the government failed to comply with court orders. Judges around the country have questioned whether the government still deserves the “presumption of regularity”—which is a doctrine of implicit trust and good faith from which government attorneys have benefitted for generations.

These are extraordinary rebukes. But Department leaders have been unmoved. They have continued to sow disrespect and mistrust for the judiciary. They have derided and vilified judges who rule against them. The Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, has said that DOJ is at “war” with the courts.

This is not a political issue. The erosion of respect for the rule of law is an existential threat to our Republic. In the Abrego Garcia case, the noted conservative jurist J. Harvie Wilkinson called the Administration’s attacks on the Judiciary “a losing proposition all around.” He wrote:

The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

****

I have spent a lot of time reflecting on how we got here. How could an institution as fundamental as the Department of Justice collapse so quickly? How could it fall so far, so fast? The answer, I think, is that too many of us took it for granted. Too many of us became complacent.

Alums of DOJ often speak about the “norms” and “traditions” of the Department. They are referencing a code of conduct that the Department imposed on itself long ago. Generations of government lawyers adhered to this code without question, because it reflected shared values that were deeper and more enduring than politics.

Until recently, those values were self-reinforcing. They were so entrenched that they seemed to be immutable. We did not even consider the possibility that those values could be attacked. As a result, we were not prepared to come to their defense.

But all is not lost. Judge Wilkinson warned that we are facing “an incipient crisis.” But this moment, he noted, “may present an opportunity as well.” The rule of law is “vital to the American ethos,” he wrote, and we now have a “unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.”

While there is still time. As lawyers, we have taken an oath to uphold the law and support the Constitution. We must consider what our oath requires of us right now. We cannot be complacent. We cannot be bystanders. We have a duty to act while there is still time.

****

As lawyers, we are trained to be deliberative and cautious. But the moment for cautious deliberation has passed. What is needed from us now is action. The rule of law is fighting for its life, and we lawyers are the only ones who can save it.

The stakes could not be higher. Our fellow Americans are counting on us to fight for their constitutional rights. Our neighbors are counting on us to keep them safe and free. Our children are counting on us to protect their futures.

Every single one of us has a role to play. It doesn’t matter where you practice. It doesn’t matter what your specialty is. You have something to contribute.

Many of us want to help but aren’t sure how. So I want to suggest four things that each one of us can do to meet this critical moment.

Number One: Invest in community. Communities like this one. State Bar Associations are uniquely positioned to be leaders in defending the rule of law. You have a platform right here. You have a tremendous amount of talent and brainpower, right here in this room. You can shape conversations. You can educate the public. You can mobilize your community into action.

Lawyers don’t always like to collaborate. Sometimes we’re territorial. Sometimes we’re competitive. Sometimes we are adversaries. But right now, we are all on the same team. This is the time to come together to defend our shared values. We are stronger together. We are more powerful together. We are more effective together. This is the time to lean into our community.

Number Two: Try new things. This is a moment like no other. The challenges we are facing are unprecedented. There is no tried and tested playbook to turn to. So we must be creative. We must think outside the box. My personal mantra is: Be brave and try new things.

After I was fired, I did something I never in a million years would have imagined myself doing. I got on TikTok. I started making short videos about threats to the rule of law. Now I post them a few times a week on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. I try to explain legal concepts in a way that everyone can understand.

When I first started doing this, I had no experience whatsoever with social media. But it has turned out to be a really great way to use my legal expertise to help my fellow citizens. My videos started getting thousands and then millions of views. People write me all the time now to ask questions and to share how grateful they are to have an expert they trust helping them understand the challenges we are facing.

This is not something I ever expected to be doing. But by trying something new, I found a way to meet the moment and continue my public service.

Number Three: Support those on the front lines. Some of us have been personally affected by the policies and practices of this administration. Some of us perhaps have not. But we are all a stone’s throw away from someone whose life has been turned upside down by the assault on due process and the rule of law in our country.

We have seen colleagues face personal and professional retaliation. We have seen career public servants discarded like garbage. We have seen immigrants treated like animals. We have seen protesters assaulted and even killed for exercising their rights.

