SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
todd blanche
Massie and Khanna Push Second Epstein Files Transparency Act to Fight Trump DOJ Violations
"We need the Epstein Files Transparency Act II to strengthen the original law we wrote, crack down on the DOJ's illegal noncompliance, and stand with survivors and those seeking justice."
Jul 16, 2026
After months of the Trump administration refusing to fully comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Congressmen Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna appeared on MS NOW Thursday to promote their newly proposed second edition of the bipartisan law.
"We never anticipated that the chief law enforcement officer of the land wouldn't follow the law—and so, Ro and I took some heat because we didn't put in our original bill the ability to sue the chief law enforcement officer of the land," Massie (R-Ky.) said on "Morning Joe," a day after introducing the bill. "And so that's what the Epstein Files Transparency Act 2.0 does."
"It gives the victims standing to sue the attorney general, to get their own records, their own testimony, in these 302 forms. It also gives congressmen standing to enforce this law," he explained. "Basically, to get in front of a judge to say, 'judge, here's where they've overly redacted these files.'"
The bill also lets state attorneys general, "like the one in New Mexico, who's trying to prosecute crimes that happened at Zorro Ranch... prosecute crimes where the statute of limitations is not impeding him," added Massie—who will leave Congress at the end of this session after losing his May primary to a challenger backed by President Donald Trump, a former friend of Epstein. The convicted sex offender died in prison during his federal sex trafficking case.
The first Epstein Files Transparency Act was introduced last July, then passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by Trump in November. However, since it took effect, the US Department of Justice (DOJ), whose leaders are handpicked by the president, "has violated our law, delayed the release of millions of files, botched the redactions, and denied the survivors justice," Khanna (D-Calif.) said Wednesday.
Khanna and Massie—joined by Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM), who chairs the Democratic Women's Caucus, along with Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM)—are outraged that the DOJ continues to withhold over 3 million Epstein files and maintain heavy redactions on the documents it has released.
As the sponsors introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act II on Wednesday, acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche—who was previously Trump's personal lawyer—appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing about his nomination to take over the post permanently; he's been filling it in a temporary capacity since Pam Bondi's April exit.
Both Bondi—who was fired by Trump as she faced mounting calls for impeachment—and Blanche have earned intense criticism for their handling of the Epstein files, including from survivors. One of them, Dani Bensky, testified before the Senate panel on Thursday about her negative experience.
After the sudden death of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), all Republicans on the committee would have to vote "yes" to advance Blanche's nomination. At least one—retiring Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina—said Blanche would have to meet with Epstein survivors to secure his support, which the acting attorney general claimed Wednesday he cannot do if they have legal counsel.
Even if the nomination advances out of committee, Blanche will need approval from a full chamber that's also only narrowly controlled by the GOP amid frustrations that, as Merkley put it, "at Trump’s bidding, the Department of Justice's highest-ranking officials continue to break the law, denying justice to Jeffrey Epstein's victims with an unprecedented cover-up of the abuse of our most vulnerable."
"As long as those in power continue to side with the Epstein Class and shield abusers from accountability for their horrific crimes, we need the Epstein Files Transparency Act II to strengthen the original law we wrote, crack down on the DOJ's illegal noncompliance, and stand with survivors and those seeking justice," the senator argued. "The rich and powerful cannot be allowed to escape justice, and the American public deserves the transparency it is crying out for."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Todd Blanche Failed to Learn From Watergate
Will Todd Blanche see how his loyalty to Trump personally—rather than to the nation he has taken an oath to serve—is leading him to an unfortunate destination? Probably not.
Jul 16, 2026
In 1974, Watergate culminated in the first-ever resignation of a sitting US president. As Richard Nixon left office, his closest advisers were in prison—or heading there. Among them were attorneys who broke the law that they had sworn to uphold, including his former attorney general John Mitchell.
Acting AG Todd Blanche now seeks Mitchell’s job.
- Like Mitchell, Blanche was a successful lawyer at a prominent New York law firm before joining the president’s team.
- Like Mitchell, Blanche has served the president slavishly. He personally interviewed Jeffrey Epstein’s imprisoned co-conspirator Ghislane Maxwell who then got reassigned to a Club Fed; he guided the unlawfully incomplete release of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Epstein files; he spearheaded the effort to prosecute President Donald Trump’s perceived enemies; and he defended Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents publicly after they killed innocent Americans.
- And like Mitchell, Blanche’s ploys for Trump are sending him to a dark place.
The Latest Court Ruling
Blanche figures prominently in the recent opinion of Judge Kathleen Williams of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She ruled that Trump’s purported settlement of his $10 billion case against the IRS was a collusive farce.
The government had strong defenses to Trump’s lawsuit claim, including the statute of limitations bar; it asserted none of them. That's not surprising: Trump controlled the executive branch (including the IRS), which put him on both sides of the supposed dispute. Such a clear conflict of interest meant that there was no real “adverseness” between the plaintiff and defendant and, therefore, no “justiciable case or controversy” for the court to decide.
The purported settlement agreement established a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate, among others, January 6 insurrectionists whom Trump had pardoned. A separate, three-paragraph “release order” forever immunized Trump, his family members, and related parties from IRS investigations, claims, and audits that have haunted him for decades.
