Sixteen questions for Senators to prioritize during Ongoing Todd Blanche AG Confirmation Hearing
Updated: Jul 23
Biazzo Law, PLLC
July 15, 2026
1. The Attorney General’s client
“Mr. Blanche, do you agree that, as Attorney General, your client would be the United States and that your oath would run to the Constitution and laws—not to the President personally? If the President directed you to take an action you concluded was unlawful, would you refuse, document the request, and report it to the appropriate oversight authorities?”
Follow-up: “Would you resign rather than execute an unlawful presidential directive—yes or no?”
2. Former-client conflicts and recusals
“DOJ’s own biography states that you represented President Trump in three criminal cases. Please identify every pending or anticipated matter involving President Trump, his family, his businesses, his former co-defendants, or his former attorneys from which you are recused. Will you provide the Committee every written ethics and recusal opinion governing your participation?”
Follow-up: “Are you presently participating in any matter in which President Trump’s personal, business, tax, litigation, or financial interests are directly implicated?”
3. White House control over criminal cases
“Will you prohibit the President, White House staff, political advisers, and outside political organizations from directing DOJ to investigate a person, charge a person, dismiss a case, issue a subpoena, or decline prosecution?”
Follow-up: “Will you maintain and produce a log of all case-specific contacts between the White House and DOJ leadership?”
4. Compliance with court orders
“Will you commit that DOJ and every agency represented by DOJ will comply with every binding court order unless and until that order is stayed, modified, or reversed—even when the President or you believe the court is wrong?”
Follow-up: “Do you agree that disagreement with an order is addressed through appeal, not unilateral noncompliance?”
5. Abrego Garcia, due process, and foreign custody
“Do you agree that the Executive Branch may not remove a person to foreign custody in violation of an existing withholding-of-removal order and then rely on that foreign custody to frustrate Article III review or an effective judicial remedy?”
Follow-up: “Will you direct an independent review of every DOJ and DHS decision associated with Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s removal, the Government’s response to the return orders, and the subsequent prosecution?”
6. Vindictive prosecution
A Tennessee federal court dismissed the Abrego Garcia indictment after concluding that the Government failed to rebut a presumption that the prosecution would not have been brought but for his successful challenge to his removal.
“Who at Main Justice reviewed or approved the Abrego Garcia prosecution, what information did that official receive about the preceding civil litigation, and has OPR or the Inspector General opened an investigation?”
Follow-up: “Because senior DOJ officials may be witnesses, will you support review by an official or outside counsel free from conflicts?”
7. Legal authority for the Anti-Weaponization Fund
“Identify the precise statute that authorizes the Executive Branch to use a settlement to capitalize a $1.776 billion compensation program for unidentified persons whose claims have not yet been submitted, evaluated, compromised, adjudicated, or accepted.”
Follow-up: “Do 28 U.S.C. §§ 2414, 2672, and 2677 authorize only the compromise of claims, or do you contend that they also create an independent appropriation for a future-claimant program?”
8. Anti-Weaponization Fund records and suspension
“Will you provide the Committee, GAO, and the relevant Inspectors General the complete settlement agreement, claimant schedule, payment calculations, Treasury certifications, Judgment Fund submissions, legal opinions, recusal determinations, and communications with the White House?”
Follow-up: “Will you suspend any transfer, obligation, award, or distribution until Congress and the courts have completed their review?”
9. Broadview Six and prosecutorial candor
“Who approved the redactions presented to the court in the Broadview Six matter, when did Main Justice learn of the underlying grand-jury issues, and what disciplinary or corrective review has occurred?”
Follow-up: “Will DOJ cooperate with any court-appointed special counsel and waive institutional resistance to narrowly tailored post-dismissal discovery?”
10. ICE deadly force, body cameras, and independent evidence
Current accounts of the fatal Houston ICE shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo remain disputed. DHS’s self-defense account has been challenged by witnesses and family members; reports also state that the agents lacked body-worn cameras and that local prosecutors initially experienced difficulty obtaining federal evidence and agent identities.
“Will you require body-worn cameras for all operational ICE personnel, immediate preservation of all evidence, prompt disclosure of involved agents’ identities to authorized investigators, and meaningful cooperation with state and local use-of-force investigations?”