Those who are out there on the front lines defending the Constitution—standing up for themselves and others—need our support. Judges are being terrorized for doing their jobs. Whistleblowers are facing retaliation. Our neighbors are taking risks and feeling vulnerable. They need to know that we have their backs.

A low point of my career was the weekend before my congressional testimony when I struggled to find a lawyer. I think we’ve come a long way since then. I have several great lawyers helping me now. And that’s what has allowed me to continue fighting for what’s right.

I believe we will get through this. But there are many others who will need your help and your support along the way.

Number Four: Use your voice. This one is simple, because there are so many ways to do it. If you see something that alarms you, say something about it. Write an op-ed, make a TikTok video, file an amicus brief, give a speech, teach a class, host a webinar, sign a petition. There are so many different ways to make your voice heard.

As lawyers, we are stewards of the rule of law. We are defenders of the Constitution. Our voices are needed now more than ever.

****

Many of us were ashamed by the way our profession responded initially to the assault on the rule of law. The law firms that cut deals with the administration made it so much harder for the rest of us to fight for the values and ideals of our profession.

But it is not too late to turn things around. If we lean into this community, if we pool our talents and use our voices, bravely—lawyers will be the heroes of this story.

Legally, the proposal is dubious. For over 25 years, federal law has required DOJ lawyers to adhere to the professional ethics rules of both the state where they are barred and the state(s) where they practice. State bars play a vital role in policing misconduct by federal lawyers, including through their authority to impose disciplinary sanctions such as suspension and disbarment from the practice of law. Bondi’s rule—which asserts her supremacy in a domain long entrusted to states—is sure to be subject to legal challenges from multiple quarters.

If it withstands scrutiny, the new rule promises to eviscerate the last remaining safeguard against corruption and abuse of power by lawyers representing the United States. Bondi has already meticulously eradicated the internal guardrails that have operated as the moral compass of the Justice Department across political administrations. Last year, she ousted the Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which was created after Watergate to “ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the high professional standards expected of the nation’s principal law enforcement agency.” She fired the Director of the Departmental Ethics Office, which oversees compliance with federal ethics-in-government rules. The senior official who supervised both Directors was also forced out. No replacement has been named for any of these experienced career professionals. DOJ has also been without an Inspector General—the independent official responsible for investigating fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement—since last July. As a result, independent oversight by state bar associations is all that remains to enforce the rules of professional conduct that govern the lawyers responsible for upholding our nation’s laws.

Bondi claims her intervention is needed to end the “unprecedented weaponization” of the bar complaint process against current and former Justice Department lawyers. She complains that “political activists” have filed misconduct complaints against senior DOJ officials—including Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, Ed Martin, and others—and she condemns “the willingness of some State bar disciplinary authorities to give credence to such complaints.” Investigations by state bars, Bondi contends, risk “chilling the zealous advocacy by Department attorneys on behalf of the United States, its agencies, and its officers.”

That is exactly the point. Rules of ethics and professional responsibility exist precisely for the purpose of defining the limits of zealous advocacy. Lawyers have a duty of loyalty to their client, but they also have a duty of candor to the court. Even if it serves your client’s interests, you can’t lie to a judge. You can’t hide material facts. You can’t present false evidence. This is basic stuff—rules of fair play that protect the integrity of the legal system. The rules are not hard to follow, and they have not been controversial until now.

But Pam Bondi’s Justice Department does not want to play by anyone else’s rules. Time and again, this DOJ has found that rules and laws present inconvenient obstacles to achieving the President’s political agenda. Bondi’s deputy, Todd Blanche, has declared “a war” on the courts. He and Bondi have loudly and repeatedly villainized judges who rule against them. Meanwhile, Department lawyers have deceived, misled, and disobeyed courts in staggering numbers. The pattern of malfeasance is so extensive that many courts have ceased to give the Department the “presumption of regularity” that has long favored government lawyers appearing in federal court.