The court had harsh words—and sanctions—for the lawyers involved in perpetrating this abuse of the court process at taxpayers’ expense:
- Alejandro Brito represented Trump as plaintiff in the case. The judge referred him to the Florida Bar for consideration, review, and determination as to whether disciplinary action is appropriate.
- Daniel Z. Epstein’s name appeared on the complaint, and he signed the purported “settlement agreement” on behalf of plaintiff Trump. Epstein was a former White House senior associate counsel and special assistant to President Trump from 2017 until 2020. Because he is licensed to practice in Texas, not Florida, the judge barred his future applications to practice pro hac vice (special admission for a particular case) in the Southern District of Florida for a year or until her further order.
- Stanley Woodward Jr., associate attorney general under Blanche at the Department of Justice, signed the bogus “settlement agreement” on behalf of the DOJ. The court observed that Woodward had “represented several individuals charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. He also represented Walt Nauta, who was President Trump’s personal aide and a co-defendant in the criminal matter involving the return of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.” The judge directed the clerk to send a copy of her 56-page ruling to the District of Columbia bar, where disciplinary proceedings are ongoing against Woodward.
Blanche’s Plight
And the court turned repeatedly to Todd Blanche:
- His signature alone was on the IRS “release order.” Its attempt to waive tax audits contravened federal law prohibiting “executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations.”
- Judge Williams was “extremely troubled” by Blanche’s congressional testimony on May 19, 2026, as to why the settlement agreement was not submitted to the court for review. She found his answer “at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous.”
- The court noted, “In this case,… notwithstanding his prior representation of President Trump, Blanche did not recuse [himself]” from the IRS matter.
- Blanche’s congressional testimony that the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” aspect of the settlement would not go forward proved that the entire agreement was collusive: “Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.” That party was Donald Trump.
- Finally, she directed the clerk to send a copy of her ruling to the State Bar of New York, where Blanche is licensed. On June 22, 2026, more than 100 former state and federal judges had already filed a 73-page ethics complaint against him there.
A Freudian Slip and an Unhappy Ending
Early in Blanche’s confirmation hearing on July 15, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asked him about his relationship with Trump.
“I’m his lawyer,” Blanche replied, before correcting himself to say that he “was” his lawyer.
Blanche’s initial impulse was closer to the mark. And he has already compromised his professional reputation and personal integrity.
In the service of Nixon personally, John Mitchell was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury in connection with his role in the Watergate break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters and subsequent cover-up. He spent 19 months in prison and lost his law license.
Will Todd Blanche see how his loyalty to Trump personally—rather than to the nation he has taken an oath to serve—is leading him to an unfortunate destination? Probably not.
Will he learn anything from Judge Williams’s stunning rebuke or the ethics complaints he already faces? Probably not.
Will enough Republican senators stand up and refuse to confirm Blanche, who is blatantly unqualified to be the next attorney general? Probably not.
All Americans will bear the consequences of his failures.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Worse Than a Lackey': Advocates and Dems List the Many Reasons Blanche Is Unfit to Be Attorney General
If senators "ignore the evidence and advance Blanche’s nomination, they will share responsibility for the abuses that follow," said one critic.
Jul 15, 2026
As acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche faced questions on Wednesday regarding the defunct "slush fund" he helped create for President Donald Trump's allies, his role in the release of the Epstein files, and other details of his tenure at the Department of Justice, advocacy groups and Democrats demanded that senators reject the nomination of an official who "has made it clear he’ll put Donald Trump first."
Those were the words of Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, who was among those speaking out about Blanche's "damning" record of weaponizing the DOJ against Trump's perceived enemies with "politically motivated" investigations and indictments.
While serving as deputy to fired former Attorney General Pam Bondi and in his current acting role, said Stand Up America, Blanche has led inquiries into Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide whose testimony implicated the president in the violent riot by Trump supporters at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021; the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue; the anti-hate group Southern Poverty Law Center; and former FBI Director James Comey, whom Blanche claimed "knowingly and willfully [made] a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon” Trump in an Instagram photo in 2025.
"Senate Judiciary Committee members have a duty to hold Blanche’s feet to the fire and demand answers about his record of weaponizing the DOJ to protect Donald Trump," said Edkins ahead of Wednesday's confirmation hearing for Blanche, who represented Trump during his legal cases regarding hush-money payments to an adult film star and his retention of classified documents.
"If they ignore the evidence and advance Blanche’s nomination, they will share responsibility for the abuses that follow," he added.
Along with using the power of the federal government against those who oppose the president, Blanche led the creation of a $1.77 billion settlement agreement to end Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the leak of his tax records—a deal that included both a "super pardon" to protect the president and his family from ever facing accountability for tax violations and an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to dole out taxpayer funds to January 6 insurrectionists and other Trump allies.
A federal judge blocked the settlement this week and found Trump's lawsuit against the IRS to be illegal self-dealing, and Blanche has indicated the DOJ will no longer pursue the creation of the "slush fund," but advocates as well as senators at Wednesday's confirmation hearing said the effort put on display the acting attorney general's unfitness to lead the DOJ.
"The Senate must look at the facts and refuse to confirm Todd Blanche," said Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, which referred Blanche for a disciplinary investigation after the federal ruling was handed down Monday. "He continues to prioritize the president’s interests over the American people. He orchestrated this sham lawsuit to fleece the American people out of almost $2 billion to pay the President’s allies, including people who violently assaulted law enforcement on January 6, and to provide the president, his family, and associates unprecedented immunity for their misdeeds."