Follow-up: “Will you commit that a federal agency will not investigate its own deadly-force incident to the exclusion of an independent reviewer?”
11. National Guard deployment and Posse Comitatus
“In light of Trump v. Illinois, will you commit that DOJ will not defend federalization or deployment of National Guard personnel under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) unless the Government first identifies a lawful authority for military execution of the laws, a valid Posse Comitatus exception, and evidence that the regular military is unable to perform that lawful function?”
Follow-up: “Will you provide Congress the complete OLC and DOJ analysis before any comparable deployment?”
12. Birthright citizenship after Trump v. Barbara
“Will you state unequivocally that DOJ accepts Trump v. Barbara, that Executive Order 14160 may not be enforced to deny citizenship to children born here based on their parents’ temporary or unlawful presence, and that no agency may recreate the rejected domicile test under a different label?”
Follow-up: “What written implementation instructions have you issued, and will you provide them to the Committee?”
13. Election law after Watson
“Will DOJ accept that federal Election Day statutes regulate when ballots are cast, not impose an Election Day receipt deadline Congress never enacted, and will DOJ withdraw or revise any contrary litigation position, guidance, or executive-branch directive?”
Follow-up: “Will you apply the same rule regardless of which political party is expected to benefit?”
14. Second Amendment enforcement after Hemani
“What review has DOJ begun of pending prosecutions, appeals, plea agreements, and convictions under § 922(g)(3) that rest solely on a person’s marijuana use while sober and without an individualized showing of dangerousness?”
Follow-up: “Will DOJ distinguish possession while actively intoxicated or dangerous from an indefinite firearm disability based only on status?”
15. War powers
“Will you advise the President that sustained hostilities require congressional authorization unless the United States is responding to a genuine and immediate attack? What specific statutory and constitutional authorities did DOJ identify for the military actions involving Iran and Venezuela discussed in the attached materials?”
Follow-up: “Will you provide the relevant OLC opinions and War Powers Resolution reports to Congress, including classified versions where necessary?”
16. Outstanding congressional oversight
“Did DOJ provide complete responses by the Committee’s July 8 deadline to every request identified in the July 1 letter? If not, identify each outstanding request, why it remains unanswered, and the date on which the Committee will receive a complete response.”
Follow-up: “Will you agree that the Committee should receive those records before voting on your nomination?”
Additional questions for the hearing record
A. DOJ independence, ethics, and institutional integrity
17.
“Will you prohibit political-affiliation tests, personal-loyalty tests, and reviews of protected speech when hiring, firing, promoting, transferring, or disciplining career DOJ and FBI employees?”
18.
“What objective standard will govern the removal or involuntary reassignment of a career prosecutor who previously investigated or prosecuted the President, a presidential ally, or a member of the opposing party?”
19.
“Will you preserve the independence, staffing, records, and jurisdiction of the Office of Professional Responsibility, Office of Inspector General, Departmental Ethics Office, and Public Integrity Section?”
20.
“Will you commit that no whistleblower will be investigated, reassigned, stripped of a clearance, or terminated for making a lawful disclosure to Congress or an Inspector General?”
21.
“Will DOJ investigate a Senator, Representative, journalist, attorney, protester, or private citizen for constitutionally protected criticism of the President or for accurately describing federal law?”
22.
“When DOJ withholds material from Congress, will you provide a document-by-document privilege log identifying the author, recipient, date, subject, specific privilege, and legal basis rather than invoking generalized confidentiality?”
B. The Anti-Weaponization Fund and constitutional control of public money
23.
“Is the $1.776 billion amount a payment of finally resolved liabilities to identified claimants, or is it seed capital for a facility that will decide future claims after receiving the money?”
24.
“For every person or entity potentially eligible to receive money, identify the legal claim, date of accrual, administrative presentment, amount demanded, evidence of injury, Government evaluation, compromise amount, and official who approved the compromise.”
25.
“What qualifying final judgment, award, or compromise settlement supports the proposed payment under 31 U.S.C. § 1304, and how did Treasury determine that payment was not otherwise provided for?”
26.
“Explain how the proposed fund complies with the Purpose Statute, 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a); the advance-payment restriction, § 3324; public-money custody and deposit requirements, § 3302; documentary-support requirements, § 1501; and the Antideficiency Act, § 1341.”
27.