Freeing the Justice Department from independent ethics oversight would be extremely problematic in any administration. But it is especially so in this one. Past generations of Justice Department attorneys have understood that their job is not to win but to do justice. A quote inscribed in the rotunda outside the Attorney General’s office reads: “The United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts.” Bondi’s DOJ has abandoned this historical norm in favor of a thoroughly outcome-oriented approach to law enforcement. The very fact she has proposed to eliminate independent ethics oversight proves how much it is needed. Moreover, all of the Department’s top officials came in the door with webs of conflicts of interest, stemming from prior representation of Donald Trump, other client relationships, financial interests, and familial ties. These unresolved conflicts have infected administration of justice and diminished the integrity of a once-revered institution. The proposed rule would eliminate the only viable avenue for accountability and effectively license DOJ lawyers to break the rules in service of the President’s political objectives or their own personal interests.

Before it can take effect, the rule must go through a public comment process. Anyone can submit a comment registering their opinion on the rule. It’s easy to do so online at this link. The comment period ends April 6. DOJ is required to consider and respond to the comments submitted. They may not prevent the rule from taking effect, but they will be part of the official record when the rule is (inevitably) challenged in court. Please consider taking this small step in defense of the rule of law and submitting an objection. I’m sharing below some sample text you can use and adapt, or feel free to write your own.

I am a concerned citizen who cares deeply about preserving the rule of law and upholding the integrity of our justice system. I strongly oppose this new rule, because it will diminish accountability for misconduct by government lawyers. I believe that lawyers representing the United States should be held to the highest standards of ethics and professionalism. They must be subject to oversight by independent authorities like state bar associations; the Justice Department cannot be trusted to police itself. This proposed rule would allow the Attorney General to interfere with independent state bar investigations. That will greatly harm the integrity of our justice system and allow misconduct to go unpunished.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with . And thank you to all of my Lawyer Oyer subscribers and supporters!

Get more from Liz Oyer in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

I’ll be posting here about notable features of Trump’s first-term pardons, focusing today on the financial consequences. Trump’s pardons have been unprecedented in many ways, including the amount of debt they have erased for their beneficiaries. Criminal sentences often include financial penalties, including restitution, fines, and forfeiture. A few notes on terminology:

• Restitution refers to money lost by crime victims that, by law, must be repaid.

• Fines are financial punishments, imposed by a judge, that are paid to the U.S. Treasury (i.e., to taxpayers).

• Forfeiture refers to criminal proceeds (money or property) that, by law, must be surrendered to the U.S. government (for return to the rightful owners or to taxpayers) upon conviction.

• Each of these is a distinct component of a criminal sentence that may accompany a term of imprisonment and/or probation, depending on the circumstances.

Trump’s first-year clemencies have wiped out an unprecedented amount of financial penalties owed by the recipients. To calculate an estimated total, I have reviewed the information publicly available through the Office of the Pardon Attorney, plus the additional information available in relevant court records. Based on all available information, I have calculated that Trump’s clemency grants have forgiven financial penalties (including fines, restitution, and forfeitures) totaling approximately $1.56 billion. Yes, that’s billion with a “B.”

[Note: I have included in this total those commutations, as well as pardons, that have forgiven financial penalties. Typically, commutations leave financial penalties intact. However, many of Trump’s commutations expressly state that they extinguish all financial components of the sentence, in addition to any term of imprisonment and/or supervision.]

I consider this $1.56 billion figure a conservative estimate, because I have excluded some cases in which the amounts were not readily calculable (for example, those cases in which a pardon preceded a conviction in court), cases in which sums less than $10,000 were owed, and some very dated cases. I have also not endeavored to compute the total restitution owed by the January 6 defendants, although some of them have been refunded restitution owed for damage caused.

Just one year into his term, this figure already far surpasses the financial penalties extinguished by Trump’s predecessors. By comparison, Joe Biden granted 80 individual pardons during his four-year term. His pardon recipients had a total of approximately $688,000 in financial penalties. I also note that, most of the convictions of Biden’s pardon recipients were quite dated compared to the convictions pardoned by Trump. It is therefore much more likely that their financial obligations had been paid prior to the pardon and that the sums will not be returned.