"The American people deserve an Attorney General who is independent of the White House and has an unassailable ethics record," said Kase Solomón. "Senators can’t confirm someone who is willing to skirt the law as our nation’s top law enforcement officer."
At the hearing Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) noted that while Blanche has declared the slush fund "dead," the order to create the fund still exists on the DOJ website and the acting attorney general attacked the judge who blocked the settlement as orchestrating "a hit" on Blanche.
Sen. @DickDurbin: One of your first official actions as acting AG, Mr. Blanche, was to establish the $2 billion slush fund to benefit J6 cop beaters while immunizing Trump from IRS liability. You defended the slush fund by claiming "people who hurt police get money all the time." pic.twitter.com/06he9g8kLS
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) July 15, 2026
At Slate on Tuesday, Shirin Ali wrote that Blanche's conduct regarding the slush fund revealed that he is "worse than a lackey."
In the federal case against Trump's IRS lawsuit, wrote Ali, "the judge’s conclusion confirmed what we’ve all been thinking: The acting AG and the president’s interests in this case were 'one and the same.'"
"At the end of the day, the DOJ’s responsibility is to zealously represent the interests of the US, not the president, and Blanche has violated the agency’s commitment to remain insulated from political influence," Ali added.
Blanche also faced questioning on the settlement agreement from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who lost a primary election earlier this year and has been identified as one of two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee—the other being Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)—who could vote no on Blanche's confirmation.
Blanche's involvement in the release of files regarding the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former associate of the president's, was also a focus of outcry ahead of and during the confirmation hearing, which was attended by some survivors of Epstein's abuse.
US Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who is leading an investigation into the DOJ's withholding of the Epstein files as ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote to Durbin and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), noting that Bondi identified Blanche as having overseen the long-delayed, botched release of the documents earlier this year.
"Mr. Blanche is therefore responsible for a DOJ process that exposed the names, photographs, and other personally identifying information of Epstein survivors thousands of times, including information related to more than two dozen minors," said Garcia. "Survivors have described DOJ’s actions as retraumatizing, and some have reported harassment after their identities spread online."
Garcia also pointed to recent public reporting that FBI and DOJ personnel were instructed to "find, log, and redact President
Trump’s name from Epstein-related records," and to a "highly unusual interview" of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, "shortly before her suspicious transfer to a minimum-security facility."
"Mr. Blanche still has not explained why he met with Maxwell, what she was offered, or what influenced her treatment by DOJ," wrote Garcia. "To this day, Maxwell continues to pursue a pardon from President Trump as she resides in a minimum-security facility with amenities that should not be afforded to prolific sex traffickers."
Garcia said in a statement that Blanche's "failed handling of the Epstein files... raises serious concerns about whether he is working for the American people or just protecting Donald Trump. The attorney general’s job is to uphold the rule of law, not serve as the president’s personal lawyer. Blanche is unfit for the role, which is why we’re calling on the Senate to reject his nomination."
Blanche did not commit to personally meeting with the Epstein survivors who attended the hearing when he was questioned on the matter by Durbin, telling him there could be ethical rules that would prevent such a meeting.
"You’re dancing on the head of a pin here," replied Durbin.
In another call from the lower chamber of Congress, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) provided a fact sheet including 15 ways in which Blanche "still behaves like Trump's defense attorney."
Along with his involvement in the slush fund, investigations of Trump's enemies, and the Epstein files, Raskin named Blanche's "aggressive DOJ investigations into reporters," his shutdown of a probe into an alleged bribe taken by border czar Tom Homan, and his blocking of investigations into the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal officers as more reasons for senators to reject Blanche as attorney general.
"The American people deserve a Senate that acts as a coequal branch," said Edkins, "not a rubber stamp on Trump’s handpicked henchman.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Impeachment Is Next,' Says Senate Dem After Judge Voids Trump Slush Fund Settlement
In a searing rebuke of Trump's self-dealing lawsuit against the IRS, Judge Kathleen Williams wrote that "a court should not be a forum for a party that cynically views a lawsuit as a vehicle to achieve a predetermined outcome."
Jul 13, 2026
A progressive US senator on Monday welcomed a federal judge's ruling that found President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service was an illegal act of self-dealing, while calling for the Republican to be impeached for a third time.
Trump and his two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, "acted in bad faith and for an improper purpose by 'collusively filing a lawsuit with claims subject to multiple dispositive defenses solely to provide cover for a collusive settlement,'" US District Judge for the Southern District of Florida Kathleen Williams—who was appointed by former President Barack Obama—wrote in her 56-page ruling.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called Williams' order "a scalding, blistering judicial opinion calling out Trump’s sham litigation, striking down his corrupt IRS immunity, and holding his sycophant lawyers to account."
"That’s a good start," the senator said. "Impeachment is next."
Finding that "sanctions are appropriate here," Williams referred Trump's personal attorney Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar for "its consideration, review, and determination as to whether any disciplinary action is appropriate in light of the findings and rulings made in this order."
Williams also banned another one of the president's personal lawyers, Daniel Epstein—who is not related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted child sex criminal and former close friend of Trump—from seeking admission to practice law in the Southern District of Florida for one year.
