Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Christian Castro, who is accused of shooting Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis through the closed door of a Minneapolis home in January, turned himself in to federal authorities on Thursday, the Associated Press and other outlets reported. 

Castro was indicted by a federal grand jury this week on six charges of making false statements related to the shooting, according to the indictment which was unsealed on Friday. 

Matthew Evans, the assistant U.S. attorney in Minnesota in charge of the case, was pursuing hefty civil rights charges against Castro, but was instructed by Justice Department officials in Washington, D.C. to downgrade the charges.

Evans was fired, CBS News reported Thursday, citing four unnamed sources familiar with the matter.

By charging Castro only with making false statements, the DOJ will not have to litigate whether the shooting was justified.

The Jan. 14 shooting followed a car chase between Castro and Alfredo Aljorna, who lived in the same duplex as Sosa-Celis. The chase ended at the men’s duplex, as Aljorna exited his car and tried to get inside the house. Aljorna slipped, and Castro jumped on top of him. 

Sosa-Celis dropped the shovel he was holding to help Aljorna up, and both men ran inside. Castro’s shot passed through the door and hit Sosa-Celis in the leg before coming to a stop in the wall of a child’s bedroom. 

Castro accused Sosa-Celis and Aljorna of assaulting him with a broom and a snow shovel before Castro opened fire, leading to assault charges against the two men that were dropped after surveillance footage proved Castro’s statements false.

The six charges in the indictment stem from six specific lies Castro told FBI investigators after the shooting. Four of the counts are related to Castro accusing Sosa-Celis, Aljorna and a nonexistent third man of hitting him with a broom or shovel. One count is for Castro stating that a physical altercation between the three men lasted three minutes, and another count is over Castro’s statement that he was on the ground when he fired his gun. 

According to surveillance footage no one hit Castro with a broom or shovel. The physical altercation between them lasted 11 seconds, not three minutes. There was no other man present besides Castro, Aljorna and Sosa-Celis, and Castro was standing when he fired at the front door of the house. 

Castro worked for the U.S. Border Patrol for eight years before joining ICE in September, according to the indictment. 

Castro is also charged in Minnesota with four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime. He was arrested in May by Texas Rangers, a state law enforcement agency, and held in a Texas county jail for 90 days. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott blocked Castro’s extradition to Minnesota, prompting a lawsuit from Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, which failed to stop Castro’s release from jail last week. 

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty released a statement Thursday saying Castro is expected to appear first in a federal court in Texas, and a date will be set for his appearance in a Minnesota federal court. 

“Despite Gov. Abbott’s best efforts to shield Mr. Castro, we will see him soon,” Moriarty said. 

WASHINGTON — A federal judge over the weekend allowed the Trump administration to force-feed the man charged with shooting two National Guard members, killing one and injuring another, in the District of Columbia in November.

For months, Rahmanullah Lakanwal has refused to eat while incarcerated. 

The Aug. 29 order from U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta of the District of Columbia gives the go-ahead for medical staff at the Bureau of Prisons to conduct several types of nonconsensual feeding methods “to preserve defendant Rahmanullah Lakanwal’s life or to prevent a foreseeable deterioration in his condition that if not treated is likely to lead to death; replacement, maintenance, and care of defendant’s feeding tube when medically necessary; and lab work relating to the administration of nutrition.”

The order will allow for a feeding tube through Lakanwal’s nasal passage and into his stomach to provide nutrients; feeding through veins; or feeding through an already established tube connected to his stomach. The order does not allow for a tube to be established through his stomach, usually done via surgery. 

The Department of Justice charged Lakanwal with first-degree murder in the shooting of 20-year-old U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom and with the attempted murder of U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe. Lakanwal has pleaded not guilty to all 17 DOJ charges. 

He is an Afghan national who came to the United States under a humanitarian program after the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal from the country. Following the shooting, the Trump administration paused all immigration processing for nationals from Afghanistan. A federal judge later reversed that move.  

The two West Virginia guard members last year were shot on Thanksgiving eve while stationed blocks from the White House as part of the president’s crackdown on crime, despite a continued decrease in violent crime.

Mehta, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, has in the past considered but turned down the Trump administration’s requests for a court-ordered nonconsensual nutrition supplement, noting that Lakanwal has refused meals and medical treatment. 

In several hearings in federal court before Mehta, Lakanwal has appeared gaunt and has used a wheelchair. 

Mehta’s order will remain in effect until Oct. 28 and will allow the DOJ to request an extension if needed. 

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Meta agreed Wednesday to pay $17 billion and add stronger child-safety measures to its Facebook and Instagram platforms as part of a landmark legal settlement that ended a trial over teen social media addiction and settled claims filed by 47 states.

Wisconsin would receive at least $219 million and up to $313 million if conditions involving other social media companies are met, through what state Attorney General Josh Kaul called the “largest Big Tech settlement in the history of the country.”

The settlement resolved a pivotal case years in the making that sought to hold the tech giant accountable for the role its platforms played in undermining children’s mental health. The effort targeted features designed to hook young people’s attention.

“For years, Meta intentionally deceived the public about the addictive and harmful design features that have wreaked havoc on youth mental health,” Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said. The settlement “will put an end to these dangerous practices and deliver meaningful relief that will protect children from online harm.”

“This resolution provides for several changes that prioritize kids’ well-being over Meta’s profits — as it should have been all along,” Kaul said in a statement. “This is a monumental step in changing the role of social media in kids’ lives for the better.”

Speaking at a Wednesday press conference, Kaul listed a variety of potential uses for the money, including school district grants for mental health programs, youth crisis intervention, after-school programs, digital wellness instruction or training for medical providers on the effects of interactive media use and body dysmorphia.

If approved by the court, the deal will stop an avalanche of litigation by states against Meta, although the company still faces lawsuits from individuals and school districts across the U.S. For the states, the settlement delivers money for programs to benefit kids’ mental health, including after-school or summer activities and digital literacy counselors.

Advocates cheered the new protections, including default time limits and the disabling of features such as “like” counts.

But “we cannot truly protect all children and teens until these protections are required on every platform and are permanent — that’s something only Congress can do,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project.

The settlement also includes payments resolving claims arising from Meta’s sharing of nonpublic Facebook user information with third parties, including Cambridge Analytica, ahead of the 2016 election.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the money would be paid out over 10 years, with the state getting at least $1.5 billion. New Jersey expects to receive at least $525 million. Massachusetts said it was in line for at least $366 million. Virginia’s share is worth $353 million.

Meta urges rivals to adopt similar safety measures

Meta said in a blog post that it was “building on our longstanding efforts to empower parents and support teens.”

“Ensuring teens have a safe and productive experience on our platforms is an absolute imperative for Meta,” the company said. “We want to get this right for parents and teens, and that’s why we partnered with state attorneys general to set a new industry standard.”

The company urged rivals TikTok and YouTube to adopt similar safety measures.

