Open Letter to the U.S. Senate: Why Biazzo Law Opposes Todd Blanche's Attorney General Nomination

August 5, 2026

The Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program is publishing an open letter urging every member of the United States Senate to vote against confirming Todd Blanche as Attorney General of the United States.

Open Letter:

Biazzo Law Government Oversight Opposition to Blanche AG Confirmation .pdf

Download PDF • 141KB

Why Is Biazzo Law Asking the Senate to Vote No?

Biazzo Law's position is based on institutional concerns, not party politics. The Attorney General controls federal prosecutions, directs the Department of Justice, defends the United States in court, and advises the Executive Branch about the law. The public record cited in the open letter raises serious questions about whether Mr. Blanche has maintained the independence, candor, and separation from presidential personal interests that this office requires.

The letter does not argue that Mr. Blanche lacks legal experience. It recognizes his prior service, support from law-enforcement organizations and former Department officials, and the Department's reported public-safety results. It concludes that those qualifications do not overcome the documented concerns about how legal authority has been exercised during his service as Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General.

What Is the Senate Deciding?

The Constitution gives the Senate an independent advice-and-consent role. The Senate is not deciding whether the President may pursue lawful policy or select an Attorney General who shares the Administration's legal philosophy. It is deciding whether this nominee should receive the Senate's approval to lead the Department of Justice on a permanent basis.

Mr. Blanche currently serves as Acting Attorney General while also serving as the 40th Deputy Attorney General. President Donald J. Trump nominated him to become Attorney General. On August 4, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the nomination, PN1078, by a 12-10 vote. The nomination therefore presents the full Senate with a direct institutional question: does the existing public record demonstrate the judgment and independence required of the Nation's chief law-enforcement officer?

Why the Attorney General's Independence Matters

The Attorney General is part of the Executive Branch and may lawfully advance a President's policy agenda. But the Attorney General is not the President's private lawyer. The office represents the United States, supervises federal prosecutors, and must distinguish between the public interest and an officeholder's personal or political interests.

That distinction protects everyone. A Department of Justice trusted to follow neutral rules can prosecute crime, defend federal agencies, protect constitutional rights, and make credible representations to courts. A Department perceived as rewarding allies or punishing opponents loses the institutional trust it needs to perform those functions.

1. What Happened in Trump v. IRS?

In Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, President Trump and related plaintiffs sued the IRS and the Treasury Department in the President's personal capacity. According to the federal court record cited in the open letter, the Department of Justice did not appear or file a defense during the 109 days the case was pending.

After the court raised concerns about its jurisdiction, the plaintiffs dismissed the case. The Department then announced an agreement that included an apology and a proposed $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund. Acting Attorney General Blanche later signed a release involving claims associated with the President, his family, companies, and affiliates.

On July 13, 2026, the district court entered a sanctions order containing serious findings about the litigation and settlement process. The court found that the parties were not genuinely adverse and that the Government had failed to zealously defend the interests of the United States. The court also expressed concern about Mr. Blanche's testimony concerning judicial review and directed that its order be sent to disciplinary authorities where complaints were already pending.

Important limits must be stated. The court did not impose monetary sanctions on Mr. Blanche, and it did not adjudicate the pending disciplinary complaints against him. The open letter relies on what the court actually found; it does not convert a referral or complaint into a final professional-discipline ruling.

Did the August 2 Rescission End the Anti-Weaponization Fund Issue?

It ended the May 18 order as a currently operative order. On August 2, Mr. Blanche formally rescinded that order and declared that it had no force or effect. The Department stated that no commissioners had been appointed, no money had been transferred, no claims process had been created, and no claims had been paid. That corrective action matters and should be credited.

But ending one order is not necessarily the same as permanently resolving the underlying legal and institutional issue. The rescission does not itself amend the settlement agreement or release, expressly disavow authority to create a similar program, contain a permanent non-revival commitment, or purport to bind a confirmed Attorney General or a successor. The Senate testimony incorporated into the rescission reflects that the settlement agreement had not been modified in writing and remained enforceable. Mr. Blanche acknowledged that a plaintiff could attempt an enforcement or breach claim, while maintaining that litigation could not revive the Fund.

The Supreme Court's voluntary-cessation doctrine supplies a useful, limited comparison. In FBI v. Fikre, the Court explained that a governmental defendant does not automatically make a dispute moot merely by stopping challenged conduct after suit; the defendant must show that the conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur. That doctrine does not decide whether the Anti-Weaponization Fund was lawful, and it does not establish that this Fund will return. It explains why rescission alone does not necessarily eliminate every recurrence concern.