The judge further found that acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche's "apparent capacity to speak for both plaintiffs and defendants, sign a 'settlement' document on behalf of all parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case."
In January, Trump and his sons sued the Internal Revenue Service and US Treasury Department for $10 billion over the leak of the president's tax returns by a former IRS contractor. Trump’s own Department of Justice (DOJ) then settled the case in May by agreeing to exempt the plaintiffs from future IRS audits and create a roughly $1.776 billion settlement slush fund for people claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government.
Beneficiaries of the so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" were expected to include January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists, roughly 1,500 of whom were pardoned by Trump and dozens of whom have since been charged or convicted for serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.
Blanche has signaled that the DOJ will no longer pursue the creation of the slush fund.
Williams wrote in her ruling that "certainly, a court should not be a forum for a party that cynically views a lawsuit as a vehicle to achieve a predetermined outcome: 'I’m suing myself."
"President Trump did not pursue his claims until he once again occupied the White House and had appointed his former lawyer, and the former lawyer of persons who are putative beneficiaries of the 'Anti-Weaponization Fund,c' to prominent positions in the DOJ," she continued. "These officials then negotiated on behalf of the United States, with his current lawyers, including his former White House counsel, to reach a 'settlement.' It is risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the parties."
“Even the fund amount—$1.776 billion—speaks of a ‘branding’ effort rather than a deliberate and thoughtful calculation of damages,” the judge added.
A spokesperson for Trump's legal team responded to Monday's order in a statement asserting that “the IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to The New York Times, ProPublica, and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people."
"President Trump continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable," the statement added.
Defenders of the rule of law welcomed Monday's ruling, with Robert Weissman and Lisa Gilbert, co-presidents of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, taking a swipe at Trump's "brilliant idea of suing the government he runs and resolving the lawsuit with the creation of an illegal and unconstitutional nearly $1.8 billion slush fund, paid for at taxpayer expense and likely to be distributed to January 6 insurrectionists, among others, as well with as an immunity deal protecting Trump and his family from IRS investigation."
"Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was a willing participant in this fraud on the court and the American people," the pair added. “If the Senate needed an additional reason not to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, it just got it.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ordering Release of More Epstein Files, Judge Says Trump DOJ 'Conceded' It Violated Transparency Law
"We're one step closer to the full release of the Epstein files and getting survivors the justice they've long deserved," said US Rep. Ro Khanna.
Jun 26, 2026
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the US Department of Justice to release more FBI files related to the investigation of late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while finding that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche violated the law that mandated their release.
In his ruling, US District Judge Emmet Sullivan said that Blanche "conceded that he is in violation" of the 2025 Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the DOJ to release all unclassified files related to the Epstein case, as well as a log detailing justifications for redactions made to the files, by December 19, 2025.
Sullivan noted that Blanche failed to respond substantively to claims made by plaintiff Katie Phang, an attorney and former host on MSNOW who in a lawsuit accused the DOJ of improperly "redacting the names of co-defendants in a draft indictment, the names of individuals identified as 'co-conspirators.'"
Phang also alleged that Blanche improperly withheld information in the files that incriminated President Donald Trump, including "notes from FBI interviews with a victim who has alleged that in the 1980s, when she was about 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, who in turn assaulted her."
Sullivan granted Phang's request for a preliminary injunction and gave the DOJ until July 2 to release the information sought in the complaint or provide a more detailed explanation justifying its redaction.
In an analysis of the ruling, former US Attorney Joyce Vance argued that Sullivan was correct on the merits given that the information requested by Phang is "material that the [Epstein Files Transparency Act] clearly called for production of and that the government simply refused to provide, without offering reasons that justified withholding it."
Vance also remarked that "given the items the government must now provide publicly" as a result of Sullivan's ruling, "this is a highly significant development and a real win not just for Katie, but for the victims and the survivors."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who along with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act, celebrated Sullivan's verdict while crediting Phang for forcing the government's hand.
"Thanks to [Phang's] tireless work, we're one step closer to the full release of the Epstein files," wrote Khanna, "and getting survivors the justice they've long deserved."
Brendan Ballou, an attorney representing Phang in the case, told Politico on Thursday that the administration's attempted coverup of the files was slowly coming apart.
"The government ignored its own law and blew off a judge’s order, all for the sake of protecting the very powerful and the very rich,” Ballou said. “Doing so had consequences, and now the public will finally get transparency around Jeffrey Epstein and his network.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ's Use of Subpoenas Against Journalists Is 'Straight Out of the Dictator's Playbook': Press Freedom Group
"The potential of the government intruding into the newsgathering process is even greater when you are in the grand jury than it is for a subpoena for documents," said one press freedom advocate.
Jun 23, 2026
The US Department of Justice's attempt to compel journalists to testify before a grand jury is drawing blowback from a top press freedom group, which is accusing President Donald Trump's administration of behaving like an authoritarian regime.
According to a Tuesday report in The New York Times, the DOJ earlier this month issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.
"The Justice Department had sought information from three reporters at The Journal about an article detailing how top officials warned... Trump of the risks of a major military campaign against Iran," reported the Times. "It also sought information from a reporter at The Post, Ellen Nakashima, about reporting related to US military action in Venezuela."