The $17 billion settlement is a fraction of Meta’s 2025 revenue of $201 billion.

The agreement cuts short an ongoing court case involving California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, which were among 29 states that sued Meta in 2023. CEO Mark Zuckerberg was among those expected to take the stand before a jury in federal court in California.

The lawsuit accused Meta of contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features that addict children to its platforms and hiding them from the public. The case also argued that Meta violated federal laws by routinely collecting data on children under 13 without their parents’ consent.

The trial kicked off last week in Oakland, California, with U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers overseeing the proceedings. Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, began his testimony late Tuesday and defended Meta’s record and progress on child safety and privacy.

The cases in other states had been expected to go to trial later. In addition, nine attorneys general filed lawsuits in their respective states.

New features to include time limits and curbs on push notifications

Under the proposed settlement, Meta agreed to adopt a series of safety features, including a “hard cap” on daily time limits and pauses for children using Instagram and Facebook.

It will eliminate push notifications during weekday school hours and bring in “robust” age-assurance measures and “age-appropriate” content controls to prevent bullying and harmful material about eating disorders and self-harm.

There will be stronger and more user-friendly parental controls and limits on social comparison features such as “like” counts.

An independent auditor will assess how Meta is implementing the safety features and how effective they are.

Meta put the settlement at $18 billion, a figure that apparently includes a large award for Texas.

The company said 30% of that amount — about $5.3 billion — will be released to states only if rivals YouTube and TikTok meet two conditions: implementing similar safety features, including a one-hour daily time limit, a nighttime block and age-assurance measures; and paying the same amount, split between the two companies.

Neither YouTube owner Google nor TikTok responded immediately to requests for comments.

Wisconsin part of bipartisan coalition

The federal lawsuit was the result of an investigation led by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general. It followed newspaper reports, first by The Wall Street Journal in 2021, that found that the company knew about the harm Instagram can cause teenagers — especially teen girls — when it comes to mental health and body image issues.

Meta has since added a host of safety features to Instagram, including separate accounts for teenagers with stronger protections around messaging and privacy, along with content restrictions.

But child safety experts, along with some former Meta employees, have long contended that the features are little more than window dressing.

Arturo Béjar, a former Meta engineering director, said during his testimony last week that Meta consistently prioritized profits over safety in designing its products, focusing on how often and for how long people used them, even if it was detrimental to their mental well-being.

“If you step away from the product, they are not going to make any money,” he said.

While the four states in the Oakland trial did not officially say how much they had been seeking, Meta said in a court filing that financial penalties in the case could amount to as much as $1.4 trillion — a figure legal experts said was unlikely, if not impossible.

Jim Malewitz of Wisconsin Watch contributed reporting.

Wisconsin to receive up to $313 million in landmark Meta settlement is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

WASHINGTON — Todd Blanche took the oath of office as U.S. attorney general at a brief ceremony in the Oval Office Monday, following the Senate’s narrow vote to approve his nomination as the nation’s top law enforcement official over the weekend. 

Blanche, who served as acting attorney general and was President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer before joining the government, succeeds Pam Bondi — whom Trump ousted in April — as head of the Department of Justice. Trump announced Blanche as his pick to permanently lead the department in June. 

U.S Circuit Judge Emil Bove, another of Trump’s former personal attorneys, administered the oath of office.

After the Senate voted, 50-49, to approve his nomination early Saturday morning, Blanche wrote on social media that he was “deeply honored by the trust and confidence President Trump has placed in me to lead the Department of Justice as our great nation’s 88th Attorney General.” 

“To the dedicated public servants of the Department of Justice, thank you for your work each day to uphold the law and keep our country safe,” Blanche wrote. 

Blanche’s nomination had drawn widespread concern and scrutiny from congressional Democrats, as well as some Republicans, over actions such as his role in establishing Trump’s “anti-weaponization fund.” The $1.8 billion Justice Department fund aimed to compensate those “who suffered weaponization and lawfare,” including many who faced prosecution related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

Lawmakers of both parties have described it as a “slush fund,” and Blanche has stated that it will not move forward under his tenure as attorney general.  

Asked if the fund has a future after an executive order signing ceremony Monday afternoon, Trump said that it “will be up to Todd Blanche.” 

A contentious vote

In a vote early Saturday morning, every Senate Democrat voted against Blanche’s confirmation. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine broke ranks from their party and voted against him.

Blanche ultimately won over several holdout Republicans, including Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who said Blanche had acknowledged his past “mistakes” and sought to halt the Justice Department fund. He also secured support from Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, both of whom are set to leave office after their terms end this January. 

Speaking on the floor Friday evening before Blanche was confirmed, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s chair, praised Blanche as a “tough, fair prosecutor dedicated to the rule of law.”

“Between his proven track record, his presentation in committee and the support he’s received from across the country, I am convinced that Mr. Blanche is the right choice to lead the Justice Department,” Grassley said. “A vote for Todd Blanche is a vote for the safety of the American people.”

Congressional Democrats quickly denounced Blanche officially taking over the department. 

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, blasted Blanche’s ascension as the nation’s top law enforcement official on social media earlier Monday afternoon. 

“Republicans in Congress voted to turn Trump’s personal attorney, Todd Blanche, into Trump’s personal Attorney General,” Raskin wrote. “We need a DOJ committed to the rule of law, not the corrupt rule of a kleptocrat.”

While Madison attempts to respond to the police killing of Corey Ruiz on July 22, a dispute has emerged within city government over the authority of the city’s independent police monitor to subpoena materials related to the incident from the police department and the Wisconsin Department of Justice. 

In the weeks since Ruiz was killed, the city has seen the occupation of a major intersection, standoffs with police as the city moved to reclaim the occupied area, a marathon common council meeting and continued tensions between elected officials and the people they’ve empowered to oversee the city’s cops. 

Aeiramique Glass, the city’s independent police monitor, has drawn criticism for getting into an altercation with police officers while they worked to clear the intersection of Williamson and South Baldwin Streets early Tuesday morning and later saying in a now-deleted video posted to social media that she would “burn this city down.” 

Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway said “it’s disturbing anytime a city employee is calling for violence,” while reiterating the independence of Glass’ office. William Sulton, a Milwaukee-based civil rights attorney hired by Glass to represent the office, said she was making a “figurative, idiomatic expression.”

Glass’ position was established by the common council in 2020 as part of the city’s response to the widespread police reform protests that summer. The Office of the Independent Monitor and the Police Civilian Oversight Board were established and given independence from the mayor’s office and council. 

Madison is the only city in the state with such a civilian oversight system, and this is the first time the system has had to respond to a police killing, meaning that as the board and office work to investigate Ruiz’s death, they’re testing the limits of the ordinance granting them those powers for the first time. 

Within the ordinance establishing the OIM, the city gave the office complete access to MPD documents and the authority to issue subpoenas — so long as those provisions don’t conflict with other laws. 

