My Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Concerning the Nomination of Todd Blanche for Attorney General

As Deputy Attorney General, Blanche fired me for doing my job, then subjected me and my family to months of retaliation. My story is one of many reasons the Senate should not confirm Blanche again.

A few posts ago, I asked you all to consider writing or calling the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask them to oppose Todd Blanche’s confirmation as Attorney General. I sent my letter to the Committee today, and I wanted to share it with you here (scroll to the bottom for the full text).

[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.