As the Times noted, it is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters' ability to gather information.
After the details of the subpoenas and news of their withdrawal broke, Reporters Without Borders slammed the Trump DOJ for hitting a "new low" in its attempt to "suppress information from the American people."
"Subpoenaing journalists to appear before a grand jury under the guise of ‘national security’ is straight out of the dictator's playbook," the group said. "Fortunately, in the United States, newsrooms are fighting back and winning."
A Tuesday CNN report claimed that Trump had personally pushed acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to subpoena the journalists, going so far as to hand Blanche "a sticky note—with the word 'Treason' written in Sharpie—placed atop a stack of printed articles."
CNN also reported that both the Post and the Journal "remain on guard against the possibility that the subpoenas will be reissued in the future."
A spokesperson for the Post ripped the Trump DOJ for issuing "an unwarranted subpoena of our reporter," which the newspaper described as "a clear violation of constitutionally guaranteed press freedom."
"We will continue to stand fully behind the journalism of The Washington Post," the spokesperson added, "and fight all efforts by any administration that violate our First Amendment rights."
Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in an interview with the Post that issuing grand jury subpoenas to reporters puts core First Amendment rights at risk because "once you are up in front of the grand jury, the testimony can go in many different ways and can inquire into stories that are unrelated to the underlying investigation."
"The potential of the government intruding into the newsgathering process is even greater when you are in the grand jury than it is for a subpoena for documents," Rottman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Orders Trump Admin to Swear $1.8 Billion Slush Fund 'Is Not Happening'
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has insisted that the plan to pay taxpayer funds to Trump allies is dead. But he hasn't said so under oath.
Jun 12, 2026
A federal judge may have dealt the final blow to President Donald Trump's $1.8 billion "weaponization fund" on Friday, indefinitely blocking it and ordering his administration to state unequivocally that it's no longer happening.
In the face of bipartisan backlash, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had publicly backed off plans to use the money earlier this month, and a court temporarily blocked the transfer of the money to what opponents had dubbed a "slush fund" for Trump's supporters, including January 6 rioters who claim to be victims of government "weaponization" by the Biden administration.
But The Atlantic reported on Thursday that even as the US Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly swears that the payouts are dead, administration officials have been reassuring Trump's cronies behind the scenes that they'll get their checks and that the administration simply needs to wait for the legal blowback to die down or find an alternative way to award them the money, which was set to follow a DOJ-brokered settlement between Trump and his own Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
That may prove more difficult after Friday, however, when US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely extending her previous two-week pause on the fund.
She described the arrangement, to have taxpayer funds disbursed without court rulings to “an extremely small group” that many Americans feel engaged in “unacceptable” conduct, as "problematic."
The DOJ had attempted to have the case against the fund dismissed, arguing that it was now a moot point, since Blanche had publicly declared it dead. But Brinkema said, "The [government’s] mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere.”
While the DOJ stated that the fund has “not been set up and is now not going forward," Brinkema noted that Blanche had declined to state that under oath, while Trump has publicly continued to champion the fund even as his administration has backed away from it.
During the hearing in the Eastern District of Virginia, Brinkema pressed DOJ lawyer Andrew Block on why, if the fund was truly defunct, the administration had not formally rescinded the order setting it up. He said he didn't know.
The judge gave Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr., and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, whose department would have overseen the fund, one week to sign a “clear, unambiguous” declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the fund is dead, and wrote in the order that they must affirm that it "will not proceed in any manner, or under any name."
She said in order for the lawsuit to be thrown out, the government needed to put it in writing because "we don’t have the kind of absolute certainty that this fund wouldn’t rear its head."
CEO @SkyePerryman and Senior Counsel Pooja Boisture break down our major slush fund win from court. pic.twitter.com/ngneLRsl8R
— Democracy Forward (@DemocracyFwd) June 12, 2026
Outside the courtroom, Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward—the watchdog group that sued the DOJ—celebrated that the court had "put the brakes on Donald Trump's slush fund."
The group is representing several plaintiffs who say they'd be harmed if the fund were to be enacted.
They include a former federal prosecutor fired after leading January 6 cases; the city of New Haven, Connecticut, which has been targeted by the administration over its sanctuary policies; the National Abortion Federation, which says the fund could reward anti-abortion activists convicted of clinic-related offenses; and the watchdog group Common Cause, which argues that the opaque scheme could embolden January 6 defendants.
"We were thrilled that the judge understood the significant harm that our clients face as a result of the fund, as well as the American people," said Democracy Forward senior counsel Pooja Boisture. "We were thrilled that she got it right. She understood that this was not a partisan issue."
It remains unclear whether the order would stop the administration from pursuing other methods for rewarding Trump's allies. Reuters reported on Friday that his legal allies have discussed dusting off a 1946 law called the Federal Tort Claims Act, which would allow individuals to file administrative claims and lawsuits that could be settled out of court with a lot of flexibility for the government.
“The Trump administration cannot be trusted with the public’s money,” said Omar Noureldin, Common Cause’s senior vice president for policy and litigation. "We’ve successfully locked the president’s personal slush fund for now, and we’ll keep the pressure on until it’s shut down for good.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and Co.'s Bumbling Attempt to Rob US Taxpayers Is Backfiring
The president's obviously corrupt effort to gain immunity for himself and his sons through an IRS settlement is unlikely to succeed.