“The OIM shall, to the extent permitted by law, have unfettered access to all MPD records, policies, Standard Operating Procedures, data, computer databases, and other information necessary to fulfill the duties of the OIM,” the ordinance states. “The Monitor may, to the extent permitted by law, issue subpoenas for the purpose of compelling testimony or receiving documents necessary to fulfill the duties of the OIM.”

Soon after Ruiz was killed, Glass opened her own investigation and issued a subpoena to the police department demanding all records related to the shooting be handed over to her office by July 31. 

However, under state law, when a police officer kills someone, the investigation must be conducted by an outside agency. In this case, the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s Division of Criminal Investigation is handling the review. DCI’s investigative report will be turned over to Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, who will determine if the officer who killed Ruiz should be charged with a crime. 

Glass, members of the oversight board and activists in the community have argued that the ordinance establishing OIM granting “unfettered access” to police department materials and subpoena authority means that the department should hand over its materials related to the shooting — including dash cam videos, 911 call recordings, a list of officers on duty and communications with the chief of police. 

“We have a mandate and an ordinance that says we are to have unfettered access to all of MPD’s records, databases, video footage, everything,” Glass told the Examiner. “There’s no limit to what we are able to and should have access to.”

But the city attorney’s office, MPD and city officials say that limits on the office’s subpoena authority are set under state law. Once the independent investigation started, all of those materials, initially under the purview of the department, are now controlled by DOJ and state law prevents the release of evidence and materials pertaining to an open criminal investigation. 

Because DOJ is investigating a government employee, state law also prevents the release of “information relating to the current investigation of a possible criminal offense or possible misconduct connected with employment by an employee prior to disposition of the investigation.”

“I think the case is clearly made [that] we can’t interfere with a criminal investigation,” Madison Alder Tag Evers told the Examiner. “The concern is the release of that information could compromise the ongoing investigation and if it’s determined prosecution is warranted, complicate or interfere with the prosecution of a crime.”

DOJ’s work in these cases can often be slow and clash with the public’s demands for answers. The Examiner has previously reported on the flaws of the independent investigation system. 

 A spokesperson for DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.

The argument over the limits of the Madison independent monitor’s subpoena power have resulted in dueling FAQ pages on the city’s website in which the mayor’s office says it is limited in what can be released and Glass accuses the city attorney and mayor of helping the police department obstruct her investigation. 

This dispute was explicitly predicted when the common council drafted the ordinance in 2020. In a pair of memos to the council, City Attorney Michael Haas wrote that giving the independent monitor  subpoena power without explicitly outlining its limits could lead to legal challenges.

“It is the opinion of our Office that the Council may enact an ordinance providing subpoena authority to the Independent Monitor,” the memo states. “Where there is no contrary statutory provision or contractual right, we would expect such subpoenas to be enforceable.  It is less clear that a subpoena issued in the course of an investigation, or in a case which could lead to a disciplinary decision by the Police Chief or PFC, would be held to be enforceable if challenged.” 

Haas’ memo also directly addresses the question of officer-involved shooting investigations. 

“It may also be useful to note that, under [the statute], all officer-involved shooting deaths are investigated in the first instance by an outside law enforcement agency rather than by MPD, and that the Monitor would not be entitled to participate in such investigations,” the memo states. 

At a meeting of the Police Civilian Oversight Board Executive Subcommittee on Wednesday, Haas and board members continued to debate the issue.

“People cannot deny that the words ‘to the extent permitted by law,’ are in the ordinances, and I think that has been consistently overlooked when people simply talk about unfettered access and subpoena authority,” said Haas, whose office is working to release an official opinion on the issue. “Those words were intentionally put in the ordinances, and that means we have to look to existing Wisconsin law.”

But members of the board and independent monitor staff suggested that Haas’ office should seek outside legal opinions on the matter and charged that the city attorney’s office has a conflict of interest in the matter. Glass has asserted several times that the ordinance’s grant of independence to her office means that the city attorney doesn’t represent the office — a claim that city officials also dispute. 

“There’s an inherent structural conflict of interest between city attorney offices and police oversight agencies,” the independent monitor’s data analyst Greg Gelembiuk said at the Wednesday meeting. “You can see this play out again and again and again across cities in the U.S. City attorney’s offices are very enmeshed with police departments, and of course, the mayor’s office. They have a primary role of risk management. Police oversight agencies have a primary role of investigating police, exposing the truth. Those roles are in conflict, and because of that, you have a universal pattern where you cannot rely on the opinions of the city attorney’s office to be accurate and valid.” 

Glass has hired an outside attorney, Milwaukee-based William Sulton, to represent the office, telling the Examiner that she has “the ability to take full legal action that is available to us.” Sulton did not respond to a request for comment. 

Glass has previously threatened to sue the city over the limits of her authority, a legal action that itself is in dispute because even though the ordinance grants the office independence, it is still a city department and a city can’t sue itself. 

“The basic law in Wisconsin is that one city agency cannot sue another city agency. City agencies are all part of the same organization and one arm cannot sue another arm,” Haas told the Madison alternative newspaper Isthmus during the previous episode. “City agencies have the authority delegated to them in the ordinances and cannot file lawsuits independent of the city.”

WASHINGTON — A vote on acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination to permanently fill the nation’s top law enforcement role was postponed Wednesday after two Republican senators — John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — remained dissatisfied with Blanche’s handling of the administration’s “anti-weaponization” fund and a tax immunity deal.

A spokesperson for Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement the vote had been postponed.

“Chairman Grassley works to set President Trump’s nominees up for success in committee, not failure,” said the spokesperson, who was not identified. “Senators Cornyn and Tillis want written assurances from the Department of Justice regarding the Trump-IRS settlement. Tomorrow’s markup is postponed as work continues to secure sufficient support in committee to favorably report Attorney General-nominee Todd Blanche, who is highly qualified for the job.”

A scheduled meeting between Blanche and Cornyn, a member of Judiciary, fell through Wednesday morning. Cornyn said he did not receive requested documentation that President Donald Trump’s tax settlement deal with the IRS was fundamentally changed.

In exchange for Trump voluntarily dropping in May his $10 billion suit against the IRS over leaked tax documents, Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service officials signed a settlement absolving the president, his sons Eric and Don Jr., and the Trump Organization from future tax enforcement in the matter.

Blanche, during his confirmation hearing before the committee, defended the tax deal for Trump, his sons and their private organization, as “typical” of IRS settlements. He also maintained the “anti-weaponization” fund portion of the deal had been completely scrapped. 

Before being appointed as the deputy attorney general, and then acting AG, Blanche worked as Trump’s personal defense lawyer on multiple criminal cases.

“The meeting with Todd Blanche is off,” Cornyn told reporters Wednesday morning, according to comments shared by his office. 

“We made clear from the outset that we expected some written proposals to modify the release that was signed in the tax dispute with President Trump and his organization,” he said, adding this is the second scheduled meeting with DOJ officials that had fallen through.