“Did the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service issue a written certification or approval? Who made the payment request, who reviewed it, and who signed it?”
28.
“Who would administer eligibility decisions, what evidentiary rules would apply, would decisions be public, what appeal or judicial-review mechanism would exist, and where would any unspent balance go?”
29.
“Does any settlement term restrict, discourage, or preclude the IRS from auditing President Trump, members of his family, related businesses, or prior tax years? If so, identify the legal authority allowing civil litigation to limit future statutory tax-enforcement duties.”
30.
“Will you agree that any knowingly false settlement representation, claim submission, Treasury certification, or accounting record should be referred to an independent investigator, without prejudging whether a criminal violation occurred?”
C. Due process, removal proceedings, retaliation, and prosecutorial conduct
31.
“What database and supervisory controls now prevent ICE or DHS from removing a person to a country covered by an existing withholding or protection order?”
32.
“Will DOJ require meaningful notice, access to counsel, and a practical opportunity to seek judicial review before removal when a person asserts an existing court or agency protection?”
33.
“May the Executive transfer a person to a foreign prison or foreign sovereign in order to diminish U.S. judicial jurisdiction, complicate habeas review, or make an effective remedy practically impossible?”
34.
“Describe your personal involvement, if any, in litigation strategy, settlement discussions, charging decisions, public statements, or communications with the White House concerning Abrego Garcia.”
35.
“Will DOJ require a written, supervisory vindictive-prosecution review whenever criminal charges follow closely after a person successfully sues the Government, obtains an injunction, exposes official misconduct, or exercises another protected right?”
36.
“In the Broadview Six matter, did anyone at Main Justice or the White House communicate with prosecutors about the selection of defendants, use of 18 U.S.C. § 372, grand-jury presentation, redactions, dismissal, or post-dismissal accountability?”
37.
“In any investigation involving former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, what criminal predicate was documented before subpoenas issued, who approved them, and what safeguards will prevent grand-jury process from being used to pressure an independent official over monetary policy?”
The linked Powell analysis states that a court quashed subpoenas after finding an improper dominant purpose. That should be tested through the actual record and the nominee’s explanation.
D. ICE use of force, transparency, and cooperation with state authorities
38.
“By what date will every ICE field office and every agent participating in an enforcement operation have an operational body-worn camera, and what discipline will apply when an agent unjustifiably fails to activate it?”
39.
“Will operational agents be required to display visible agency identification and identify themselves audibly before attempting a vehicle stop, particularly when agents use plain clothes or unmarked vehicles?”
40.
“What is DOJ’s standard for treating a moving vehicle as deadly force, and does it require agents to avoid intentionally positioning themselves in a vehicle’s path when safe alternatives are available?”
41.
“Will DOJ require immediate preservation of body-camera footage, surveillance video, photographs, firearms, shell casings, vehicle data, GPS data, radio traffic, text messages, 911 calls, medical records, and agent assignments after every federal use of deadly force?”
42.
“Will DOJ and DHS decide state requests for evidence under published, case-specific standards rather than impose a categorical policy of noncooperation?”
The Minnesota analysis raises precisely this issue: whether federal agencies may withhold evidence needed by a state investigating possible crimes within its borders without making reasoned, request-specific decisions.
43.
“When a federal agent kills or seriously injures a civilian, will you support an investigator outside the agent’s operational chain of command and a public report explaining the facts, applicable policy, and disciplinary decision, subject only to legitimate privacy or investigative redactions?”
E. National Guard deployments, the Insurrection Act, and domestic military power
44.
“Do you accept the Supreme Court’s preliminary interpretation that ‘regular forces’ in § 12406(3) likely means the regular military rather than ordinary civilian law-enforcement officers?”
45.
“Before invoking § 12406(3), must the President first identify the statute or constitutional provision allowing the regular military to execute the particular civil laws at issue?”
46.
“What authority permits the President to federalize one State’s Guard and deploy it into another State over the receiving governor’s objection, and what limits prevent that power from becoming a tool of political coercion?”
47.
“What objective facts distinguish an ‘insurrection’ or ‘rebellion’ from protected protest, civil disobedience, isolated violence, vandalism, or ordinary breaches of the peace?”
48.
“Will you require compliance with the Insurrection Act’s proclamation requirement and documented consultation with governors, local officials, congressional leaders, and military legal advisers before domestic troop deployment?”
