Blanche risks losing AG role over promise to grant Trump family tax immunity
ALSO INSIDE: Sen. Duckworth on the Iran War and voting against an overblown defense budget.
This newsletter is brought to you by Action Network Boost, a new set of features built for the most advanced digital programs.
Cam here 👋 bringing you your daily dose of what people are doing – good, bad, and otherwise – in the world of politics. We’re diving into the stories you won’t see anywhere else. And remember, you can also keep up with me over on TikTok and Bluesky.
Since day one of Trump’s political career, people have desperately attempted to normalize his absurd abuses of power and blatant corruption – and 10 years later, much of corporate media remains a victim of their own attempts to return to a sense of normalcy.
It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.
What Happened
Once thought to be a shoo-in, Todd Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general is now in peril after his efforts to use his office to personally benefit the president began eroding support within Congress.
The Senate Judiciary Committee canceled a vote planned for Thursday to advance Blanche’s nomination over objections from a majority of its members. The main point of contention is the nearly $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund Blanche created for President Donald Trump, along with a provision barring the IRS from auditing any member of the Trump family or their businesses.
Though Blanche testified under oath that he had put an end to both, he has refused to provide a written rescission of the settlement agreement he filed with the courts in May. Until he does, the slush fund and tax immunity are legally still in effect.
“All I want them to do is to confirm what he said in his sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee, with regard not only to the weaponization fund, but also who is protected from future audits and what agencies of the federal government are bound by the release,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told reporters. “It’s pretty simple, and we’ve actually sent them a redline strikeout.”
Without Cornyn’s support, Blanche cannot advance out of the Judiciary Committee and would instead have to go through a lengthy procedural process before reaching the Senate floor. Trump responded by suggesting he might temporarily withdraw Blanche’s nomination until after the midterm elections in the hope that the incoming Congress will somehow be more willing to do his bidding than the current one.
Blanche’s refusal to end DOJ initiatives that personally benefit Trump mark a clear line between what he is and isn’t willing to do to keep his job. During his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Cornyn and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) laid out two conditions Blanche would have to meet in order to secure their votes: shut down the slush fund and meet with survivors of Jeffrey Epstein.
He quickly fulfilled only one of those demands. A meeting with survivors was held that same day, but those in the room describe Blanche as disrespectful, condescending, and performative.
Jena-Lisa Jones, a survivor whose lawyers attended the meeting, told COURIER that no one left believing that Blanche had taken their concerns seriously. She said survivors repeatedly confronted him with information implicating their abusers, only for the acting attorney general to cut them off and tell them to report any tips to their local FBI office.
“Todd Blanche is unfit to serve as the highest position of law enforcement in this country,” said Dani Bensky, a survivor who also attended the meeting with Blanche. “He’s led the DOJ to protect perpetrators with absolute impunity, while exposing nude photos and all of our identifying information. He’s prioritized mitigating the president’s reputational harm by meeting in the White House’s Situation Room instead of following a single investigative lead.”
The bare minimum effort appears to have fallen short with Tillis as well. Though Tillis was initially appreciative toward Blanche for holding the meeting, the senator changed his tone after speaking directly with Benski on Wednesday, making clear that spoken assurances from Blanche are no longer going to cut it.
“I didn’t hear in there — I want to see — specific action items,” said Tillis. “And some of that may even have to do with the investigation.”
Benski, Jones, and other survivors have demanded that the DOJ reopen its investigation into Epstein and his co-conspirators, return convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell to a maximum security prison, and offer restitution for the department’s failure to properly redact the Epstein Files.
Supercharge your program with Action Network Boost
Powerful features for the most advanced digital programs, including deliverability reporting, priority support, a new way to dig deeper into your data, simplified email customization, and much, much more. Sign up and get 10% off Boost here >
Sen. Duckworth on the Iran War and voting against an overblown defense budget
Congress is currently in a stalemate over the Trump administration’s request for a $1.5 trillion defense budget, which includes funding for an unauthorized war in Iran and startup money for a $1 trillion “Golden Dome” missile defense project.
Until last year, the National Defense Authorization Act was one of the most reliably bipartisan pieces of legislation at the Capitol. But this year’s proposal — the ballooning of an already massive budget loaded with stockpiles of cash for President Donald Trump’s pet projects — has seen even some of the military’s strongest champions drop their support.
To better understand the current status of the defense budget, and what those opposed to it would like changed, I spoke with National Guard Army veteran Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). A member of Congress since 2013, Duckworth has spent years shaping military funding legislation after earlier serving in state and federal veterans affairs’ offices beginning in 2006.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Camaron Stevenson
Just to kick it off, could you let me know about the current situation of the Defense Authorization Act?
Sen. Tammy Duckworth
The Defense Authorization Act is basically to authorize the defense budget for the nation. It has been one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation going back over 60 years. I myself have never voted ‘no’ on a Defense Authorization Act until last year, and this year is the first time I’ve ever voted no on it in committee.
It passed out of committee on essentially largely partisan lines. We’re at a point now where it takes 60 votes to open debate on the bill, and they don’t have 60 votes to open debate. So we’re at a stalemate. And a lot of it has to do with the war in Iran, and what President Trump is doing with prosecuting this war against the wishes of the American people.
Stevenson
To that end: you did introduce an amendment regarding the war and funding for it. Could you tell me a little about what your amendment does, and how much money would go to fund the Iran War if your amendment isn’t part of the bill?
Duckworth
My amendment basically says that there can be no more spending on this war in Iran until the administration comes and explains to the American people what exactly they’re doing through their representatives in Congress. They need to come and explain: what is the goal of the war? How are you going to end the war? What are you going to do? What are you going to spend after the war is over in Iran?