The Judiciary Committee had held over Blanche’s nomination vote on July 23 until July 30, “per standard committee practice,” according to a spokesperson for Grassley.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters he “would encourage them to sit down, which I think they are, and try to come to a resolution there.”

A Department of Justice official said Wednesday in a statement, “The DOJ provided a written proposal to Senator Cornyn’s staff yesterday following ongoing discussion with both the Committee and the Senator’s office. We look forward to further discussion around any outstanding concerns.”  

‘Maybe John Cornyn is upset with me’

When asked about opposition to Blanche’s nomination, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Wednesday that Blanche is “outstanding.”

“Maybe John Cornyn is upset with me because I didn’t endorse him, I don’t know what it is. But I haven’t heard that there’s a problem. I heard he’s going through quite nicely,” Trump said.

Cornyn, who criticized the Trump settlement Wednesday, faces little consequence to his Republican Senate career. Cornyn was knocked out of the Republican primary in a runoff election in May after Trump endorsed his opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The Judiciary Committee is split between 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats. All Democrats are expected to oppose Blanche, and a majority vote is required to advance Blanche’s nomination to the full Senate for final approval.

Tillis also grilled Blanche during his July 15 confirmation hearing about the administration’s establishment of a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. Upon announcing the fund, Blanche described the pot of money as financial relief for “victims of lawfare” of any political ideology.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle quickly criticized the fund and its potential to reward pardoned Jan. 6, 2021, rioters who assaulted police officers during the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Tillis said during the hearing he wanted to see the Justice Department “stick a fork” in the fund once and for all.

Blanche maintained he had already clarified the fund would not move forward when he said as much during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing in June. 

Tillis’ office did not respond to a request for comment about whether he would support Blanche’s nomination.

Tillis, who is retiring, also faces little risk of losing favor with Trump if he opposes Blanche. Trump subjected Tillis to intense criticism for opposing the Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025 and said he would find candidates to oppose Tillis in his primary.

Former Department of Justice officials told committee Democrats the IRS settlement language was “mind-boggling,” during a July 22 forum hosted by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. 

In a July 13 order, the Florida federal judge in the IRS case slammed Trump’s settlement with his own administration as using the presidency to “manipulate” the courts.

WASHINGTON — Members of the U.S. Senate tasked with advancing acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination to be the nation’s top law enforcer on Thursday pushed the vote one week.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s delayed vote to send the controversial nominee to the full Senate is “per standard committee practice,” according to a spokesperson for Chairman Chuck Grassley.

The Iowa Republican and the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., used the time that had been allocated for the vote to comment at length on Blanche’s nomination. Grassley then recessed the session because too many Republicans were absent, which he described as “kind of rude.”

Grassley praised the selection of Blanche and said the Justice Department under his leadership as deputy and acting attorney general “has protected Americans at every turn,” but that committee Democrats “like clockwork, sought to defame him.”

Democratic committee member Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey led a forum Wednesday featuring former Department of Justice officials and a survivor of abuse by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. 

The witnesses questioned Blanche’s fitness to lead the Justice Department following his handling of the Epstein files release, during which several victims’ identities were unmasked, and his role is establishing a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund as part of President Donald Trump’s settlement with his own administration’s IRS.

Durbin said Thursday he and fellow Democrats oppose Blanche, who worked as Trump’s personal defense lawyer prior to his appointment to the DOJ, because he “will continue to serve the interests of Donald Trump, not the American people.”

Sen. Darline Graham joins

Committee members were scheduled to address other business, including voting on federal judicial nominees in Ohio and Oklahoma, and approving subcommittee roles for Republican Sen. Darline Graham, sister of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. She was sworn in as a senator July 14 following the sudden death of her brother.

The committee meeting marked the first for Graham, who was not yet part of the panel when members questioned Blanche for nearly five hours during a confirmation hearing July 15. Her arrival on the GOP-led committee brings the split among members back to 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats and is likely a positive development for Blanche.

Nominations require a majority vote to advance to the Senate floor. All eyes are on whether committee Republicans Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who announced his retirement last year, and John Cornyn of Texas will support Blanche after Trump effectively ended both of their Senate careers.

Trump subjected Tillis to intense criticism for opposing the Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025 and said he would find candidates to oppose Tillis in his primary. Trump endorsed Cornyn’s primary opponent earlier this year.

Both Tillis and Cornyn pressed Blanche during his confirmation hearing about formally ending the “anti-weaponization” fund. 

While Cornyn was present at Thursday morning’s Judiciary Committee meeting, Tillis was one of several members missing. Grassley’s spokesperson attributed Tillis’ absence to a Senate Banking Committee meeting that convened just a half hour before the scheduled Judiciary Committee meeting. Tillis’ office did not immediately respond to a question about his absence.

Blanche was a prosecutor in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from 2006 to 2014. 

He eventually left the Justice Department to work in private law and represented Trump as his personal defense attorney in three criminal cases in 2023 and 2024. 

Trump, with the approval of Senate Republicans, installed Blanche as deputy attorney general in March 2025. 

Trump announced Blanche as his pick for attorney general in early June, just over two months after former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s departure. 

WASHINGTON — Former career Department of Justice officials and a survivor of abuse by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein sounded the alarm Wednesday on acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s fitness to lead the Department of Justice, one day ahead of a scheduled committee vote to advance his nomination to the full Senate.

The narrow committee divide, razor-thin after the death of the late Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, could mean the vote will hinge on two Republican senators spurned by President Donald Trump, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas.

The former DOJ staffers and Epstein survivor testified on Capitol Hill, at a forum held by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats. 

They said Blanche’s relationship with Trump and his “mind-boggling” involvement in the president’s recent settlement with the IRS, as well as the botched release of the Epstein files, disqualifies him from becoming the nation’s top enforcer of the law.

“I don’t know what happened, but he is certainly not the person that I once worked with,” said Perry Carbone, a former federal prosecutor who worked alongside Blanche in the Southern District of New York, where Blanche served from 2006 to 2014.

Blanche eventually left the Justice Department to work in private law. He represented Trump as his personal defense attorney in three criminal cases in 2023 and 2024. Trump, with the approval of Senate Republicans, installed Blanche as deputy attorney general in March 2025. 

Trump announced Blanche as his pick for attorney general in early June, just over two months after former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s departure. 

The Department of Justice did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment on the hearing.

IRS deal, Minnesota probe

Carbone listed a number of reasons he believes should preclude Blanche from leading the department, including “the extraordinary IRS settlement,” the prosecution of the president’s political adversaries “on evidence that raises serious doubt about the bona fides of those cases” and efforts to “halt or interfere” with the Minnesota state investigation into the shooting deaths of U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents.

Carbone also highlighted Blanche’s “declaration of war on our judges” and the interview and relocation of Epstein co-conspirator and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell “for what appear to be political reasons.”