My detailed calculations are available here in my Pardon Trackers, a feature for my paid subscribers. I will be rolling out some additional pardon analysis for paid subscribers in the Pardon Trackers soon. Many thanks to all of you who have become paid subscribers to support my work, I am truly so appreciative!

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with and . And thanks to all of you who support Lawyer Oyer!

Share

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with , and thanks to all who subscribe to Lawyer Oyer!

One of the most contradictory areas of U.S. policy this past year has been drug enforcement. I’ve put together a timeline — which I’ve also shared in video form on my socials — which I think will help to explain why many of us are so confused. Check it out.

January 20, 2025. Donald Trump signs an Executive Order designating drug cartels terrorist organizations, and declaring that “it is the policy of the United States to ensure the total elimination of [their] presence in the United States.”

January 21, 2025. Trump grants a full pardon to Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road—an online marketplace that trafficked hundreds of millions of dollars worth of drugs. At least six people died from overdoses, including two teenagers.

March 2025. Trump frees Cesar Humberto Lopez-Larios (aka “El Greñas”), a notorious MS-13 gang leader captured in 2024 after years on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. Lopez-Larios was charged with narco-terrorism and other crimes, but Trump’s DOJ dismissed those charges and returned Lopez-Larios to El Salvador.

March 2025. Trump’s Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announces that he’s eliminating the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, which is the primary agency responsible for reducing drug overdose deaths and addiction.

April 2025. Trump’s DOJ cuts $88 million in grant funding for substance abuse and addiction treatment.

May 2025. The Trump Administration decides to eliminate the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (known as OCDETF)—a specialized section of the Justice Department that targets major drug traffickers and international cartels. It’s the unit that captured El Chapo, for example. Members of Congress on both sides objected to shutting down OCDETF, but still the unit was fully disbanded by September.

September 2025. Instead of prosecuting suspected drug traffickers through legal channels, Trump starts bombing them. He launches military airstrikes on tiny boats supposedly carrying drugs. We haven’t actually seen any proof of that. But there have been over 30 strikes to date.

October 2025. Trump pardons Changpeng Zhao, the founder of Binance—a cryptocurrency exchange that was used to launder money to international drug trafficking organizations and criminal enterprises.

December 2025. Trump pardons Juan Orlando Hernandez, the corrupt former president of Honduras, who turned his country into a narco-state. Hernandez took millions in bribes from drug traffickers and sent hundreds of tons of cocaine into the US. In 2024, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 45 years in prison. Now he’s a free man thanks to Trump’s pardon.

January 2026. Trump sends troops into Venezuela to capture their president, Nicolas Maduro, and try him in the United States on charges of drug trafficking. The charges against Maduro are almost identical to the ones that Trump pardoned Hernandez for.

So how can we reconcile this totally contradictory timeline? That’s exactly what we should be asking our elected officials. It’s not our job to make it make sense—it’s theirs. My focus in 2026 will be seeking accountability from those entrusted to run our country. I invite you to join me. You can be part of my accountability circle by subscribing to my channels, sharing this information, asking questions, and demanding answers. It’s what we deserve from our elected leaders.

Share

Subscribe now

Thank you , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from Liz Oyer in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from Liz Oyer in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

How is the president’s use of pardons damaging our democracy? Well, the Founders gave the president the pardon power as a tool for mercy; instead, our current president is using it to enrich himself and his allies at great expense to the welfare of our nation. Here are a few top line issues that I’ll be diving into in future posts.

1. Trump has pardoned more corrupt elected officials than any other president. By far. Crimes involving the abuse of public trust were once considered among the most serious. But through pardons, Trump is normalizing public corruption and paving the way for his own.

2. Trump is granting pardons without vetting the recipients. The current administration has abandoned the rigorous vetting of pardon candidates that has been a longstanding feature of the pardon process administered by the Justice Department. This is incredibly dangerous — as evidenced by the fact that many of Trump’s pardon recipients have already been returned to prison for committing new crimes.

3. Trump’s pardons are undercutting the work of his own Justice Department. Remarkably, Trump’s clemency grants have routinely unraveled sentences sought by his own Justice Department. For example, one of Trump’s most recent pardons went to Joseph Schwartz, convicted of a $38 million tax fraud scheme. Schwartz’s 36-month prison sentence — wiped out by the pardon — was announced in April by Trump’s handpicked U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, Alina Habba.