49.
“Will DOJ provide the Committee all OLC opinions, factual assessments, intelligence summaries, deployment orders, rules for the use of force, and after-action reports concerning any proposed domestic military operation, while protecting legitimate classified information through appropriate congressional procedures?”
F. Compliance with Barbara, Watson, and Hemani
50.
“What specific guidance has DOJ issued to DHS, State, Social Security, and other agencies implementing Trump v. Barbara, and has every inconsistent directive associated with Executive Order 14160 been rescinded?”
51.
“If any person was denied a passport, Social Security record, citizenship document, benefit, or status because of the rejected parental-status theory, what process will identify and remedy that denial?”
52.
“Do you agree that an Executive Order may advocate a legal position but cannot itself amend the Constitution, overrule the Supreme Court, or substitute executive disagreement for Article V’s amendment process?”
53.
“Following Watson, will DOJ withdraw any claim that federal law imposes a nationwide ballot-receipt deadline, and will election-monitor deployments and voter-roll demands be governed by neutral, publicly available criteria?”
54.
“Following Hemani, will DOJ identify every pending § 922(g)(3) matter in which marijuana use is the sole asserted basis for disability and direct prosecutors to reassess charges, plea positions, appeals, and collateral consequences?”
55.
“Will DOJ’s Second Amendment Section apply constitutional doctrine neutrally—including for politically unpopular defendants—and distinguish individualized dangerous conduct from categorical judgments that a class of people is unworthy to exercise a constitutional right?”
G. War powers and overseas operations
56.
“For U.S. military action against Iran, did DOJ rely on a declaration of war, a current authorization for use of military force, another statute, or Article II alone? Identify the precise authority.”
57.
“When were congressional leaders notified, when was the War Powers Resolution report submitted, when did the statutory clock begin, and what is DOJ’s position on the date by which additional authorization would be required?”
58.
“What facts established an actual or imminent attack, what was the mission’s geographic and temporal limit, and what prevents a limited defensive rationale from becoming an open-ended war?”
59.
“For any operation to capture or seize a foreign head of state on foreign territory, what domestic criminal, military, and foreign-relations authority applies; did the territorial state consent; and how did DOJ analyze head-of-state immunity, sovereignty, the U.N. Charter, and other international obligations?”
60.
“Will you provide the House and Senate Judiciary, Armed Services, Intelligence, and Foreign Relations Committees the operative OLC opinions and tell the President that DOJ will not defend sustained offensive hostilities undertaken without constitutionally sufficient congressional authorization?”
Why These Questions Matter
The Attorney General of the United States is not the President’s personal lawyer.
The Attorney General’s client is the United States.
The Attorney General’s oath runs to the Constitution, the laws, and the public interest — not to any President, political party, campaign, donor, former client, or faction.
That principle is the foundation of these proposed questions for Senators to ask Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche.
These questions are not designed to score partisan points. They are designed to test whether the nominee will protect the independence of the Department of Justice, obey court orders, preserve evidence, cooperate with lawful oversight, safeguard taxpayer funds, respect due process, and apply constitutional rules consistently regardless of politics.
That is government oversight.
That is constitutional accountability.
That is the rule of law.
A Nonpartisan Government Oversight Framework
Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program is nonpartisan.
Learn more here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/biazzolawgovernmentoversight
The program focuses on lawful government oversight, FOIA litigation, constitutional accountability, public education, federal civil litigation, appellate strategy, and the separation of powers.
The purpose is not to defend one political party or attack another.
The purpose is to ask whether the Government is acting within the Constitution.
That same standard should govern every administration.
If a Republican administration violates due process, Congress should ask hard questions.
If a Democratic administration violates due process, Congress should ask hard questions.
If prosecutors abuse grand-jury process, Congress should ask hard questions.
If immigration agents use deadly force, Congress should ask hard questions.
If public money is used without lawful authority, Congress should ask hard questions.
If the Executive Branch ignores court orders, Congress should ask hard questions.
If the Department of Justice becomes an instrument of personal loyalty rather than law, Congress should ask hard questions.
These questions are grounded in that principle.
The Core Issue: Who Is the Attorney General’s Client?
The most important question is also the simplest:
Who is the Attorney General’s client?
The correct answer should be clear.