“We repeat a mantra daily so that no one forgets it: ‘We do the right thing in the right way for the right reasons.’ It’s not my place to say whether the nominee has forgotten that credo. That judgment belongs to the committee. I can only tell you what I’ve observed and why it troubles someone who spent a career trying to live by that credo,” Carbone said.

He added that Blanche’s firing of department officials who investigated Trump and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, “undermines” public confidence.

“Even the appearance of retaliation for doing one’s job sends a chilling message throughout the department,” Carbone added.

Firings, resignations

Peter Carr, a longtime department spokesperson fired by Blanche in April 2025, estimated the department has lost 19,000 employees, including 30% of its attorneys and 10% of its FBI special agents.

“That includes those who were fired, but also those who’ve been pushed out or chose to leave,” said Carr, who worked as a spokesperson for special counsel Jack Smith’s office during the Biden administration. He first joined the DOJ in 2007 under President George W. Bush.

Elizabeth Stein, an Epstein abuse survivor, expressed anger that victims’ names and images were disclosed when the DOJ published the Epstein files online, as legally mandated after Congress nearly unanimously passed legislation to force the release.

“When the Epstein files were released earlier this year, my own name was left unredacted in a sentence that read in part, ‘Stein was a victim of Epstein and Maxwell in the mid-90s.’ It doesn’t get much clearer than that,” said Stein, now a human trafficking specialist and survivor advocate for World Without Exploitation.

“The name of the school I attended, where I worked, and portions of my home address were also publicly disclosed. The very institution Congress charged with protecting survivors instead exposed us.”

‘Typical’ terms

Carbone also spoke at length about Blanche’s involvement in Trump’s settlement with the IRS. 

In exchange for Trump and his family dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for the 2019 leak of tax returns, the DOJ ordered the establishment of a settlement fund in the amount of nearly $1.8 billion.

Blanche defended the settlement terms as “typical” during his confirmation hearing with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 15.

“If this is not standard language, can you make that point for us? I think it’s really important to draw that out,” Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., asked Carbone.

The former federal prosecutor, whose career spanned 30 years, said under normal circumstances the IRS would tailor language only specifically to the matter of litigation, and possibly calculate a settlement sum.

“That’s not what this is. Some of this language is mind-boggling, and I have it here in front of me … One of the subcategories is relating to ‘lawfare and/or weaponization.’ What does that mean?” Carbone said.

Booker said the “totality of the evidence is staggering” against Blanche’s nomination.

“I want to let you all know very clearly and unequivocally that if there were just some of these issues, they would be enough to be disqualifying. … This man has had an impact already in his deputy role and now in his acting role,” Booker said at the close of the hearing.

Dramatic vote ahead

Whether Blanche’s nomination advances from the Senate Judiciary Committee depends on whether every Republican on the panel, split 11-10, supports him.

Those campaigning against Blanche’s confirmation are targeting two members — Tillis, who is retiring at the end of his term, and Cornyn.

Trump subjected Tillis to intense criticism for opposing the Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025 and said he would find candidates to oppose Tillis in his primary. Trump endorsed Cornyn’s primary opponent earlier this year.

Just over two dozen survivors affected by abuse by Epstein and Maxwell sent a letter Tuesday to Tillis and Cornyn.

“We understand that both of you remain open to opposing his nomination, and we are asking you to stand with survivors of human trafficking and sexual assault at this critical moment,” the survivors wrote.

“Under Todd Blanche’s leadership, the Justice Department released survivors’ names, identifying information and images while the names of alleged abusers and enablers remained hidden. More than a thousand women and girls were abused, yet no one beyond Epstein and Maxwell has been prosecuted.”

The women wrote that Blanche met with them following his confirmation hearing, but that it amounted to “an hour of deflection, interruption and gaslighting.”

“Senator Tillis, when you urged Todd Blanche to meet with survivors, we believed you expected a serious and meaningful conversation. What occurred instead was a box-checking exercise arranged only after his confirmation was put at risk,” they wrote.

Common Cause North Carolina, a state arm of the national progressive advocacy group, urged Tillis in early July to vote against Blanche, who the group’s director, Brooks Fuller, said “has shown the only person he is interested in protecting and defending is President Donald Trump.”

The advocacy organization joined with other groups, including North Carolina for the People and The Justice Project, to deliver messages to Tillis’ office on July 6, according to organizers.

Tillis’ office did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for a response. Cornyn’s office said it did not have a comment at this time.

A federal judge ruled late last week that the Trump administration had acted illegally last summer when it cut millions in federal grant money. 

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in the District of Massachusetts ruled on Friday that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget does not have the authority to revoke grants on a whim. OMB had argued that a line in the federal regulations gave the White House authority to cancel grants to account for shifts in priorities. 

Talwani found that the agency couldn’t cancel grants to achieve priorities that were announced after the grants had been awarded. 

Wisconsin was joined by 22 other states and Washington D.C. in filing a lawsuit against OMB pulling back grant funds. The Wisconsin Department of Justice noted in a press release that the state had lost tens of millions of dollars in federal grant funding meant to help provide Wisconsin-grown food to local food banks, modernize the state’s unemployment system and fund research at UW-Madison. 

“The Trump administration has been recklessly attempting to slash funding that supports important programs,” said Attorney General Josh Kaul. “This decision shuts down an unlawful avenue that the Trump administration was using to try to impose those cuts.”

As the Trump administration continues its crackdown  on illegal immigration, states and cities that have pushed back with so-called sanctuary policies have faced a barrage of lawsuits from the U.S. Department of Justice.

The administration has filed a total of 27 lawsuits against more than 20 cities, counties and states with such policies since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, according to the Justice Department. In just the past three months, the administration has sued at least a half dozen jurisdictions, including Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, a county in Michigan, and the city of Philadelphia, for seeking to place limits on the activities of  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

These policies tend to focus on restricting immigration enforcement in public spaces, limiting how local law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and barring both local and federal immigration agents from wearing masks or otherwise concealing their identity while on duty.

“These sanctuary policies are most times created to help make communities safer. They promote a greater level of trust and cooperation between communities and public institutions of all kinds,” said Cassandra Charles, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group.

Some cities have had sanctuary policies since the 1980s, but Charles said many states and cities are creating new protections as the Trump administration has ramped up its deportation campaign. She described the current swell of litigation as “unprecedented.”

Charles said the administration is misinterpreting the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal law trumps state law. That clause, she argued, does not allow the federal government to dictate what laws states can pass, nor does it “create a duty for the states to help the federal government enforce federal law.”

But the Justice Department argues that sanctuary laws violate longstanding constitutional precedent and prevent the federal government from conducting lawful enforcement activities.

“As explained in DOJ’s briefs in these cases, states and localities do not have a right to obstruct federal law enforcement, to regulate the federal government, or to discriminate against the federal government,” Kiersten Pels, an agency spokesperson wrote in an email. “These and other cases simply seek to vindicate that fundamental aspect of our constitutional structure.”

