Trump formally nominates Todd Blanche as attorney general

Jurisprudence

By

Dahlia Lithwick

Enter your email to receive alerts for this author.

Sign in or create an account to better manage your email preferences.

Unsubscribe from email alerts

Are you sure you want to unsubscribe from email alerts for Dahlia Lithwick ?

June 09, 2026 3:09 PM

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Brendan Simialowski/AFP via Getty Images.

It now seems as if acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is prepared to do pretty much anything for Donald Trump, having carried that ethos from his previous job as Trump’s personal attorney into his current position heading up the Department of Justice. Oddly enough, his history of absolute fealty to the person of this president-slash-emperor could prove a hindrance in his quest to be confirmed as the next attorney general of the United States. For at least some Senate Republicans, a scintilla of independence may still be a job requirement. On this week’s Amicus podcast , Dahlia Lithwick interviewed veteran federal prosecutor and MS NOW legal analyst Andrew Weissmann. Weissmann served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller’s special counsel’s office from 2017–19 and as chief of the Fraud Section at the DOJ from 2015–19. His new book, Liar’s Kingdom: How to Stop Trump’s Deceit and Save America , came out three weeks ago and became an instant New York Times bestseller. Part of their conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, appears below.

Dahlia Lithwick: Donald Trump announced at a private dinner last Wednesday that Todd Blanche will be the next attorney general, so no more acting AG. This is a position Blanche has been serving in for two months, since Pam Bondi left the building. We’ve got two months of data about the kind of AG he might be. What have we learned, and what does it change in terms of his confirmation battle?

Andrew Weissmann: I’ve been thinking about what that confirmation battle might look like, because we have not just the two months of data where Blanche has been in control of the Department of Justice, but, before that, when he was the right hand to Bondi and, according to her, also the principal person dealing with the Epstein files.

There are two stories there. There’s a story about corruption, about what he’s willing to do, the complicity he is willing to engage in for the president. The other is a question of competence. Here is somebody who has made a series of serious missteps. The slush fund is just the latest. Let’s not forget that they announced they’re doing this $2 billion fictitious settlement , then, after they get pushback and the judge overseeing the case says she wants to hear from them—which, by the way, is still pending—about why this is not fraud upon the court, they essentially say, “Never mind!” Whatever you could say about Bill Barr and what he was willing to do, he was extraordinarily smart, and he played chess, not checkers.

I think, with Blanche, there’s such an array of things to ask him about. The only question is whether senators will be effective in asking those questions. But if they get their act together, this could be a way to highlight how much the rule of law has been undermined in the Trump administration.

It’s interesting, because when I think back to Barr, I think of somebody who was willing to give Trump, what, 85, 90 percent of what he wanted? Bondi was willing to give him 92 percent of what he wanted. That wasn’t enough. Now we’ve got Blanche, who, I don’t know if it’s 98, 99, or 100 percent. Thus far, we’ve thought of that level of “Whatever the boss wants” deference to the president as cost free. The question is, does there become some meaningful cost for Republican senators? Some of them squawked about the slush fund in ways that took me by surprise. Is there some cost to being the guy who says yes to absolutely everything? The fund came out of the DOJ. Blanche was a staunch advocate—and the fund reportedly blindsided even folks at the White House, who also give Trump 100 percent of what he wants.

Yet last week we heard Blanche tell Congress the fund is off the table but also refuse to put that in writing. Then, Republican senators blocked efforts to legally ban the fund in last Thursday’s vote-orama. Is this over?

Let me just give the strict legal answer, and maybe we can pan out from there. The slush fund was created to settle a lawsuit where Trump brought a civil case for $10 billion. Even Trump said, when he brought the original case, that it was odd, because he’s both the plaintiff and the defendant. Clearly, I think Congress should pass a law that says: You know what? When you’re president of the United States, you cannot bring a civil suit against an agency you control. If you have a civil claim, wait till you’re no longer president. That seems like an obvious, easy fix, and Congress has that power. That’s what Congress should be doing. It shouldn’t be thinking in this small-ball way about passing a law that the slush fund can’t exist. No.…