Without legislation, a binding judgment, a party-approved amendment, or another durable legal restraint, the same issue or a materially similar proposal could reappear after confirmation. The Senate may therefore consider both the corrective action and the judgment that preceded it.

2. What Does the Abrego Garcia Ruling Show?

In United States v. Abrego Garcia, a federal district court dismissed an indictment after an evidentiary hearing. The court found insufficient evidence of actual vindictiveness. That is important. It nevertheless held that the Government failed to rebut the legal presumption of vindictiveness.

In ordinary language, the court concluded that the objective circumstances created a sufficient appearance of retaliation to require the Government to provide a persuasive, nonretaliatory explanation. The court held that the Government did not meet that burden. Its opinion connected Mr. Blanche's public statements and supervisory chain to the reopened investigation and charging process and concluded that the record reflected an abuse of prosecuting power.

This remains a district-court ruling and may be reviewed on appeal. It is still more than a political accusation or news report: it is a judicial ruling entered after development of an evidentiary record. The open letter argues that the Senate should evaluate that ruling because an Attorney General must prevent retaliatory prosecutions, preserve neutral charging standards, and protect the credibility of career prosecutors.

3. What Is the Presumption of Regularity?

The presumption of regularity is a legal working assumption that public officials have properly performed their duties. It allows judges to rely on Government representations without forcing the Government to re-prove its good faith in every case.

That may sound technical, but it has practical value. Courts often must act quickly on search warrants, detention questions, national-security representations, extradition matters, sanctions, and other time-sensitive requests. The system functions more efficiently when a Government lawyer's factual representations are ordinarily reliable.

The open letter cites rulings and reporting showing judges requiring additional proof, sworn declarations, discovery into Government motives, or disciplinary review. It also includes the Department's response that its attorneys act with integrity, comply with their ethical obligations, and deserve institutional support.

The concern is operational: once ordinary trust erodes, courts must spend more time verifying assertions that previously would have been accepted in the normal course. That produces delay, litigation expense, sanctions disputes, fee proceedings, appeals, and potential liability. It can also divert agents and prosecutors from legitimate public-safety work.

4. Does Mr. Blanche Still Represent President Trump?

Formally, Mr. Blanche says no. His written Senate responses state that he ended his personal representation of President Trump before taking office as Deputy Attorney General, no longer has an attorney-client relationship with the President, took an oath to the Constitution, and is recused from matters in which he represented the President. Those representations should be reported accurately.

The open letter raises a functional concern rather than claiming that a formal attorney-client relationship continues. It asks whether official acts during Mr. Blanche's leadership have continued to resemble the objectives of a private defense strategy: protecting the President's personal interests, vindicating grievances, or targeting perceived adversaries.

That question is especially important because the Attorney General must be able to tell a President no when a proposed action is unlawful, refuse to use prosecutorial authority for personal purposes, and ensure that Department lawyers provide candid advice even when it is unwelcome.

What the Open Letter Does Not Claim

Responsible legal advocacy requires precision. The open letter does not claim:

•       that Mr. Blanche lacks professional experience or significant institutional support;

•       that the Trump v. IRS court imposed monetary sanctions on him;

•       that pending disciplinary complaints have already been decided;

•       that the Abrego Garcia court found sufficient proof of actual vindictiveness;

•       that Mr. Blanche personally directed every challenged Department action cited in the letter;

•       that every disputed ruling is final and immune from appellate review; or

•       that the Supreme Court's voluntary-cessation doctrine itself decides the Anti-Weaponization Fund's legality.

Those limits do not weaken the argument. They identify exactly what the public record does and does not establish.

Why This Matters to People Outside Washington

The Department of Justice possesses some of the Government's most consequential powers. It can investigate, subpoena, search, prosecute, detain, seek forfeiture, defend federal action, and ask courts to rely on sensitive information. Those powers affect people of every political viewpoint.

If prosecutorial decisions appear tied to loyalty or retaliation, the consequences extend beyond one administration. Future officeholders of any party can invoke the same precedents. Taxpayers bear the expense of dismissed cases, sanctions litigation, fee awards, internal investigations, tort claims, and repeated judicial review. Victims, defendants, witnesses, agents, and career lawyers all depend on a system whose rules are applied consistently.