The lawsuits have yielded mixed results.

In May 2025, the Justice Department sued four New Jersey cities (Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark and Paterson) to challenge their policies curtailing local cooperation with federal immigration agents. The next month, a U.S. district judge in New Jersey, appointed by President Joe Biden, tossed out the suit, arguing the cities’ policies didn’t impede ICE activities because of the state’s existing sanctuary laws.

But earlier this month, a U.S. district judge in Pennsylvania sided with the administration in a lawsuit challenging a new Philadelphia policy.

Last month, the administration sued to stop the city of Philadelphia from implementing a new policy barring immigration agents from wearing masks, concealing their badges, or using unmarked vehicles while on the job. Last week, the judge—a Trump appointee—cited the Supremacy Clause in siding with the administration, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking the city from moving forward.

When the Philadelphia City Council approved the policy, the judge ruled, “it attempted to sidestep the Constitution’s clear mandate and disregarded this fundamental principle of law that has informed American jurisprudence for over 200 years.”

The new policy barring officers from concealing their identities was part of a package of seven ICE-related bills the council approved in April. Rue Landau, the city council member who sponsored the package, noted that the other measures have taken effect.

“If the federal government won’t protect their residents, local leaders have the obligation to step up to the plate, and that’s exactly what we did here in Philadelphia,” Landau said. “Great news for Philadelphia: We’ve got six laws on the books, and right now we are working on ensuring that the city of Philadelphia clearly spells out how we’re implementing these laws.”

In late April, the administration filed a similar lawsuit against the state of New Jersey to challenge a law, enacted in March, that prohibits immigration agents from shielding their identity while on duty.

Maryland is the latest state to face a DOJ lawsuit.

Its new law, in effect since May 31, prohibits state and local correctional officers and law enforcement agents from inquiring about or investigating a person’s immigration status. It also bars them from detaining or transferring a person to federal authorities for a suspected immigration violation without a warrant or court order.

Last week, the Justice Department sued Maryland to stop the law, arguing that its “purpose and effect is to obstruct federal law enforcement.”

“Such blatant disregard for federal laws that have been on the books for decades is not merely a political disagreement or passive abstention; it is deliberate, disruptive action that jeopardizes the public safety for all Americans,” the lawsuit states.

In May, local sheriffs from 17 counties in Maryland also sued the state to halt the new law. Their complaint argues that the law puts them in “an impossible and unconstitutional position.”

“If Plaintiffs follow the Act, they are effectively forced to shield removable aliens from federal custody,” the lawsuit states, while “if they continue cooperating with ICE as they have for years, they risk state penalties and lawsuits.”

In some sections, the sheriffs’ lawsuit and the DOJ lawsuit against Maryland employ identical language.

Chris Hajec, head of litigation at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors stricter immigration enforcement and filed the lawsuit on behalf of the sheriffs, said the Maryland law “puts (the sheriffs) in a dilemma.”

“Either they’re violating the state law and they’re going to get sued by their attorney general, or they’re violating the federal criminal law and they could be prosecuted,” Hajec said.

But Maryland Democratic state Sen. Clarence Lam, the Senate sponsor of the new law, dismissed that argument. Lam said the law only limits what state officers can do, without obstructing ICE from carrying out its duties.

“We think that these efforts to block the implementation are bogus,” Lam told Stateline. “We as a state are wholly within our right and jurisdiction to be able to place limitations on what state and local law enforcement agencies can do. There’s nothing that prevents us from doing so, and that’s all this does.”

“Our state taxpayer dollars should not go towards having local law enforcement enforce federal immigration law.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

In a strongly worded letter to federal prosecutors, Milwaukee City Attorney Evan Goyke rejected the U.S. Department of Justice demand that he provide assurances by Friday that neither he, the Milwaukee Police Department nor any other city entity would enforce an ordinance prohibiting law enforcement officers from wearing masks and concealing their identities.

“The only assurances I can offer you,” Goyke wrote in his July 17 letter to Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate and First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Brad Schimel, “are that [the ordinance] is a vital public safety measure, that I will not advise my clients to exempt federal law enforcement officers from enforcement of the Ordinance against them, and that my office will prosecute any validly issued citation for acts in violation of the Ordinance.”

Masked and unidentified law enforcement officers endanger public safety, Goyke wrote, by undermining accountability and police-community relations, stoking confusion, fear and intimidation and heightening the risk that “bad actors will harm others by impersonating officers” and also that “individuals might resist legitimate law enforcement actions where they otherwise would not due to the fear that they are facing an imposter.”

“You express great concern for the safety of federal law enforcement officers throughout your letter,” he added, “but not once do you express any similar concern for the safety of the public.” 

The ordinance, Goyke wrote, does not restrict the federal officers’ ability to perform their lawful duties while protecting the safety and welfare of residents and visitors of Milwaukee.

“the City and the public have a right to know if masked, armed, and unidentified men seizing people on our streets are who they say they are,” he wrote, objecting to the federal government’s insistence that immigration officers be allowed to conceal their identities “at their discretion.”

“Unfortunately, in the case of federal immigration officers, in particular, that unbounded discretion, coupled with guns and a lack of accountability, has had tragic consequences in cities across the country, most recently in Houston, Texas and Biddeford, Maine,” Goyke wrote, referring to recent fatal shootings by immigration officers in those cities. He also described “unnecessarily aggressive tactics” used by ICE officers in Milwaukee, including “boxing in cars, pointing guns and Tasers at people, breaking car windows, and pinning people on the ground.

“Many drove in unmarked vehicles and wore face coverings,” he added.

Goyke disputed the federal government’s claim that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes ordinances such as Milwaukee’s illegal, citing a 1988 circuit court ruling that held “the Supremacy Clause was not intended to be a shield for ‘anything goes’ conduct by federal law enforcement officers,” as well as the 1920 federal court ruling that held “An employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment.”

He acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an injunction pending appeal of California’s law enforcement identification requirement, but said he does not agree with that ruling, adding that no federal court has issued a final ruling on the matter.

The letter closes by stating “this office approved the Ordinance as legal and enforceable. Neither the preliminary court rulings in other jurisdictions nor your letter convince us to change that opinion.”

WASHINGTON — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche vowed Wednesday to lawmakers on Capitol Hill that if he is confirmed for the top post, the Justice Department would not oppose an effort in Congress to permanently ban a controversial “anti-weaponization” fund.

Blanche also said he would consider any new information brought forward to the government about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his ring of powerful associates. Multiple Epstein abuse survivors attended the Blanche confirmation hearing, some wearing t-shirts depicting the black bar redactions contained within the released files.

Blanche, who previously worked as President Donald Trump’s defense attorney, appeared before a tightly divided Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 

The Republican-led panel is now split 11-10 after the sudden death Saturday of South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham. A large bouquet of white roses was placed before his empty seat Wednesday.