The Attorney General serves the United States, not the President personally.
That distinction matters because the Department of Justice has extraordinary power:
the power to investigate;
the power to subpoena;
the power to charge;
the power to dismiss charges;
the power to settle cases;
the power to defend federal agencies;
the power to interpret federal law;
the power to represent the United States in court;
the power to affect liberty, property, reputation, immigration status, and even life.
That power must be exercised for lawful public purposes.
It must not be used for personal protection, retaliation, political reward, political punishment, private financial benefit, or public-relations theater.
Why Former-Client Conflicts Matter
Todd Blanche’s prior representation of President Trump raises legitimate oversight questions.
Former-client relationships do not automatically disqualify an Attorney General nominee.
Lawyers move between private practice and public service.
But former-client conflicts must be disclosed, managed, and honored.
The Senate should ask for written ethics opinions, recusal determinations, and clear explanations of what matters the nominee will not touch.
That is especially important where matters may involve:
President Trump personally;
members of the Trump family;
Trump businesses;
tax matters;
settlements involving Trump-related claims;
former co-defendants;
former Trump attorneys;
January 6-related matters;
Mar-a-Lago-related matters;
Anti-Weaponization Fund issues;
any matter in which the nominee may be a witness.
Public trust requires more than verbal assurances.
It requires written guardrails.
DOJ Independence and White House Contacts
The Senate should also ask whether the nominee will maintain a clear line between the White House and criminal enforcement.
Presidents may set broad law-enforcement priorities.
But criminal investigations and charging decisions must not be directed by political advisers, campaign interests, outside political groups, or personal grievances.
The public deserves to know whether DOJ will maintain a log of case-specific contacts between the White House and DOJ leadership.
That log should identify:
who contacted whom;
the date;
the subject matter;
whether the communication concerned a specific person, company, investigation, subpoena, indictment, plea, dismissal, settlement, or declination;
whether ethics officials reviewed the contact.
A written contact policy would protect the nominee, the Department, the White House, criminal defendants, witnesses, and the public.
Court Orders Are Not Optional
One of the most important oversight commitments is simple:
DOJ and every agency represented by DOJ must comply with binding court orders unless and until those orders are stayed, modified, or reversed.
Disagreeing with a federal judge is allowed.
Appealing a court order is allowed.
Seeking a stay is allowed.
Ignoring an order is not.
That principle matters in immigration cases, criminal cases, injunctions, FOIA cases, agency cases, and constitutional litigation.
The Senate should ask the nominee whether he agrees that disagreement with a court order must be addressed through lawful appellate process, not unilateral noncompliance.
Due Process and Removal to Foreign Custody
Several questions focus on due process in removal cases.
The Executive Branch may not remove a person in violation of an existing protection order and then rely on the person’s foreign custody to frustrate judicial review.
That principle should be noncontroversial.
Due process requires meaningful notice, access to counsel, and a practical opportunity to seek judicial review before removal when a person asserts an existing court or agency protection.
The Senate should ask whether DOJ will require written controls to prevent unlawful removals and whether independent review will occur when removal errors are alleged.
This matters because the Constitution protects “persons,” not only citizens.
The Anti-Weaponization Fund and Public Money
The proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund raises one of the most important public-money questions before Congress.
The key question is whether the Executive Branch has statutory authority to use settlement mechanisms or the Judgment Fund to capitalize a $1.776 billion compensation program for unidentified future claimants whose claims have not yet been submitted, evaluated, compromised, adjudicated, or accepted.
That question is not partisan.
It is constitutional.
Congress controls appropriations.
The Executive Branch may settle claims within legal limits.
But settlement authority is not the same thing as a blank-check appropriation for future claims.
Senators should ask for:
the complete settlement agreement;
claimant schedules;
payment calculations;
Treasury certifications;
Judgment Fund submissions;
legal opinions;
recusal determinations;
communications with the White House;
communications with DOJ leadership;
communications with Treasury;
communications with IRS;
any documents identifying potential beneficiaries.
The public deserves to know whether taxpayer money was lawfully obligated, whether any payment was suspended, and whether any part of the arrangement remains in effect.
Prosecutorial Candor and the Broadview Six
The proposed questions also address prosecutorial candor.