Jun 11, 2026
Whoever designed President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department must be a fan of the Ocean’s Eleven movie franchise. The multi-act plot lines are strikingly similar: Put together a motley crew of risk takers; pick a seemingly invincible target rich in treasure; infiltrate the target; exploit its weaknesses; and get away with an improbable heist while the guards are asleep, distracted, or otherwise occupied.
Act One of Trump’s story arc began on January 29, when he and his eldest sons and the Trump Organization filed the lawsuit in federal district court in Miami. If only briefly, it seemed like the plan just might work. In 2019, an IRS contractor named Charles Littlejohn leaked multiple years of the Trumps’ confidential tax records, along with those of over 7,000 other wealthy individuals, to The New York Times and ProPublica. The Trumps alleged in their complaint that the IRS and the Treasury Department had willfully failed to safeguard their tax information, and that each viewing of a news article mentioning the data constituted a separate $1,000 violation. The total—accounting for harm from embarrassment and reputational and financial injury—ran into the stratosphere.
There is no doubt that Littlejohn broke the law. In October 2023, he pleaded guilty to the unauthorized disclosures and was later sentenced to five years in prison.
But a few things stood in the way of a courtroom victory for Trump and his family: First and foremost, Trump filed his complaint in his individual capacity, placing himself, as the nation’s chief executive, on both sides of the litigation, with his former personal lawyer and now-acting Attorney General Todd Blanche representing the defense.
Neither Blanche nor Trump has backed away from the addendum to the settlement agreement reached in the Miami case that confers civil and criminal immunity on the president and his sons.
The arrangement came to the attention of various public watchdog groups that quickly filed amicus briefs in the case, decrying the litigation as collusive and riddled with irreconcilable conflicts of interest. Collusive litigation is illegal and, if proven, warrants dismissal and court-ordered sanctions. It could also conceivably lead to a future criminal prosecution for conspiracy to defraud the United States, in addition to other offenses. And, because Trump filed the case in his individual capacity, he would not be protected from future prosecutions by the immunity the Supreme Court accorded him two years ago for actions taken within the scope of his official duties.
Another problem for Trump: The case was assigned to Judge Kathleen Williams, a no-BS jurist appointed by Barack Obama. On April 24, Judge Williams ordered the parties to submit briefs on the collusion issue by May 20. The order specifically mentioned remarks made by Trump in press interviews that indicated he understood the nature of the case and that if the litigation were to be settled, he would be in the unique position of negotiating with himself, an admission that could prove critical in future investigations to establish criminal intent.
The order prompted Blanche, Trump, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to open the second act of their Ocean’s Eleven ploy. Instead of filing the requested briefs, they submitted a request to voluntarily dismiss the case on May 18. Believing she no longer had jurisdiction over the case, Judge Williams granted the request.
Later that same day, Blanche announced that the lawsuit had been resolved with the DOJ entering into a “settlement agreement” that created a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” slush fund to be drawn from the Treasury Department’s general “judgment fund,” created by Congress in 1956 as a permanent appropriation to pay litigation judgments entered against the United States. Under the agreement, Trump’s allies, including the January 6 insurrectionists, would be authorized to file claims for monetary compensation due to the alleged weaponization of President Joe Biden’s Justice Department against them. The claims would be adjudicated by a committee, selected by the attorney general, that would operate in secrecy with no public reporting requirements and whose members could be fired at will by the president.
The following day, Blanche tacked on an “addendum” to the settlement that ordered the IRS and the DOJ to permanently end all current and possible future tax audits and investigations into the Trump family that were or could have been pending at the time of the settlement. The actual language of the addendum is so nebulous, according to some analysts, that it could be read to immunize the Trumps from any future investigations, civil or criminal, initiated by any and all federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the FBI.
The settlement prompted immediate and uncommon bipartisan criticism in Congress and outrage in the media. It also sparked additional litigation with new lawsuits aimed at blocking the anti-weaponization fund filed in Virginia and the District of Columbia. On May 29, District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, sitting in Alexandria, Virginia, issued a temporary restraining order preventing the transfer of any money from the Treasury Department to the fund, and precluding the DOJ from taking any further action on the fund. The judge set a June 12 hearing date for oral arguments on the TRO.
Meanwhile, on May 27 in Miami, a group of 35 former federal judges filed a motion to reopen the case, urging Judge Williams to investigate whether the parties had perpetrated a fraud on the court. The judge responded swiftly with an order requiring Trump and his sons to submit a reply brief by June 12. This highly unusual step was necessary, she explained, in light of the “grievous allegations [raised by the 35 judges] that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that ‘was collusive from the start’ and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement.”
We are now in Act 3 of the administration’s Ocean’s Eleven drama, the part where Trump and his minions back down and regroup. In a hearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee on June 2, Blanche said that the administration would not go forward with the anti-weaponization fund. On June 5, in filings in both the DC and Virginia cases, the DOJ put Blanche’s pledge in writing in motions requesting that both cases be dismissed as moot.
To date, however, neither Blanche nor Trump has backed away from the addendum to the settlement agreement reached in the Miami case that confers civil and criminal immunity on the president and his sons. That benefit, if implemented, would accord the Trumps even more protection than a presidential pardon. It may also have been the real goal of the litigation from the outset.