4. Trump has discarded the longstanding criteria for granting clemency. These standards, outlined in detail in the Justice Manual, are intended to ensure that the pardon power is used for the public good. Few if any of Trump’s clemency recipients to date meet these criteria (or even come close). The wholesale discarding of these principles by the current president is effectively undermining the legitimacy of our criminal justice system.

5. Trump has created a pay-for-play pardon system. Pardons have routinely been granted on the basis of financial contributions or political donations to Trump causes. For example, Paul Walczak, a corrupt nursing home executive, received a full pardon days after his mother paid one million dollars to dine with the President at Mar-a-lago. Trevor Milton, a prolific fraudster, received a full pardon after donating $1.8 million to Trump’s campaign. The effect has been to foster a booming pardon industry, from which many in Trump’s orbit are profiting handsomely.

6. Trump’s pardons have erased enormous amounts of restitution and fines owed to crime victims and taxpayers. As outlined in my pardon trackers, the total to date is well over one billion dollars in debts forgiven by grants of clemency. Trevor Milton alone was relieved of a restitution obligation that would have required him to repay over $600 million to the investors he defrauded.

7. Trump’s pardons consistently place his personal interests above the interests of the American people. The pardon of Changpeng Zhao is a perfect example. The Trump family benefitted enormously from their business relationship with Zhao (who brokered a $2 billion investment in the Trump family crypto business). But the American people do not benefit in any way, shape or form from Zhao’s pardon. Zhao endangered U.S. national security by allowing his crypto platform to be used to facilitate criminal activity, including funneling money to terrorist groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Hamas. By pardoning him, Trump is licensing depraved and dangerous conduct, at untold expense to the safety and security of the American people.

8. Trump’s pardons encourage his supporters to commit crimes in Trump’s name, including undermining democratic safeguards. On Day 1 of his presidency, with the sweeping January 6 pardons, Trump sent a loud and clear message to his supporters that crimes committed in his name will forgiven. Trump’s Pardon Attorney, Ed Martin, has openly declared that his own approach to clemency is: “No MAGA left behind.” Martin has backed pardons for all manner of MAGA-linked crimes, including the sweeping purported pardon of all those involved in overturning the 2020 election results. By consistently rewarding MAGA supporters with clemency, Trump is licensing them to commit all manner of crimes that threaten our democratic safeguards — from political violence to election interference — in his name.

9. The corruption of the pardon power leaves no path forward for ordinary Americans. Many thousands of Americans are seeking the type of mercy clemency was intended to provide — relief from outdated prison sentences or fresh starts through pardons that have been earned based on good conduct, sincere effort, and pure merit. At last count, about 15,000 clemency applications were languishing at the Office of the Pardon Attorney; that number, which has not been updated in months, is likely significantly larger now. These ordinary Americans — who lack the political connections or financial resources to navigate the current pardon market — have no shot at receiving the consideration they deserve.

I am sharing below two segments from 60 Minutes that dive into (1) the Zhao case, and (2) the demise of the pardon process across the board under Trump. As those familiar with my work as Pardon Attorney know, this is a topic near and dear to my heart. I hope you will take the time to watch and share.

The Pardon of Changpeng Zhao (as aired by CBS, 60 Minutes, Nov. 16, 2025):

The demise of the pardon process under Trump (as aired by 60 Minutes Overtime, Nov. 16, 2025):

Thank you for reading and watching. I am so grateful for your time. If you’d like to support my continuing efforts to promote accountability and transparency around presidential pardons, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you for your support!

Subscribe now

Thank you to all of my subscribers for your support, which has made my work possible. By subscribing to my Substack, you are investing in me and my work. You make it possible for me to get out there on TV, social, and print media to sound the alarm widely and loudly on issues that pose real threats to the future of our democracy — like the corruption and abuse of the pardon power. I don’t have the words to adequately express my gratitude.

Thank you and stay tuned for more soon!