When a federal judge raises concerns about grand-jury practice, redactions, disclosures, or the accuracy of government representations, DOJ should respond with transparency.
The Senate should ask who approved redactions, when Main Justice learned of the underlying issue, and what disciplinary or corrective review occurred.
This matters because prosecutors have a special duty.
Their role is not simply to win.
Their role is to seek justice.
When prosecutors are accused of misleading a court, hiding material information, or using grand-jury process improperly, the public needs assurance that DOJ’s internal oversight mechanisms are independent and real.
ICE Deadly Force and Evidence Preservation
The fatal Houston ICE shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo raises another government oversight issue.
When federal officers use deadly force, the investigation must be transparent, evidence-based, and independent.
The Senate should ask whether DOJ will require:
body-worn cameras for operational ICE personnel;
visible agency identification during enforcement actions;
audible identification before stops where feasible;
immediate preservation of video, firearms evidence, shell casings, vehicle data, radio traffic, GPS data, messages, reports, and witness statements;
prompt disclosure of involved agents’ identities to authorized investigators;
meaningful cooperation with state and local use-of-force investigations;
investigation by an independent reviewer outside the operational chain of command.
This is not anti-law-enforcement.
It is pro-Constitution.
Federal officers may defend themselves when faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. But when the Government uses deadly force, the public deserves evidence, not assumptions.
National Guard Deployment and Domestic Military Power
The questions also address domestic military deployment.
The use of military or National Guard forces in domestic law-enforcement contexts raises serious constitutional, statutory, and federalism concerns.
Senators should ask the nominee whether DOJ will identify:
the precise statutory authority for any deployment;
the lawful function the regular military is supposedly unable to perform;
any Posse Comitatus exception;
the factual basis for federalization;
the role of the receiving state’s governor;
rules for the use of force;
OLC opinions;
deployment orders;
after-action reports.
Domestic military power must not become a tool of political coercion.
The line between protected protest, civil disorder, insurrection, rebellion, and ordinary law enforcement must be defined by law and evidence — not political preference.
Compliance With Supreme Court Decisions
The questions also ask whether DOJ will comply with recent Supreme Court rulings.
That includes issues involving:
birthright citizenship;
election law;
Second Amendment enforcement;
status-based firearm disabilities;
ballot casting versus ballot receipt;
executive orders that conflict with constitutional rules.
The common principle is simple:
DOJ may advocate legal positions.
But once the Supreme Court decides a constitutional question, executive agencies must comply.
An Executive Order cannot amend the Constitution.
An agency cannot recreate a rejected legal theory under a different label.
And DOJ should apply constitutional doctrine neutrally, including for politically unpopular defendants.
War Powers and Overseas Operations
The war-powers questions are also essential.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and control appropriations. The President has Article II authority as Commander in Chief, but that authority is not unlimited.
Senators should ask whether DOJ will identify the precise statutory or constitutional authority for military action, especially where operations involve sustained hostilities, foreign sovereign territory, or efforts to capture or target foreign officials.
DOJ should provide OLC opinions and War Powers Resolution reports to the appropriate congressional committees, including classified versions where necessary.
War powers should not depend on secret law.
What Senators Should Demand in Writing
Oral answers are important.
Written commitments are better.
Senators should request:
ethics agreements;
recusal memoranda;
White House contact policies;
case-specific contact logs;
OLC opinions;
litigation-position memoranda;
settlement authority memoranda;
Judgment Fund submissions;
Treasury certifications;
use-of-force policies;
body-camera implementation records;
ICE deadly-force evidence-preservation policies;
grand-jury misconduct review documents;
OPR and Inspector General referral records;
War Powers Resolution reports;
agency implementation instructions following Supreme Court decisions;
document-by-document privilege logs for withheld materials.
A confirmation hearing should not end with vague promises.
It should create a record.
Why This Matters for the Public
Attorney General confirmation hearings are not ordinary political events.
They test whether the person nominated to lead the Department of Justice will defend the Constitution when doing so is inconvenient.
The public has a right to know whether the nominee will:
refuse unlawful directives;
protect DOJ independence;
recuse from former-client matters;
comply with court orders;
avoid retaliation prosecutions;
protect due process;
safeguard public money;
preserve evidence after federal shootings;
cooperate with state and local investigations;
respect Congress’s war powers;
apply Supreme Court decisions faithfully;
answer congressional oversight requests fully.
The Attorney General holds one of the most powerful legal offices in the country.
That office must be accountable to law.
Why This Matters in Florida, North Carolina, Washington, D.C., and Nationwide
Although the hearing takes place in Washington, D.C., the consequences are national.
DOJ decisions affect people and businesses in Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, Tennessee, Virginia, and every other state.
DOJ policies shape:
federal criminal prosecutions;
civil-rights enforcement;
immigration litigation;
federal agency defense;
FOIA compliance;
public-records access;
federal appeals;
Supreme Court litigation;
war-powers advice;
public-money settlements;
law-enforcement accountability.
Biazzo Law monitors these issues because federal power affects citizens, businesses, litigants, public officials, and constitutional rights nationwide.
Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program
Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program exists to promote constitutional accountability, transparency, and public education.
The program is nonpartisan.
It uses legal tools — including FOIA, public-records requests, litigation analysis, appellate strategy, amicus briefing, public legal education, and constitutional commentary — to examine whether government actors are following the law.
The program does not ask whether a government action helps one political side.
It asks whether the action is lawful.
That distinction matters.
Government oversight is not anti-government.
Government oversight is pro-Constitution.
A functioning republic requires public confidence that prosecutors, agencies, courts, and public officials act within legal limits.
That is why these questions matter.
Key Takeaway
Senators should ask Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche direct, specific, nonpartisan questions about DOJ independence, former-client conflicts, court-order compliance, due process, public money, prosecutorial candor, ICE deadly force, domestic military deployment, Supreme Court compliance, war powers, and congressional oversight.
The issue is not whether Senators support or oppose a particular President.
The issue is whether the next Attorney General will serve the United States, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
That is a question every Senator should be willing to ask.
And it is a question every Attorney General nominee should be willing to answer.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why should Senators ask Todd Blanche about DOJ independence?
Because the Attorney General must serve the United States and the Constitution, not the President personally. Senators should ask whether the nominee will refuse unlawful directives and prevent political interference in specific investigations or prosecutions.
Why do former-client conflicts matter?
Todd Blanche previously represented President Trump. That does not automatically disqualify him, but it creates legitimate questions about recusals, ethics opinions, and whether he will participate in matters involving the President, his family, businesses, former co-defendants, former attorneys, or personal financial interests.
Why should Senators ask about the Anti-Weaponization Fund?
The Anti-Weaponization Fund raises serious questions about public money, settlement authority, the Judgment Fund, congressional appropriations, ethics, and whether taxpayer funds can be used to compensate unidentified future claimants through an executive-controlled process.
Why should Senators ask about court orders?
The Department of Justice must comply with binding court orders unless those orders are stayed, modified, or reversed. Disagreement with a court order must be addressed through appeal, not unilateral noncompliance.
Why do the questions address ICE deadly force?
When federal agents use deadly force, the public deserves evidence, transparency, independent review, and cooperation with state and local investigators. Body cameras, evidence preservation, and witness protection are essential to public confidence.
Why ask about the Broadview Six?
The Broadview Six matter raises questions about prosecutorial candor, grand-jury practice, redactions, court disclosures, and post-dismissal accountability. DOJ must be able to investigate its own conduct honestly.
Why ask about National Guard deployment and Posse Comitatus?
Domestic military deployment raises major constitutional and federalism issues. Senators should ask whether DOJ will identify lawful authority, Posse Comitatus exceptions, OLC analysis, and factual findings before defending federalization or deployment.
Why ask about Supreme Court compliance?
DOJ must follow Supreme Court rulings even when the Executive Branch disagrees. Agencies should not recreate rejected legal theories under new labels.
Why ask about war powers?
Military action must have a lawful basis. Senators should ask what Article II, statutory, or congressional authorization supports sustained hostilities and whether DOJ will provide OLC opinions and War Powers Resolution reports.
Is this a partisan set of questions?
No. These questions are about constitutional accountability. They should be asked of any Attorney General nominee from any administration.
How does this connect to Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program?
Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program focuses on nonpartisan legal oversight of government power, including FOIA, constitutional litigation, public records, appellate issues, civil rights, executive power, and public education.
Government power must be accountable to the Constitution, the courts, Congress, and the public.
Learn more about the Biazzo Law Government Oversight
Comments