The American people need to know this. They’ve asked for something like $300 billion to rebuild Iran. I would like $300 billion to rebuild the United States of America. This president would rather spend money rebuilding Iran than rebuilding America. What my amendment says is no more money for the war, no more money for Secretary of Defense Hegseth to continue to travel, until the administration comes and explains to the American people what the heck they’re doing.
It’s pretty simple. Now, you can still continue to defend America. You can still spend money on defense, on intelligence gathering. You just can’t spend any more money prosecuting the war.
Stevenson
How is it that we’ve been able to spend money on this war in the first place when it hasn’t been approved by Congress?
Duckworth
Well, they’re taking money from other parts of the defense budget that they already had. And as far as we know — as of almost a month ago — they came to us and said they’d already spent $35 billion. And that was just in the first couple of months, so that number is old. We think it’s going to be upwards of $400–$500 billion when all is said and done. But we don’t know.
They’re supposed to come tell us: How many munitions have you expended? What is the cost of rebuilding America’s military bases that have come under attack in places like Kuwait? Those are the numbers that they have not given to the American people. And frankly, the American people deserve to know — because we have bridges that need to be fixed.
They’ve cut funding for educational programs like Pell Grants by declaring that nursing is not a profession, so nursing students can’t qualify for a lot of Pell Grants anymore and will have to take on more student loan debt. I’d rather spend money on that than on rebuilding Iran, which is what this president is proposing to do.
Stevenson
Is there anything else in the Defense Authorization Act that you feel is a non-starter — or conversely, is there anything in there that you think is really good that you wish would come through?
Duckworth
There’s stuff that I wish was in there. For the first time in a few years, my bill on providing IVF to military families was not included. This was something that passed unanimously out of committee in both the House and the Senate two years ago, and last year it passed. The year before that, it passed by a roll call vote. Last year, it passed by voice vote. This is how popular it is.
This year, when the same language that people voted on previously came up for a vote, Chairman Whitaker — just before we had a voice vote on it, like we did last year and it passed — said, What does Susan B. Anthony think of this? This is the anti-choice, anti-IVF group.
And immediately the whole thing fell apart, and so it was not part of it. And frankly, with infertility rates among military men and women being more than double that of the general population, these are people who need help starting their families. I don’t know why we would be opposed to helping provide IVF for military families. So I wish that was in the bill.
Stevenson
One other thing I wanted to ask about — there was in this bill a ban on stock buybacks for companies who make money from the defense bill. Are you familiar with that?
Duckworth
I am. There are certainly things in that bill that I have voted for, but overall, I just cannot vote to authorize the war in Iran. See, if you vote on the defense budget, that is voting to authorize the war in Iran. If you vote on the supplemental — which is a piece of legislation that asks for more money to prosecute the war in Iran — then you’re saying you approve of the war in Iran.
I am at a place where the administration has not come to explain to the American people why they’re conducting this war, how they plan on ending the war, and what they’re going to spend to rebuild Iran. If they don’t tell us that, I can’t vote to authorize it. So I can’t vote on the supplemental. I can’t vote on the defense budget.
They need to come tell me — I have to do my job for the American people, and that is: tell me exactly what you are doing with this war that you started on your own, against the wishes of the American public.
Stevenson
And then I want to ask about one other thing — Secretary Hegseth today announced that he’s going to implement testosterone testing. Mandatory over 30, optional if you’re under 30. Does this sound like anything you’re familiar with from your experience in the military, and what do you think the real purpose of this is?
Duckworth
I try not to get in the head of the most incompetent Secretary of Defense in our nation’s history, but I will tell you that to me it sounds like gender-affirming care. And I’m supportive of gender-affirming care, so if that’s what his intent is, then great.
But look: bottom line, I want more health care for military men and women. I want more health care for all Americans. If we can expand health care for military men and women, that would be something that I could support — but it has to be for women as well as for men. Let’s do hormone testing for both men and women, and if you find that hormone levels are low and you need help getting pregnant, then let’s provide access to IVF for military men and women so that they can start their families.
But I don’t think that’s what Hegseth is doing. I think this is performative bullshit from a Secretary of Defense who cares more about lifting fake weights that look bigger and heavier than they really are and how many push-ups he can do. He should be more worried about what’s actually happening in Iran than this kind of stuff. But it’s to be expected of an incompetent Secretary of Defense.
Stevenson
Is there anything else you want to touch on that maybe I missed — about the Defense Bill, the Secretary of Defense, or anything that people might be missing out on right now?
Duckworth
I think what people have to understand is that we cannot effectively defend the United States of America if we do not have a well-trained, healthy, well-supported fighting force. We are going to lose men and women out of our military mid-career — people we’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train — if they can’t start their families. We’re going to lose them. They’re going to leave the military and go into the civilian world.
We’ve invested all this money to train them. If they’re not treated well while they’re in the military, if they feel that they’re being used as cannon fodder for wars of choice from a president that the American people have not authorized — then we lose them.
When you send somebody to war, when you ask them to be ready to lay down their lives to defend this nation, you better safeguard that commitment from these heroes by doing your job and upholding your responsibility to make sure that what you’re asking them to do is truly to the benefit of the American people, is truly for the defense of this great nation.
And frankly, we’ve not done that. The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense have not done that. They’ve just started a war of choice that’s resulted in dead service members, wounded service members. And for what? Are we safer than where we were before? We have a worse Ayatollah than the one that was there before. The Strait of Hormuz is now closed. Americans are suffering with higher gas prices. And now the President says he wants to spend $300 billion rebuilding Iran when he should be spending $300 billion rebuilding America.
Support our journalism at COURIER
Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.
But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.
Supercharge your program with Action Network Boost
Powerful features for the most advanced digital programs, including deliverability reporting, priority support, a new way to dig deeper into your data, simplified email customization, and much, much more. Sign up and get 10% off Boost here >