Lawmakers volleyed partisan accusations about the weaponization of the Department of Justice under presidents from both parties. Missouri’s GOP Sen. Eric Schmitt called former Biden administration special counsel Jack Smith a “dirt bag” for his involvement in prosecuting Trump over allegations of colluding to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

But it was the plan for a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that brought tough questions for Blanche from two committee Republicans whose votes he needs to advance, Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The fund was established in exchange for Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for the 2019 leak of his tax returns.

With a raised voice, Tillis said he wants “to stick a fork in this turkey of a 1776 fund,” referring to the administration’s choice of making the fund exactly $1.776 billion, adding the fund “should never be paid out.”

Confirmation fight

The acting attorney general faces a possible rocky road to confirmation in the narrowly divided full Senate, assuming he is advanced by Judiciary, depending on when Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell is released from hospitalization. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have previously opposed some items on Trump’s agenda.

Blanche’s confirmation will also be up to a handful of lame duck or retiring Republican senators whose future Senate careers were thwarted by Trump. They include Cornyn, a Texas Republican, and Bill Cassidy, R-La. Both recently lost primaries when Trump endorsed their opponents.

Blanche is a former federal prosecutor who switched to private law, eventually starting his own firm and representing Trump. 

Blanche defended Trump during a New York state jury trial on charges that the then-former president falsified business records when he paid adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Trump was found guilty on 34 felony charges in May 2024. 

Blanche then served as the deputy at DOJ in the second Trump administration, confirmed on a party-line vote, before being named acting AG after the departure in early June of Pam Bondi.

Trump and the Republican-led Senate have elevated the president’s former personal lawyers to high-level positions in the U.S. judicial system during his second term in office. 

In addition to appointing Blanche, the president nominated former defense attorney Emil Bove to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. 

The Senate, in a narrow 50-49 vote, confirmed Bove for the lifetime position in June 2025. Collins and Murkowski broke with Republicans to oppose Bove’s confirmation.

‘Anti-weaponization’ fund

Blanche caught heat from both sides of the aisle during the hourslong hearing for signing off on the “anti-weaponization” fund for claimants he previously described as “victims of lawfare.” 

Critics quickly pounced on what they called a “slush fund” for its likely future payouts to pardoned Jan. 6, 2021 defendants, including those who assaulted police officers during the attack aimed at halting Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.

Blanche maintains the administration scrapped the fund.

The acting attorney general sidestepped questions on whether he approved of Trump’s blanket pardon of roughly 1,600 defendants implicated in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“The Constitution gives the president the full power to pardon anybody for any reason,” Blanche said.

“You don’t question his decision?” ranking member Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked.

Blanche repeated his answer.

Cornyn, displaying a blown-up copy of the IRS settlement deal, questioned Blanche on why the Department of Justice has not formally ended the fund.

“Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement fund?” asked Cornyn.

“No, the settlement fund is just not moving forward. There’s no modification. It’s just, it never started. No money went from the Treasury to any other account,” Blanche replied.

“I’m under oath today, and I’ve said it’s dead repeatedly,” Blanche later said to Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat.

Tillis said, “I think that the courts are probably going to deal with it. But why should we waste the court capacity on this issue? If I could walk to the Senate floor with an agreed-to piece of text coming from the administration that just renders this whole thing dead?”

Blanche said the administration does “not object (to) that path.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, defended the arrangement to drop Trump’s IRS lawsuit as a “pretty darn good deal” that was settled “without the president receiving a single penny.”

Blanche met with angry Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill May 21 to sell the settlement fund as several protested it by holding out on the passage of a massive immigration funding bill to support Trump’s mass deportation agenda for the remainder of his term.

Blanche told House appropriators during a June 2 hearing that the administration would not move forward with the fund, but said he didn’t know “what that means to sign documents reversing” the fund.

Trump tax immunity

Trump’s settlement to drop his IRS lawsuit also indefinitely absolves him and his two plaintiff sons, Don Jr. and Eric, as well as the private Trump Organization, from government prosecutions and tax enforcement.

Democrats seized on the disparity. “Everyone in this room, all of us on this side, we have to follow the tax laws of the United States, and if we don’t, we can be held responsible for it to the point of even criminal prosecution,” Durbin said. 

“Why did you decide that President Trump and his family and their businesses should be exempt from that same responsibility?” the Illinois Democrat asked.

Blanche said the agreement was “typical” of settlements with the IRS, and that the agreement “included release of any past audits. It does not give any protection to the president, his family, or his organizations for any taxes they file.”

“It’s hard to explain to the American people that no one is above the law when that type of document was signed by you,” Durbin replied.

The Florida federal judge in the IRS case on Monday slammed Trump’s settlement with his own administration as using the presidency to “manipulate” the courts.

Epstein files

As expected, senators questioned the Justice Department’s handling of the legally mandated release of government files on Epstein, a process that critics and victims say fell short of full transparency and protection of victims’ identities.

Blanche defended the department’s “Herculean” effort in reviewing millions of documents related to the government’s federal investigation of Epstein 

“There were mistakes that were made, and so approximately 1% of the redactions had to be fixed after we released the Epstein files,” Blanche said. 

“Whenever we learned that any victim’s name had been improperly not redacted, we immediately took the document down and fixed it as soon as we could. That doesn’t excuse the mistakes of which I take responsibility, but it does mean that we tried to fix them,” Blanche said.

Durbin asked for a commitment that Blanche personally meet in the next month with 10 Epstein victims present at the hearing. Blanche said a sex trafficking prosecutor in his office is willing to meet any time, and that he is precluded from doing so because of ongoing litigation.

“We will never not talk to victims. We will never not do everything we can to prosecute anybody that committed any crimes against any of these women. … Any victim, if they’re here today, I would encourage them or their lawyers to meet with the FBI,” Blanche said.

“I think you ought to be in the room,” Durbin said.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said he was “stunned” at Blanche’s refusal to meet personally with victims.

“But you did meet with Ghislaine Maxwell,” Booker said, referring to Blanche’s July 2025 meeting with the convicted sex trafficker and Epstein co-conspirator shortly before she was moved to a prison with less security.

Epstein survivors submitted six letters to the committee opposing Blanche’s nomination, and Durbin also submitted for the record a letter from 1,200 former career DOJ employees who served for both parties warning against confirming Blanche.

When prompted by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., to apologize to victims in the room, Blanche said his “heart breaks for every victim of any sexual crime, whether involving Mr. Epstein or somebody else.”

Pivoting the subject to a campaign refrain of Republicans, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., said she appreciated Blanche’s “commitment” to the Epstein victims and that she wished Democrats “had that same level of conviction” for “families of those who have lost loved ones at the hands of illegal aliens.”

Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, entered a handful of letters in support of Blanche’s confirmation, including from law enforcement associations.

The Wisconsin Ethics Commission has dismissed a complaint alleging Attorney General Josh Kaul violated state rules when the Department of Justice hired out of state lawyers on contract to enforce the state’s environmental regulations. 