But the scheme is unlikely to succeed. Whether Judge Williams or her colleagues in DC and Virginia strike down the addendum, the granting of immunity remains an act of blatant corruption. There is no reason to believe a future Department of Justice in a Democratic administration will honor the grant. It may take a few years for the curtain to fall on the president’s Ocean’s Eleven heist, but in the end, he may emerge as the caper’s biggest loser.
Rock Solid Journalis
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Formally Nominates 'Henchman' Blanche as AG Despite Senators' Concerns
"He's never given up his primary role: Donald Trump’s chief defender in court," said Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats.
Jun 08, 2026
President Donald Trump on Monday officially asked the Senate to confirm his former personal lawyer and "henchman," Todd Blanche, as US attorney general, despite concerns from senators in both major parties and various other critics about the man currently leading the Department of Justice on an interim basis.
Blanche has been acting attorney general since April, when Trump fired Pam Bondi after reportedly growing frustrated by her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and his efforts to abuse the DOJ to target political enemies. Since then, the DOJ has indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), former Cuban President Raúl Castro, and ex-Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey (again).
The DOJ has also settled Trump's $10 billion "sham" lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax records by creating a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to line the pockets of the president's allies—which is "dead for now" after public backlash and setbacks in court—and forever barring the IRS from pursuing any other actions against Trump and his family.
"Todd Blanche has spent months running the Justice Department like it's Trump's family law firm, and now Trump wants to give him the attorney general title."
"This is yet another example of Trump assembling a team of henchmen whose primary qualification is doing his own bidding, rather than serving the nation, to staff the government," Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said Monday. "Blanche demonstrated his toady qualities throughout his 'audition' for this role, and is being awarded with the leading role as a result."
"The examples of his malfeasance are stark, from the unjust SPLC indictment, to a second indictment of Jim Comey, to the settlement shielding Trump's family from IRS audits, are all glaring demonstrations of the fact that his loyalty lies with Donald Trump, not with the American people who the DOJ is supposed to serve," she warned. "The rule of law has already taken too many hits under this authoritarian administration, and we don't need another vengeful pick that will weaponize the government against Trump's political adversaries."
Citing Blanche's recent actions, along with his service as Trump's criminal defense attorney for the cases on hush money, federal classified documents, and election interference that culminated in the president's supporters storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, Public Citizen and other groups behind the Not Above the Law Coalition launched a "Block Blanche" campaign last week.
"Donald Trump just made it official with his personal fixer," coalition co-chairs Gilbert, Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Kelsey Herbert of MoveOn, and Brett Edkins of Stand Up America said Monday. "Todd Blanche has spent months running the Justice Department like it's Trump's family law firm, and now Trump wants to give him the attorney general title."
"The Senate has one job here: reject Blanche," they argued. "Blanche weaponized the DOJ against Trump's enemies, fired career prosecutors, and cut deals for his boss—including by blocking the full release of the Epstein files, crafting a $1.8 billion slush fund for Trump's political allies, and trying to arrange immunity from IRS audits for Trump and his family."
According to the co-chairs: "Every senator who lets this nomination sail through is signing off on the end of an independent Justice Department. We're not letting them do that quietly."
Gilbert, Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Maya Wiley of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) plan to join a coalition call about Blanche on Wednesday afternoon.
While the Senate confirmed Blanche as deputy AG in a 52-46 party-line vote last year, the coalition highlighted in an email roundup on Monday that some "Republican lawmakers are breaking ranks" now.
The Hill noted Monday that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said last week that "most of our members are pretty deferential to who the president wants in some of these key positions," but "this is an environment where nothing’s a safe or sure bet these days."
As Politico's Jordain Carney detailed last week:
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is viewed as the critical vote for Blanche to win over on the Judiciary Committee. Tillis has vowed he won’t support Justice Department nominees who he views as sympathetic those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and previously told Politico that the Justice Department's "Anti-Weaponization Fund" would be a factor in whether or not an attorney general nominee is able to be confirmed...
“What we need to do right now is focus on the [Anti-Weaponization] Fund, or he's not going to have a very good time in Judiciary Committee," Tillis, who will retire after the end of this year, told reporters when asked about Blanche’s forthcoming nomination. "Just think about what the Democrats would do to him."
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, another Senate Judiciary Republican, said of Blanche's chances, "I think it depends on his answers to questions that I intend to ask him at the Judiciary Committee."
"The attorney general is not the president’s private lawyer, so it's sort of by its nature, it's a really hard job to do, but I want to make sure he understands the difference and is committed to making sure that the law is enforced," Cornyn said.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) is also reportedly undecided on Blanche. Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats, and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who sometimes votes with the GOP, said last week, "I would not vote for him."
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats declared on social media Monday afternoon that "Todd Blanche is no neutral law enforcement officer. He's never given up his primary role: Donald Trump's chief defender in court. Putting Donald Trump and the Epstein class before YOU."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abandoning the 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' Won’t Solve Todd Blanche’s Big Problem
The consequences of a lawyer misleading the court survive the case in which it occurs, and those consequences can be profound.