The issue is therefore not whether a person supports or opposes President Trump. The same institutional standard should apply to every President and every Attorney General nominee.

What Is Biazzo Law Asking the Senate to Do?

The open letter asks every Senator to review the complete Trump v. IRS and Abrego Garcia records before a floor vote. It also asks the Senate to seek, to the fullest extent permitted by law:

•       applicable ethics advice and recusal determinations;

•       commitments protecting career prosecutors from political retaliation;

•       protection for the independence of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Department of Justice Inspector General;

•       respect for litigants' access to independent counsel; and

•       a clear boundary between lawful presidential policy and a President's personal interests.

Biazzo Law concludes that the existing public record is sufficient to warrant a no vote on PN1078.

A Nonpartisan Constitutional Standard

Biazzo Law's Government Oversight Program is a nonpartisan constitutional-accountability initiative. Its position is that the Attorney General's first institutional obligation is to the Constitution, federal law, and the interests of the United States - not to any President personally.

A Senator may agree with an administration's policies and still insist on an Attorney General who exercises independent legal judgment. Advice and consent is meaningful only if Senators evaluate the record rather than treating confirmation as automatic.

For those reasons, the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program respectfully urges the Senate to oppose Todd Blanche's confirmation as Attorney General of the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Todd Blanche?

Todd Blanche is the Acting Attorney General of the United States and the 40th Deputy Attorney General. He previously served at the Department of Justice and later worked in private practice, including representing President Donald J. Trump in criminal matters before returning to the Department.

What is PN1078?

PN1078 is the Senate nomination number for Todd Blanche's nomination to serve as Attorney General of the United States.

What does the Attorney General do?

The Attorney General leads the Department of Justice, supervises federal prosecutions, represents the interests of the United States in legal matters, and advises the Executive Branch about federal law.

What was the Anti-Weaponization Fund?

The Anti-Weaponization Fund was a proposed claims process associated with the Trump v. IRS settlement. The May 18 order establishing it was formally rescinded on August 2, 2026. The Department states that no commissioners were appointed, no funds were transferred, no claims process was created, and no claims were paid.

Does rescission mean the Fund issue can never return?

No permanent conclusion follows from rescission alone. The May 18 order is not operative, but the rescission does not itself enact legislation, amend the settlement documents, or bind every future Attorney General. A materially similar proposal could be considered later unless a durable legal restraint prevents it. That is a possibility, not a prediction.

What is vindictive prosecution?

Vindictive prosecution occurs when prosecutorial power is used to punish a person for exercising a protected legal right. In Abrego Garcia, the district court found insufficient evidence of actual vindictiveness but held that the Government failed to rebut a presumption of vindictiveness arising from the objective circumstances.

What is the presumption of regularity?

It is the ordinary assumption that Government officials properly performed their duties. When courts lose confidence in that assumption, the Government may be required to provide additional evidence or sworn assurances, increasing delay and expense.

Is Biazzo Law's position partisan?

No. The open letter states that the same standard should apply to a nominee of any President: the Attorney General must exercise independent judgment, protect the interests of the United States, and use federal law-enforcement power according to law.

What happens next in the nomination process?

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the nomination by a 12-10 vote on August 4, 2026. The nomination may next be considered by the full Senate. The timing and procedure of any floor action are controlled by the Senate.

Selected Sources and Further Reading

•       Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program, Open Letter to All Members of the United States Senate Opposing PN1078 (August 5, 2026), with authorities and record sources.

•       United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Judiciary Committee Advances Todd Blanche's Nomination to be Attorney General (August 4, 2026).

•       United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Nomination of the Honorable Todd Blanche to be Attorney General of the United States (July 15-16, 2026 hearing materials).

•       United States Department of Justice, Meet the Acting Attorney General: Todd Blanche.

•       United States Department of Justice, Order of Rescission and accompanying statement (August 2, 2026).

•       FBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234 (2024).

•       Biazzo Law, Trump v. IRS, the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and the Constitutional Fight Over Government Power.

•       Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program.

About the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program

The Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program is a nonpartisan public-interest initiative focused on constitutional accountability, government transparency, separation of powers, due process, prosecutorial power, and public legal education. The Program uses lawful oversight tools and makes complex legal issues understandable to the public regardless of which party or administration holds power.

This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes. It does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute legal advice concerning any person, matter, or jurisdiction.