OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Opposition to Todd Blanche confirmation becomes political flashpoint

21 sources · updated 2026-07-17
Left 100% Center 0% Right 0%
1 left · 0 center · 0 right

What happened

On Wednesday, July 15, 2026, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill for a confirmation hearing on President Donald Trump’s nomination of him to serve permanently as attorney general. Blanche, who previously represented Trump in criminal cases before being confirmed as deputy attorney general and becoming acting attorney general after Pam Bondi’s departure in April 2026, answered questions from Chairman Chuck Grassley, ranking Democrat Dick Durbin and other senators. The hearing covered the Justice Department’s release of Jeffrey Epstein records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, including survivor information Blanche said had been left unredacted by “mistakes”; the May 2026 settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax returns, which included a planned $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund and tax-release protections for Trump, his sons and related businesses; federal law-enforcement activity involving ICE and polling places; FBI Director Kash Patel’s conduct; and department actions involving Trump’s political adversaries. Blanche testified that the “anti-weaponization” fund was “dead” and “not moving forward,” acknowledged the settlement had not been modified in writing, defended the tax protections as typical settlement language, and said Justice Department staff would meet with Epstein survivors represented by counsel while not clearly committing to meet them personally. During a Thursday continuation with witness testimony, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said he would not vote to advance Blanche until Blanche meets Epstein survivors, leaving the nomination uncertain because one Republican “no” vote on the committee could block it from reaching the full Senate.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

The biggest factual gaps run both ways. Guardian reports Amy Klobuchar pressing Blanche on whether federal agents would be deployed at polling sites, with Blanche answering only that he would “commit to following the law”; none of Fox News, Daily Wire, Breitbart, or Newsmax mentions polling sites. The New York Times also carries a separate angle — subpoenas to Times journalists who reported on security concerns with Trump’s new plane — that is absent from the right-leaning pieces. In the other direction, Fox News gives extensive space to Blanche’s clash with Adam Schiff, including Blanche saying, “You’re a lawyer, you know the rules” and “You can’t accuse me of violating my ethical rules and then lie about what I did”; that exchange does not appear in Guardian, NPR, Axios, the Atlantic, or NBC’s live-stream listing. The same Epstein-file dispute is framed very differently. Daily Wire says Blanche “dismantled the Democrat-backed narrative” and stresses his claim that “some 3 million pages” were made available to Congress. Guardian and NPR instead foreground the redaction failures: Guardian says Blanche acknowledged “mistakes that were made,” and NPR says the department failed to properly redact victims’ “private information and photos.” Both sides quote Blanche’s promise to keep investigating Epstein-related crimes, but they lead readers to different parts of the same exchange. The anti-weaponization fund appears across the spectrum, but with uneven stress. Newsmax’s preview calls it a “since-abandoned plan” and says Blanche allies expect confirmation; NPR and the Atlantic dwell on the fact that Trump “has not agreed in writing” to kill it and that the settlement remains enforceable. Breitbart, quoting Sheldon Whitehouse, uses “slush fund deal,” while CBS/NPR/Newsmax use “anti-weaponization fund.” The unanswered question across outlets is concrete: if Blanche says the fund is “dead,” why have Trump, his sons, the IRS, and DOJ not signed a written modification saying so?
Bottom line

The clearest split is not over whether the $1.8 billion fund and Epstein files came up — both sides mention them — but over what counts as the headline: Daily Wire leads with Blanche “dismantled” criticism, while NPR, Guardian, and Axios center redaction failures, survivor meetings, and whether one Republican vote could block him.

The Left View
Left-leaning sources framed the hearing as a test of whether Blanche can separate the Justice Department from Trump’s personal interests. They emphasized his exchange with Sen. John Kennedy — “I’m his lawyer,” followed by “was his lawyer” — as symbolic of a deeper concern that, as Durbin put it, Blanche is “still President Trump’s personal attorney.” They treated the IRS settlement as the strongest evidence of self-dealing: the fund was called a “slush fund” or “anti-weaponization” payoff mechanism, and outlets highlighted both the federal judge’s rebuke and Blanche’s concession that there was no written modification killing it. On Epstein, left-leaning coverage stressed survivor harm from the redaction failures, Blanche’s reluctance to personally meet survivors, and Tillis’s holdout as evidence that even Republicans saw unresolved accountability issues. The Guardian, NPR, the Times and the Atlantic also tied the hearing to a broader “retribution” or politicization narrative, citing questions about ICE, Patel, press subpoenas and cases targeting Trump adversaries as signs that the department’s traditional independence has eroded.
The Right View
Right-leaning sources generally presented Blanche as a capable nominee facing partisan attacks, while acknowledging that the IRS settlement and Epstein files created difficult questions. The Daily Wire said Blanche “dismantled the Democrat-backed narrative” on Epstein by arguing that the Trump administration had been “extraordinarily transparent,” including by making unredacted material available to Congress and contrasting that with what he called the Biden administration’s silence. Fox News focused on his clash with Sen. Adam Schiff, portraying Blanche as correcting misstatements about recusal rules with the line, “You’re a lawyer, you know the rules,” and denying that he violated ethics obligations. Newsmax highlighted support from Republican officials and state attorneys general who called Democratic questioning “political theater,” praised Blanche’s law-enforcement record, and pointed to claims of lower murder rates, anti-fraud work, fentanyl seizures and stronger federal-state cooperation. At the same time, Newsmax’s Reuters-based coverage noted that some Republican senators remained noncommittal over the fund and tax protections, even as party leaders and Blanche allies expected a path to confirmation.
Our Take (balanced)
The strongest left-side argument is that the independence problem is not hypothetical: Blanche’s prior role, his “I’m his lawyer” correction, the Trump-benefiting IRS settlement, the lack of a written rescission of the fund, and the Epstein redaction failures all give senators concrete grounds to question whether he can put institutional obligations ahead of the president’s interests. The strongest right-side argument is that Blanche gave specific sworn assurances and operational defenses: he said the fund is “dead,” no money moved, Congress received broad Epstein access, redaction errors were corrected, and he follows ethics recusal rules while emphasizing public-safety results. The central unresolved tension is whether those assurances and performance claims are enough to overcome the appearance and legal residue of a Justice Department led by the president’s former defense lawyer, especially when the most controversial settlement remains formally unmodified.

21 sources

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.