On Monday, President Donald Trump decided that Todd Blanche’s audition for Attorney General passed the test, and he announced that he would be putting Blanche up for nomination to fill the role permanently, reported CBS News.
Before the ink was dry on the story, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) offered little confidence in the pick. This is not new, as Thune has been brutally honest about questionable Trump picks in key roles.
In fact, this is now the third straight challenge Trump has seen hit a roadblock before the nomination is even put before committee in recent weeks. First, it was the Anti-Weaponization Fund, then it was the nomination of Bill Pulte as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) (click here to read my deep dive on his nomination), and now this. It is a sure sign that Republican senators are now protecting their seats and looking at Trump as more of a liability now.
The pattern is clear, apparently, to everyone except Trump.
Unlike Pulte, Blanche has the credentials for the job, so we really need to take a deeper look at why Republicans are already putting up a stink over the nomination.
In March 2025, Blanche had the party’s support, passing with a 52-46 vote for Deputy Attorney General. He took over as Acting Attorney General after Pam Bondi departed the administration.
He is a seasoned prosecutor as well as a former defense attorney. In other words, he is not a real estate executive being charged with national defense. If there were ever a slot perfect for Blanche’s experience, this is it.
This means it is not about Blanche’s resume, but instead about his actions since taking over for Bondi.
As acting attorney general, Blanche has been a rubber stamp for some of Trump’s most controversial legal issues, with the anti-weaponization fund being at the top of that list, which I covered in depth in a previous deep dive (click here to read that report).
Blanche was the architect of the fund, cleverly seeking $1.776 billion in funds that would be earmarked for those who were “victims of lawfare and weaponization" under the Biden administration, reported CNN.
Republicans rejected the fund, mostly on optics, but they should have all been vocal that the government already has three mechanisms available for those who truly fit this description.
Even though Blanche recently took the fund off the table to help pass a reconciliation bill, as reported by NBC News, he has refused to permanently kill it, and that is a major problem for Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Thom Tillis (R-NC).
Murkowski noted:
"I think it's gonna come down to the extent of his involvement in this weaponization fund."
Tillis added:
"I think what we need to do right now is focus on the 1776 fund, or he's not going to have a very good time in the Judiciary Committee."
If Republicans had rejected the fund, why would they not reject its architect? The bigger question is why is Trump not properly reading the room?
Tillis has an additional problem with Blanche, and this will surely be a problem for other senators as well, that being the riot at the Capitol. On this, Tillis, according to Roll Call, stated:
"J6 is a circuit breaker for me. It's not a gray area for me. He either equivocated and said harming these Capitol police officers was an okay thing, or he didn't, and we'll find that in the due diligence."
When those individuals were pardoned, I was vocally opposed to it, so there is no way I would support them receiving money if this fund were ever put into play (as I outlined in my deep dive, I do not support this fund either).
Tillis is the key here. If he votes no in committee, the nomination fails, with at least an 11-11 vote, and those 11 approvals are not locked in, far from it.
Republicans currently hold 53 seats, which means they cannot afford to lose more than three votes (Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) has already vocally opposed Blanche). Right now, there are at least four Republicans who are expressing concerns about Blanche, as you can see in the table below:
| Senator | Position | Stated Concern | Vote Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thom Tillis | R-NC, Senate Judiciary Committee, Retiring | January 6 "circuit breaker" — any Blanche equivocation on Capitol police assaults disqualifies | Undecided/potential committee deadlock vote |
| Lisa Murkowski | R-AK, Centrist | "Comes down to the extent of his involvement in this weaponization fund" | Undecided |
| Susan Collins | R-ME, Centrist | Voted to block the anti-weaponization fund on Senate floor | Undecided / leaning no |
| John Cornyn | R-TX, Lost primary May 26 | "Hates the anti-weaponization fund" — no re-election pressure | Undecided |
| John Fetterman | D-PA, Cross-aisle voter | Has publicly committed to voting against Blanche | Confirmed NO |
| Chuck Grassley | R-IA, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman | Publicly supports the nomination, citing "transparency and support for law enforcement" | YES (committee leadership) |
| The Math | 53-47 Senate split | 50 needed for confirmation. Republicans can lose 3. JD Vance breaks ties. | 5+ potential no votes within 48 hours of nomination |
| Sources: CNN Politics (June 4, 2026 Tillis "circuit breaker" comments); Fox News (June 9, 2026 confirmation analysis); Roll Call (June 8, 2026 Judiciary Committee math); Al Jazeera (June 8, 2026 Grassley support); Washington Examiner (June 4, 2026 Senate Republican pushback); ABC News (June 5, 2026 Cornyn anti-weaponization fund position); CBS News (June 9, 2026 nomination submission); my June 2 piece on the GOP Senators / Anti-Weaponization Fund; my June 4 piece on Bill Pulte / Director of National Intelligence. | |||
The official nomination is only 48 hours old, and there are already four Republicans who are expressing concerns (note they are all Republicans who are either at war with Trump, with the exception of Cornyn, who failed to secure Trump’s support in his primary battle, losing to the Trump-endorsed Ken Paxton on May 26).
I know this is a tired horse at this point, but this is why you don’t create open warfare with members of your party. You can surely disagree with them, but have those arguments behind closed doors, not in the media and on social media.
Having said that, this is not an impossible confirmation, as is the case for Pulte. Blanche can still change minds here, and some very big names in the party are supporting Blanche, such as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). But Blanche will have to have the performance of his life during the vetting process before committee.
Three weeks. Three Senate fights. Same senators. Same concerns.
If this were a horror movie, the music would be getting louder, and everyone in the theater would see what is coming, but for some reason, Trump has been immune to hearing it.
The anti-weaponization fund. The Pulte appointment. The Blanche appointment.
Put any of those up last year, and I would wager they all would have sailed through without resistance, but the game has changed considerably since then.
Midterms are well underway, and even those senators who did not need Trump’s endorsement are worried about their record come election day. And every senator that Trump has blasted or started an open war with is now openly resisting just about anything Trump puts on the table.
Yet, Trump still seems to think he can bully every issue across the finish line. If Blanche fails, the message might finally get through, and it is one that could create even bigger problems for the party once the midterm elections are completed.
I want you to consider something…
If the Blanche nomination fails, Trump has to realize it is only going to get worse moving forward, especially with the November midterms approaching. If the GOP then loses the House, Trump knows he gets nothing meaningful passed in Congress again. If the GOP loses the Senate, Trump might as well play Solitaire in the Oval Office every day.
If he cannot push his agenda, and he is also staring down the barrel of a third impeachment, what are the chances that he stays in office? Do we get the standard “I want to spend more time with my family” excuse, and he resigns?
Speaking of the impeachment, does he resign to set up a pardon by JD Vance before the Dems can impeach him and possibly create even more legal problems for Trump?
Yes, I realize there are a lot of “ifs” being thrown out there, but that is my job. We need to start asking why these “ifs” are even present.
When you openly go to war against members of your party, this is what happens. When you have disagreements and work them out behind the scenes, concessions can be made, and nobody is the wiser.
Blanche’s nomination is about far more than a single nominee passing through the Senate. This is a major test for the Senate, for the nominee, and the president. All three have a chance to pass it, and all three can fail.
We are soon going to find out if we are governing by our Constitution, grudge, or bullying. Anything but the Constitution, and all three fail.