Jun 05, 2026
Between March 2023 and December 2024, Todd Blanche earned millions of dollars as Donald Trump’s personal defense lawyer in the Stormy Daniel hush-money case, the Mar-a-Lago documents case, and the election interference case. As Acting Attorney General of the United States, he’s wading through another Trump mess.
And he’s drowning.
The Fund is Dead; Long Live the Fund
On May 18, Trump’s lawyers and the Department of Justice (DOJ) created an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to settle President Trump’s frivolous lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Even Senate Republicans rebelled against the prospect of using $1.776 billion in taxpayer money as Trump’s slush fund to pay January 6 insurrectionists.
To quell the uprising that was threatening Trump’s legislative agenda, Blanche met with Republicans on Capitol Hill. He made things worse as the weeklong Memorial Day break began.
Todd Blanche—who still operates as if he were Trump’s personal attorney—now has stunning legal problems of his own.
Faced with mounting pressure—from the public, congressional Republicans, and two judges who were questioning the fund’s legality—Blanche told a House committee on June 2 that the fund was not moving forward.
Some senators found comfort in Blanche’s assurances. But the same day, Trump was asked by the New York Post in a podcast interview whether he had dropped the Fund.
Trump said, “No, a court ruled against” it.
Asked again about the fund on June 3, Trump answered: “I love it. I think it’s so important.”
But the controversy over the fund’s status is diverting attention from an issue that is much more important to Trump—and a much bigger problem for Blanche: his signature on a document releasing Trump’s potential tax liabilities.
A Phony Lawsuit Leads to a Collusive Settlement
January 29, 2026: Trump filed a lawsuit against the IRS seeking $10 billion. He claimed that a former IRS contractor had illegally obtained access to and disclosed Trump’s tax returns to media outlets.
In the past, the IRS mounted aggressive defenses to similar claims. Following normal procedure, IRS attorneys prepared a 25-page memorandum outlining the flaws in Trump’s lawsuit and recommending a motion to dismiss it. But the Justice Department didn’t even enter an appearance in the case, much less seek dismissal.
Presiding US District Court Judge Kathleen Williams was concerned that there was no “actual adversity” between the parties because Trump was on both sides of the lawsuit: The president (plaintiff) controlled the IRS (defendant). She ordered Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department to address the obvious conflict of interest by May 20.
May 18: With the court deadline approaching and Blanche’s DOJ struggling internally over a response to Judge Williams’ order, Trump’s lawyers filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Believing that she had no choice, Judge Williams entered an order dismissing the case. The court observed that “the Notice [of dismissal] does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement,” and therefore “there is no settlement of record.”
But unbeknownst to Judge Williams, there was a settlement agreement—also dated May 18. In exchange for dismissing his frivolous case, Trump’s Justice Department would create a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”
May 19: Another element of the settlement agreement emerged. It gained less attention but was far more important to Trump. Without fanfare, the Justice Department revealed an addendum that contained an extraordinary release in favor of Trump and “related or affiliated individuals or parties…” from any matters “currently pending or that could be pending..." before the IRS or other federal government agencies or departments.
The IRS has been a recurring thorn in Trump’s side. In 2022, two of his organizations were found guilty of tax fraud and falsifying business records. The New York Times estimated that the addendum's release covered audits that could have cost Trump more than $100 million on just one of his properties.
When asked who came up with the terms for the settlement, Blanche denied that he had a role: “The president has outside counsel, and their counsel, the Department of Justice, not me.”
Except Blanche—and only Blanche—signed the addendum sealing the deal.
May 29: Judge Williams reacted to a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges urging her to reopen Trump’s previously dismissed case. The court concluded that it had been presented with “grievous allegations that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that ‘was collusive from the start’ and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement.” She cited allegations that the IRS did not “‘even try[] to defend against Plaintiffs’ claims’ despite their active opposition to nearly identical claims in other litigation” and that “Plaintiffs’ claims were ‘clearly untimely’ and therefore untenable.”
Judge Williams ordered Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department to address allegations that they had: 1) filed a collusive suit; 2) premised the earlier dismissal notice on deception; and 3) made the court a victim of fraud.
Footnote two of the court's order focused on Blanche:
This addendum, as the non-party movants point out, may be in conflict with internal Department of Justice policies that require the Department to only enter into compromises that are "specifically limited to the immediate subject matter of the claim which was in fact compromised." The addendum was signed only by the Acting Attorney General [Todd Blanche]. (Emphasis supplied)
Blanche’s Problems Grow
Apart from Blanche’s conflict of interest problem, under DOJ policy dating to 1934, the attorney general doesn’t even have the legal authority to stop civil tax audits. And after the revelations of President Richard Nixon’s abuse of the IRS, it has been “unlawful for the President and any employee of the Executive Office of the President, among other officials, to directly or indirectly request that the IRS terminate any ongoing audit or investigation of any particular taxpayer.” (Emphasis in original)
If Judge Williams concludes that Trump’s lawyers or Justice Department attorneys deceived her in connection with the original dismissal of the case, even voiding the settlement in its entirety won’t end the matter. The consequences of a lawyer misleading the court survive the case in which it occurs, and those consequences can be profound.
The addendum gives Trump a stunning victory. And Todd Blanche—who still operates as if he were Trump’s personal attorney—now has stunning legal problems of his own.
It’s a classic Trump outcome: Trump wins; his loyalist loses.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy