Fireworks on Capitol Hill: Acting AG Blanche Faces Congress Over $1.8 Billion “Slush Fund,” Trump Tax Immunity, and Epstein Files
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche faced some of the most combative congressional questioning of the Trump administration’s second term on June 2, 2026, as the House Appropriations Commerce Subcommittee grilled him on the DOJ’s $41.2 billion fiscal year 2027 budget request—but also on a cascade of controversies that have defined his first 16 months in office. In a dramatic and at times chaotic hearing, Blanche publicly confirmed for the first time that the administration is permanently abandoning the $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund”, while simultaneously defending an attorney general order that Democrats say grants the Trump family effective immunity from IRS audits and tax prosecution. Members of both parties clashed with Blanche over a proposed Binance founder pardon that Rep. Glenn Ivey called a “blatant pay-to-pardon scheme,” the condition of Epstein case files, the firing of FBI counterintelligence agents, and the DOJ’s budget proposals to eliminate federal hate crime prevention programs. Assistance from Claude AI.
Participants
| Name | Role | Party/State |
|---|---|---|
| Rep. Harold Rogers | Subcommittee Chairman | R-KY |
| Rep. Ben Cline | Subcommittee Member | R-VA |
| Rep. John Carter | Subcommittee Member (former district judge) | R-TX |
| Rep. Andrew Clyde | Subcommittee Member | R-GA |
| Rep. Riley Moore | Subcommittee Member | R-WV |
| Rep. Dale Strong | Subcommittee Member | R-AL |
| Rep. Mark Alford | Subcommittee Member | R-MO |
| Rep. Jefferson Shreve | Subcommittee Member | R-IN |
| Rep. Tom Cole | Ex Officio (Full Committee Chair) | R-OK |
| Rep. Grace Meng | Ranking Member | D-NY |
| Rep. Joe Morelle | Subcommittee Member | D-NY |
| Rep. Madeleine Dean | Subcommittee Member | D-PA |
| Rep. Glenn Ivey | Subcommittee Member | D-MD |
| Rep. Frank Mrvan | Subcommittee Member | D-IN |
| Rep. Rosa DeLauro | Ex Officio (Full Committee Ranking Member) | D-CT |
| Todd Blanche | Acting Attorney General of the United States | Witness |
Background for General Readers: The House Appropriations Committee controls federal spending. Each year, the Justice Department must come before the relevant subcommittee to justify its budget and answer questions about how it has managed the money Congress already gave it. This “oversight” function is one of Congress’s most important constitutional powers—it’s how elected representatives hold executive branch agencies accountable. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is a former criminal defense attorney who represented President Trump personally before taking the DOJ’s top role. The full attorney general, Pam Bondi, is recovering from an illness; Chairman Rogers extended her well wishes at the start of the hearing.
Opening Volleys: Republicans Praise Progress, Democrats Raise Alarms
Chairman Rogers (R-KY) opened with a dual message: acknowledging DOJ accomplishments on drug cartels and violent crime while pressing Blanche on bureaucratic failures. Rogers specifically called out the Department’s delays in getting appropriated funds out the door, a stalled federal prison project in Leslie County, Kentucky, and a delay in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, which Rogers said was vital to communities battling the opioid crisis. He also noted that responses to questions for the record from two prior DOJ hearings were still outstanding. “While I would have preferred to start the fiscal year 27 cycle differently,” Rogers said, the hearing was “hopefully the start of productive dialogue.”
Ranking Member Grace Meng (D-NY) came in sharply, cataloging what she described as a department that “has greatly damaged” itself over the past 16 months. Her list of concerns included: a DOJ order directing the IRS to avoid auditing the Trump family; the $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund; the hiring of a January 6th defendant as a senior DOJ advisor; the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security facility; the firing of experienced career agents and prosecutors; and what she characterized as the gutting of the Civil Rights Division and hate crime enforcement programs. She also alleged the DOJ had targeted journalists.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT, ex officio) delivered the hearing’s most extended pre-question broadside, reading from the settlement documents on the Weaponization Fund and the separate IRS order on her desk, calling the attorney general a man who had “engaged in what are perhaps the most brazen acts of flagrant corruption I’ve ever seen.” She highlighted that the Save America PAC paid Blanche approximately $10 million between March and December 2024 to represent Trump personally before Blanche took the government job.
⚠️ Fact-Check — Meng’s claim that “hate crimes are at a record high”: The 2024 FBI hate crimes report, released in August 2025, recorded 11,679 hate crime incidents — the second-highest total since the FBI began tracking in 1991, but below the 2023 high of 12,498. However, antisemitic hate crimes did hit a record high in 2024. The blanket “record high” characterization is therefore partially accurate for specific categories but overstated when applied to overall totals. ⚠️ Partially Accurate.
Blanche’s Opening Statement: The FY2027 Budget Request
Blanche presented the administration’s $41.2 billion FY2027 DOJ budget, a 13 percent increase over FY2026, and walked through a set of performance statistics he characterized as historic.
On violent crime, Blanche said federal law enforcement helped drive a 20 percent decrease in the national murder rate in 2025. He said the Department arrested 44,000 violent offenders (double the prior year), and seized over 2,200 kilograms of fentanyl.
⚠️ Fact-Check — Blanche’s “20 percent decrease” murder claim: According to the FBI’s own preliminary “First Look: 2025 Crime Data” report released May 13, 2026, murder and non-negligent manslaughter decreased an estimated 18.1 percent from 2024 to 2025 — the largest single-year decline since 1937. Blanche’s figure of “20 percent” slightly overstates the officially reported number. Some city-level data from the Council on Criminal Justice found approximately a 21 percent homicide decline in 35 major cities, which may explain the rounding. The decline is real and significant, but Blanche’s precise figure is slightly inflated. ⚠️ Mostly Accurate, slightly overstated.
Additional statistics Blanche offered: law enforcement captured 8 of the FBI’s 10 most-wanted fugitives, located 6,300 missing children, and arrested more than 2,000 child predators in 2025. The DEA conducted an August surge alone resulting in over 600 arrests and the seizure of multi-ton quantities of narcotics and more than $11 million in drug proceeds.
On the U.S. Marshals Service, Blanche said the agency—with roughly 3,800 deputies—arrested more than 73,000 fugitives, conducted 308,000 prisoner movements, and managed over $10.4 billion in seized assets.
The ATF, he said, arrested more than 8,700 violent offenders since January 2025, seized nearly 44,000 illegal firearms (including 5,100 intercepted before reaching Mexico), and seized 2.7 million rounds of illegal ammunition along with more than 28,300 illegal explosives.
On immigration, Blanche said the Executive Office for Immigration Review had reduced its case backlog by more than 447,000 cases since Trump took office. The FY2027 budget includes almost $900 million for the immigration review office. Across the entire department, nearly $4 billion supports immigration-related enforcement.
On fraud, the Department launched the National Fraud Enforcement Division, with the FY2027 budget including $30 million to hire 100 new prosecutors focused on large-scale fraud.
On the Bureau of Prisons, Blanche acknowledged the agency is “under-resourced,” currently funded at $8.1 billion—almost $300 million below FY2025—and at risk of “insolvency without additional support.” He called the administration’s $10.3 billion request “essential to restore staffing.”
The FY2027 budget includes $22.2 billion for DOJ law enforcement components and U.S. Attorney’s offices, a 16 percent increase over FY2026.
The Anti-Weaponization Fund: A Major Announcement
Background: In mid-May 2026, the Trump administration announced a sweeping settlement of a $10 billion lawsuit Trump had filed against the IRS over the unauthorized leak of his tax returns by a contractor. Buried in the settlement was the creation of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” intended to compensate Americans who said the government had been wrongly “weaponized” against them. Critics immediately called it an unconstitutional slush fund that could pay January 6th defendants and other Trump allies. Federal courts in Virginia, Washington D.C., and the Southern District of Florida quickly moved to block or scrutinize it.
Ranking Member Meng opened the questioning by asking Blanche what he planned to do with the Fund after a court-ordered pause expired on June 12. His answer was one of the hearing’s most significant moments.
Blanche: “We’re not moving forward with the Fund. Period.”
Meng: “Not moving forward, ever?”
Blanche: “Correct.”
Meng: “Oh. There’s no more Fund then?”
Blanche: “Well, to the extent there was a fund—and remember the fund wasn’t set up yet. There were no commissioners named. There were no claimants. There were no claims made yet. So yes, we’re not moving forward with the Fund.”
Meng then pressed Blanche on whether he would put the abandonment of the fund in writing, noting that the fund had been established in writing. Blanche declined to commit, saying: “I’m not committing to doing anything in writing.” Meng responded that she was concerned because Blanche was not under oath and that a written rescission “would restore a lot of trust.” Blanche’s reply: “I’ll take it under advisement.”
✅ Fact-Check — Fund status: This announcement is confirmed by multiple sources. Just days before the hearing, a federal judge in Virginia temporarily blocked the fund, and reports from Axios, Punchbowl, and others said a senior administration official confirmed it was “dead for now.” Blanche’s June 2 testimony is the first official, on-the-record confirmation that the fund would not proceed. ✅ Confirmed.
The IRS Tax Immunity Order: DeLauro vs. Blanche
Rep. DeLauro raised what became the hearing’s most heated factual dispute. She held up three documents: the Anti-Weaponization Fund settlement order, a separate attorney general order she characterized as granting the Trump family immunity from tax prosecution, and the underlying settlement agreement.
DeLauro read from the order: “The United States releases, waives, acquits, and forever discharges each of the plaintiffs from, and is hereby forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims…”
She characterized this as blanket immunity for the president and his family. Blanche disputed the framing, saying the order applied to past ongoing audits only, as is standard in IRS settlements, and did not provide forward-looking immunity.
DeLauro: “Simply put, you just gave the President and his family a tax immunity to the tune of about a hundred million dollars.”
Blanche: “Not true.”
DeLauro: “Well, yes, you have, my friend.”
The two went back and forth, with Blanche maintaining that the order was “standard” and “typical” for IRS settlements, and DeLauro arguing there was nothing standard about the sitting president’s personal attorney-turned-acting attorney general signing an order barring the IRS from pursuing the president’s taxes. She also highlighted that the Save America PAC paid Blanche $10 million between March and December 2024 to serve as Trump’s personal defense attorney.
⚠️ Fact-Check — The IRS immunity order: Acting AG Blanche signed a one-page order on May 20, 2026, that states the IRS is “FOREVER BARRED AND PRECLUDED” from prosecuting or pursuing tax claims against Trump, his family, and his businesses related to ongoing audits. The order was posted on the DOJ website without any press release. Multiple legal experts have noted this is unprecedented in scope. The $100 million figure cited by Meng and DeLauro is sourced from a New York Times/ProPublica investigation that found the potential outstanding tax bill against Trump from a long-running audit could have been as much as $100 million—the DOJ order has not independently confirmed this figure, but it has not contested the reporting. The characterization of the order as “standard IRS settlement procedure” is disputed by tax law experts who note that such orders typically do not cover a sitting president and are not issued unilaterally by the AG. ⚠️ Disputed; DeLauro’s characterization is substantially supported by the text of the order, Blanche’s narrower framing is contested by experts.
Rep. Carter (R-TX), a former district judge, used his second-round time to defend the settlement, arguing it was a typical legal resolution in which all parties were represented by lawyers, adding: “You’re stating that you’re not going to continue the way to pay it… at this time or at any time. In your knowledge?” Blanche confirmed.
The Binance Pardon: Pay-to-Play Allegations
Rep. Ivey (D-MD) laid out a detailed timeline of the Binance pardon, calling it “a blatant pay-for-pardon scheme.” Here is the chronology he presented:
In late 2023, Binance and its founder Changpeng Zhao (known as “CZ”) agreed to a $4.36 billion settlement with the DOJ and pleaded guilty to multiple federal crimes including enabling money laundering for groups that Ivey said included ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
In November 2024, Trump was elected president. The following month, Zhao and Steve Witkoff—a Trump associate who became a White House envoy—met in Abu Dhabi at a Bitcoin conference.
In March 2025, the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial launched USD1, a dollar-pegged cryptocurrency stablecoin. Then, in May 2025, an Emirati company called MGX (which has ties to Witkoff) announced a $2 billion investment in Binance, paid using USD1—a transaction that significantly boosted World Liberty’s market capitalization and Trump family revenues.
Also in May 2025, Zhao publicly stated he had applied for a presidential pardon. On October 21, 2025, Trump granted the pardon with no public explanation.
Ivey asked: “Why haven’t you appointed a special prosecutor to take a look at this?”
Blanche: “The power to pardon in our Constitution is given to the President of the United States. The Constitution does not require him to provide any explanation for who he chooses to pardon.”
Ivey pushed back, and a heated exchange between Ivey and Rep. Clyde (who reclaimed his time from Ivey) ensued. Clyde argued that while presidential pardon power is broad, “it does not give power to pardon in exchange for payment” and “does not permit bribery.” Blanche maintained that the facts as presented didn’t establish a quid pro quo.
Rep. Morelle (D-NY) later asked Blanche directly: “Is it your testimony that if someone paid the President of the United States $1 million for a pardon, that would not violate federal law?”
Blanche: “That is not my testimony.”
Morelle: “Would that be a violation of federal law?”
Blanche: “Yes, potentially…I think there would be a violation of the bribery law.”
Morelle: “Bribery law, even though the Constitution gives you unlimited power as President?”
Blanche: “The person who paid the bribe would be—for the President himself who accepted the money, I think you would need to impeach him in that case. At least under my reading of the Constitution.”
⚠️ Fact-Check — Binance pardon timeline: The core facts in Ivey’s account are confirmed. Zhao did plead guilty in 2023, did serve prison time, did receive a pardon from Trump in October 2025 (though the exact date is October 23, 2025, not October 21 as Ivey stated). The $2 billion MGX investment in Binance using USD1 is confirmed. The Wall Street Journal and CNN both reported that Binance assigned engineers to help build USD1’s technology before the pardon, and that the investment boosted World Liberty’s market cap substantially. Whether this constitutes a quid pro quo arrangement is unproven and contested. Binance and the White House deny any connection. The $127 million to $2.1 billion market cap growth figure cited by Ivey refers to World Liberty’s WLFI token, not Binance’s overall valuation. ⚠️ Timeline substantially accurate; quid pro quo allegation unproven.
⚠️ Fact-Check — Ivey’s claim that Binance funded “ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard”: This is overstated. Zhao’s guilty plea was to failing to maintain an anti-money laundering program—a compliance failure, not direct funding of terrorist organizations. The DOJ alleged that Binance’s inadequate controls allowed sanctioned entities and criminal networks, including those connected to terrorism, to use the platform. This is a meaningful distinction. ⚠️ Misleading.
The Epstein Files: A Confrontation on the House Floor
The hearing’s most chaotic moments came during Rep. Madeleine Dean’s (D-PA) questioning about the Jeffrey Epstein case files. Dean began by quoting the final paragraph of a book by Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre, published posthumously after Giuffre’s 2024 death. Dean said she had visited the DOJ three times, spending up to ten hours in a secure room reviewing Epstein-related documents, and that she found the files were heavily redacted in ways she believed went beyond victim protection.
Dean alleged three failures: that DOJ had not fully redacted victim information as required; that it had failed to release remaining files under the Epstein File Transparency Act; and that it had refused to prosecute additional perpetrators.
She asked Blanche directly: “Is your obligation to the victims and survivors of Epstein’s heinous crimes… or is your first obligation to the President of the United States?”
Blanche: “Without a doubt, we want to bring justice to every victim.”
The exchange that followed was fractious—with Dean and Blanche repeatedly talking over each other, accusations about what was said in a private conversation at DOJ, and Chairman Rogers eventually (and controversially) cutting off Dean’s time, drawing immediate objection from other members who disputed the clock.
In her second-round time, Dean read from what she described as a document she had transcribed by hand during her DOJ visit: a 2009 email from Trump attorney Jack Goldberger to Epstein, summarizing a phone call in which Trump (described in the document as “J.E.’s” associate) reportedly said through his attorney that Epstein “was never asked to leave Mar-a-Lago,” that Trump may have been on Epstein’s plane but there “were no young girls on plane,” and that at Epstein’s house, there “may have been some children of guests, but that’s it.” Dean argued the document showed Trump had lied about his relationship with Epstein and had nothing to do with redacting victim names.
Blanche responded that that document was redacted because it was “a privileged communication between counsel,” not because of victim name protections, and argued the DOJ had legally complied with the Transparency Act. He also used his time (granted by Rep. Alford) to invite any Epstein victims or those with information to contact the FBI, saying: “If there is a lawyer or a victim who has information, please come forward.”
Rep. Alford (R-MO) asked Blanche three pointed cleanup questions—whether the DOJ had failed to redact victims’ names (Blanche: “Never”), whether there had been a failure to prosecute perpetrators (Blanche: “Never”), and whether there had been a failure to release files (Blanche: “No”).
Fentanyl, Cartels, and the “Weapon of Mass Destruction” Designation
Chairman Rogers asked about President Trump’s December 2025 executive order designating fentanyl a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Blanche explained that the designation accomplishes two things: it makes resources “more readily available” for enforcement, and it activates Homeland Security Task Forces—which exist in every state—to focus not just on cartel networks in Mexico and South America, but on domestic drug dealers in rural and urban communities alike.
Blanche confirmed that the FY2027 budget request includes funding for more DEA agents and increased resources specifically to combat fentanyl, adding: “It will be a priority for as long as President Trump is in office.”
Rep. Shreve (R-IN) noted that while overdose deaths are declining, fentanyl remains the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 45. He asked about international interdiction coordination. Blanche said the department is working with law enforcement partners in Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela, and that “every federal law enforcement agent is targeting and working with state and local law enforcement” on the fentanyl problem.
Rogers also raised the issue of illicit vape products, citing hospitalizations of middle school students in his district from devices marketed to children. He mentioned Operation Vapor Trail as an example of DOJ’s coordinated response. Blanche called it an “all-of-government approach” combining enforcement with education, and confirmed it would remain a priority in FY2027.
The National Fraud Enforcement Division
Several Republicans praised the recently launched National Fraud Enforcement Division, which was established after the passage of the FY2026 Commerce Justice Appropriations Act. Blanche described the division as a “renewed focus” on fraud that deploys existing prosecutors from the Criminal Division alongside a designated prosecutor from every U.S. Attorney’s Office in the country. The most egregious cases, Blanche said, involve individuals creating completely fictitious organizations—fake daycare centers, fake autism centers—to collect taxpayer-funded benefits. “This isn’t an example of a doctor putting the wrong box,” he said. “This is pure theft.”
Rep. Strong (R-AL) highlighted the Feeding Our Future case in Minnesota, in which over $250 million in fraud was tied to federal children’s nutrition and pandemic-era programs. He asked how the DOJ ensures stolen funds are recovered. Blanche said every indictment includes forfeiture efforts, including freezing accounts and seizing assets acquired with stolen funds.
The FY2027 budget includes $30 million to hire 100 new prosecutors for the fraud division. Strong voted in favor of that funding, and Blanche thanked him.
Hate Crimes: Grant Elimination Controversy
Ranking Member Meng raised the administration’s proposed elimination of the three largest federal hate crime prevention grant programs: the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act, the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act grants, and community-based prevention grants. These were passed on a bipartisan basis, Meng noted, and go directly to local law enforcement and community organizations.
Blanche’s response was general, saying there was “a lot of overlap” between broader violent crime funding and hate crime programs, and offering to have his team work with Meng’s office to ensure money gets where it needs to go. When Meng pressed for specifics, Blanche pointed to $12 billion in broader violent crime funding as potentially covering hate crime programs through overlap and earmarks.
Meng pushed back: “Combating hate crimes isn’t just about prosecution but also about prevention and working with community organizations as well.” Blanche agreed.
ℹ️ Context: The DOJ’s proposal to eliminate dedicated hate crime grant programs comes as FBI data shows hate crimes in 2024 reached the second-highest total on record, with antisemitic hate crimes hitting an all-time high. The FBI has also reportedly discontinued its national hate crime case-tracking database, though this was not directly confirmed or denied by Blanche during the hearing.
Second Amendment: New DOJ Section, NFA Tax Changes
Rep. Clyde (R-GA) praised the FY2027 budget’s allocation of $1.4 million to establish a Second Amendment Rights Section within the Civil Rights Division—a new office that will monitor state and local laws for what it considers unconstitutional firearms restrictions. Clyde said he led an amendment in the FY2027 CJS Appropriations Act to codify the office.
Clyde also raised a significant legal question surrounding the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which he said eliminated the National Firearms Act transfer and manufacturing taxes on short-barreled firearms and suppressors. He argued that with the tax eliminated, the underlying NFA registration requirement has no legal foundation, since the registry exists solely to track tax payments. He further argued that maintaining a registry of zero-taxed firearms would violate the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which explicitly prohibits federal firearms registries.
Blanche acknowledged familiarity with the issue, said it was “under active litigation,” and said the department was “working on getting to a good answer.” Clyde noted that the FY2027 CJS Appropriations Bill already prohibits registration of zero-tax firearms, providing the department some additional legislative guidance.
Election Security and DOJ Personnel at Polling Places
Rep. Morelle (D-NY) asked Blanche for assurance that DOJ personnel would not be present at polling places, citing federal law (18 U.S.C. § 592) prohibiting the deployment of armed personnel near elections. He referenced public statements by the President suggesting willingness to deploy military or FBI agents at polling places.
Blanche gave an unambiguous response: “We will comply with the law.” He also committed to investigating and prosecuting individuals who interfere with voting rights.
Morelle also raised the ATF’s recent package of 34 regulatory changes, noting that the DOJ’s own internal analysis warned that one of the changes—eliminating a second background check requirement—could allow a “prohibited person” to obtain a firearm and inflict mass casualties. Blanche disputed Morelle’s characterization, saying the regulation was designed to “make it more efficient” to ensure only eligible persons obtain firearms, and that the existing rules were “outdated.”
DNA Technology and the Carla Walker Act
Rep. Carter (R-TX) called attention to forensic genetic genealogy, a next-generation crime-solving technology that uses DNA to trace family relationships and identify suspects in cold cases. The FBI has already used the technique successfully in cases like the Rachel Morin and Brian Nolbert murders. Carter asked about support for the Carla Walker Act, which would expand funding to state and local agencies for genealogy-based investigations.
Blanche expressed support, saying the DOJ has over a dozen grant programs designed to advance the technology, calling it “an important place for us to be spending our money because it does solve crime.”
Immigrant Enforcement: Sanctuary Policies, 287G Agreements, and the New Jersey Protests
Rep. Cline (R-VA) pressed Blanche on Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s decision to revoke 287G agreements—cooperative arrangements under which trained local law enforcement officers work with federal immigration authorities to identify and remove criminal immigrants already involved in the justice system. Cline argued this creates danger when potentially violent individuals who would have been transferred to federal custody are instead released back into communities.
Blanche agreed: “More difficult and a lot less safe. It puts everybody at danger, not only the community, but the federal law enforcement that have to then go and arrest the person who should have been just picked up.”
Cline raised the possibility of tying COPS grants (federal funding for local police departments) to 287G cooperation, and Blanche agreed that “the power of the purse is exactly that—it’s power,” while noting sensitivity about punishing rank-and-file officers for decisions made by local political leadership.
Rep. Alford (R-MO) asked about the protests at a New Jersey ICE detention facility, where federal officers had been assaulted and death threats had been made. Blanche characterized the demonstrators as a “concerted effort by national organizations” to create chaos, noting that many of the people arrested were from outside New Jersey (one from as far as Portland, Oregon). He said the DOJ is pursuing multiple investigations into funding sources for the protest organizations, and that “there’s no doubt that there’s also foreign funding involved” alongside domestic sources.
Data Security: Chinese Communist Party Data Collection
Rep. Cline also raised the issue of foreign adversaries, particularly the Chinese Communist Party, acquiring large quantities of American personal data through commercial channels—data brokers, corporate acquisitions, and other means. He asked about DOJ’s National Security Division data protection program.
Blanche confirmed that foreign data acquisition attempts “happen every day,” and that the DOJ dedicates significant resources to blocking them. He said the department is focused not only on stopping specific incidents but on making data theft “not worth it” through deterrence and preventative regulation.
Surge Operations: $44 Million, 1,100 Agents Deployed
In the second round, Chairman Rogers asked about the DOJ’s surge operations in high-crime cities. Blanche reported that from August of the prior year through April 2026, the department directed almost $44 million and over 1,100 agents to surge efforts in cities including Washington, D.C. and Memphis, Tennessee. He described the results as “remarkable reduction in crime” alongside community appreciation for the increased presence. The department plans to spend another $100 million on surge operations in the coming fiscal year.
Pardons and Wiped-Out Restitution
Rep. Ivey raised an issue that received less attention than the Binance discussion but carries significant impact for crime victims: presidential pardons that wipe out court-ordered restitution. Ivey cited several cases:
Devon Archer, Sioux Nation fraud — $43 million in restitution eliminated by pardon. Carlos Watson — $36.7 million wiped away. The Chrisleys — $21 million eliminated.
“Victims have personally lost the money,” Ivey said. “Issue of pardon, they don’t get paid.” He asked Blanche to commit to pursuing civil remedies for fraud victims whose restitution was eliminated by pardon. Blanche declined to commit, though he acknowledged that “a pardon doesn’t cover civil liability.”
The Minneapolis Shootings: Evidence-Sharing Dispute
Ivey also raised a letter signed by 57 members of Congress asking DOJ to share evidence related to police shootings of Alex Pretti and another individual in Minneapolis with state and local prosecutors, who Ivey said have been unable to make charging decisions without access to the federal evidence. Blanche gave a flat “No” to the question of whether he would share evidence immediately—clarifying that his “no” referred to the word “immediately” rather than to evidence-sharing in principle, though the exchange was contentious and ended without resolution.
Child Advocacy and the Comstock Act
Rep. Strong (R-AL) raised the National Children’s Advocacy Center in his district, which he called the original model for child advocacy centers nationwide. Blanche called the center’s work “extraordinarily important” and said DOJ grant programs would continue to support the training pipeline.
Rep. Clyde raised the Comstock Act of 1873, which prohibits mailing abortion-inducing materials. He argued the law remains valid and enforceable, noting that Georgia’s heartbeat law is undermined when abortion pills can be mailed in from other states. Blanche acknowledged the issue was complicated and said there was “a lot of effort within the Department” and other federal agencies on how best to protect state laws restricting abortion.
Notable Exchanges and Revealing Moments
Several moments in the hearing stand out for what they revealed about the administration’s posture and the state of congressional oversight.
On writing versus spoken commitments: After Blanche verbally confirmed the Anti-Weaponization Fund was dead, Meng asked multiple times for a written rescission of the May 18th memo. Blanche’s repeated refusal—”I’m not committing to doing anything in writing”—drew a pointed response from Meng: “I’m just concerned because you’re not under oath, and I want to trust you, and I want to believe you. We all do. But putting it in writing would settle that issue.” Blanche’s eventual response: he would “take it under advisement.”
On the constitutional limits of the pardon power: Blanche’s exchange with Morelle revealed what appears to be a distinction in the administration’s legal theory—presidential pardon power is, in Blanche’s view, constitutionally unlimited in its scope but not in its means of acquisition. Someone who pays for a pardon could face bribery charges; but a president who accepts such payment could, in Blanche’s analysis, only be removed through impeachment.
Dean vs. Rogers on the clock: Perhaps the hearing’s most dramatic procedural moment came when Rogers declared Dean’s time expired while other members disputed the clock, leaving Dean mid-sentence during her Epstein questioning. The interruption drew immediate pushback from Democratic members and a chaotic few minutes of crosstalk.
Blanche on his prior role: Multiple Democrats—DeLauro and Dean most prominently—raised the fact that Blanche served as Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney and was paid approximately $10 million by the Save America PAC before joining DOJ. Blanche’s response to the conflict of interest question was essentially: “The fact that I used to have a job but I have a current job” is not a conflict. He also disputed being referred to as “the President’s lawyer,” insisting “I am not the President’s lawyer.”
Citation
“House Appropriations Committee, Commerce Subcommittee Hearing Oversight of the Department of Justice.” Political Transcript Wire, VIQ Solutions Inc., 2 June 2026. ProQuest U.S. Newsstream Collection, www.proquest.com/usnews/wire-feeds/house-appropriations-committeecommerce/docview/3348000413/sem-2. Accessed 3 June 2026.