The complaint was dismissed by the commission late last month in a closed session and released to the public last week. The issue has been highlighted by Republican legislators eager to land blows on Kaul, who is running for re-election against Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney, a Republican. 

Faced with a limited budget from the GOP-controlled Legislature and increased scrutiny on the DOJ since the enactment of the Republican lame duck laws in 2018, Kaul hired the out-of-state lawyers to assist with the enforcement of the state’s environmental regulations. 

The lawyers were given fellowships to work as special assistant attorneys general through a New York University program tied to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The attorneys were paid by the NYU program and officially classified as volunteers under the state employment system yet given the powers of an assistant attorney general.

In a statement to the Wisconsin Examiner, Kaul said the dismissal of the complaint confirms that Republicans were only trying to score partisan points against him. 

“This unambiguous dismissal from the bipartisan Ethics Commission makes it even clearer that the Senate Oversight Committee is a partisan stunt,” Kaul said. “The Wisconsin Department of Justice will not be deterred from effectively enforcing our laws.”

The complaint over the fellows was made to the ethics commission in February 2025, alleging Kaul engaged in a quid pro quo by hiring the fellows to work on specifically environmental litigation. 

This February, the newly established Committee on the Oversight of the Department of Justice held a multi-day hearing in which Kaul and other DOJ officials were grilled about the program. In March, the committee released a report detailing the Republican belief that hiring the fellows amounted to Kaul putting the department up for sale and letting state litigation strategy be determined by an outside interest group. 

Leading the testimony against the DOJ during the February hearing were a representative from Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby and a powerful GOP ally, and a dairy farmer who was subject to an enforcement action by the state after he operated his factory farm without a permit for six years. The committee was chaired by Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk), who has a legislative history of opposing environmental initiatives. 

In the report, Republicans allege that the arrangement was “not authorized” by Wisconsin statutes, that the DOJ violated state law by not immediately administering the attorneys oaths of office, exposes concerns about the state’s system for adjudicating ethics complaints, opens the state up to influence from outside interests and that the DOJ did not fully cooperate with records requests filed by the committee. 

The report recommends that the DOJ immediately terminate the agreements that facilitated the hiring of the attorneys. It also recommends that the Legislature pass a resolution declaring the hirings unlawful, more strictly manage the processes through which the DOJ is funded and pass legislation that only state employees can conduct prosecutions. Additionally the report states that government attorneys should take their oaths of office before conducting any work for the state and that the state Ethics Commission should be subject to faster timelines for adjudicating complaints.

In the dismissal of the ethics complaint, the commission found that Kaul doesn’t gain any personal benefit by hiring low-level attorneys to handle litigation.

“As an elected official, [Kaul] is vested with significant discretion in what his agency focuses its efforts on,” the dismissal states. “It is, in fact, possible that, as a result of the acceptance of the legal services of the fellow, the DOJ will be able to participate in more environmental litigation or other official actions related to the environment. It is also possible that the DOJ might be able to shift a paid staff member to other work. However, the statutory influence clause is not concerned with whether accepting the service of the legal fellow could reasonably be expected to influence the

DOJ’s actions. It is concerned with whether it could reasonably be expected to influence the state public official’s actions. By naming only the Attorney General, the question is whether acceptance of the free services could reasonably be expected to influence the Respondent’s official actions, not others in the Department of Justice.” 

The dismissal also noted that the state has an interest in hiring interns and fellows to complete the necessary work of state government.

“Accepting unpaid interns and unpaid fellows is a benefit to the agency in which they work and to the State more generally,” the dismissal states. “Absent additional facts, unpaid interns and unpaid fellows are not a benefit to a specific state public official. This is true in every case where an unpaid intern or unpaid fellow works. Moreover, the services of an unpaid intern or fellow, are generally of the nature and type that it is not reasonable for a person to expect it to influence the elected head of a large agency, in the absence of other facts.” 

Additionally, the dismissal states that the commission “is aware that the Legislature is concerned” about the issue and noted that the ethics statutes aren’t the proper venue for handling the question. 

“The ethics laws were not intended to cover discretionary decisions where there is no personal benefit to officials or more than a theoretical potential impact or influence on an official’s decision,” it states. “As noted above, the ethics laws are not intended to apply to agencies; they are intended to apply to individual officials. Whether an agency should accept the services of someone that is provided by or paid by an outside organization, is a question of policy that can be addressed by the Legislature. Indeed, it is the body politic that is best suited for that purpose.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Wisconsin Attorney General can determine where to send money the Department of Justice receives through settlement agreements. 

The 5-2 decision — which includes a partial concurrence from Justice Brian Hagedorn — strikes down a measure enacted by the Republican-controlled Legislature to take power from executive branch agencies after the elections of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul in 2018. 

During that lame duck period at the end of a Republican administration, the Legislature enacted a law that requires the attorney general to deposit settlement money into the state’s general fund, which is largely controlled by the Legislature. However within the general fund are many sub-accounts through which many of the state’s programs and services are rendered. State law distinguishes between depositing money into the general fund and crediting money to specific programs. 

Since the lame duck law’s enactment, Kaul has put settlement earnings into the general fund and then credited the money to DOJ programs within the fund. The Legislature has argued that Kaul has been purposefully flouting the intent of the law, which was to give control over the money to legislative Republicans. 

The legal dispute in the case, including at the oral arguments in March, has flipped the usual script in which Republicans argue for laws to be interpreted strictly, following exactly what a statute says. 

“[The statute] entitled “Deposit of settlement funds,” provides in its entirety that ‘[t]he attorney general shall deposit all settlement funds into the general fund,’” Justice Rebecca Dallet wrote in the majority opinion. “This simple, declarative sentence identifies a class of state money (‘settlement funds’) and imposes a single, narrow restriction on where that money must be deposited (into the state treasury, specifically ‘the general fund’). It says nothing whatsoever about where that money may or must be credited after it is deposited.”

Dallet continued that the Court wasn’t buying the Legislature’s argument that a deeper meaning should be read into the language.

Quoting the Court’s precedent, Dallet wrote, “The problem with these arguments is that ‘we interpret the statutory language the legislature enacted, and will not read into a statute language that it does not contain or reasonably imply.’” 

In a dissent, Justice Rebecca Bradley, partially joined by Annette Ziegler — both of whom signed off on many of the lame duck laws and their specific intent to disempower Democrats — argued that the Court’s majority was only aiming to give a legal victory to an elected Democrat in an election year.

“The majority refuses to apply the law, which favors the Republican-controlled legislature over Democrat Attorney General Josh Kaul. Lady Justice wears a blindfold, not blinders,” Bradley wrote in an opinion that also cited the 2004 film “Dodgeball.” “This is not the first time justice has taken a back seat to political interests. The members of the majority extend the Democrats’ almost unbroken winning streak in litigation against the Republican legislature since the progressives took control.”