FY 2027 Department of Justice Budget Estimates and Justification

The subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies will come to order the hearing, will consider the president's, I hope the hearing will consider the president's FY twenty seventy-seven budget request for the Department of Judges Justice. Last week the subcommittee reviewed the president's request. for the department's four law enforcement components, the FBI, the DEA, US Marshals, uh and uh uh ATF and and the let me do that again, the FBI, US Marshals Service, ATF and DEA. That was a very good her uh hearing uh general and I appreciate uh your allowing their presence here in advance of your appearance today. I appreciate the department's participation as we work to complete our budget hearings and draft the FY twenty-seven CGS bill. Attorney Blanch, your, I appreciate your support for law enforcement in the state, in the States, and I look forward to, uh, welcoming you to Kansas in the future. Overall, DOJ is requesting an increase of approximately four point seven billion dollars or roughly twelve to thirteen percent above FY twenty-six enacted levels. Much of that request reflects the reality that after several years of effectively flat funding, All while facing inflationary costs, many of the department's components were under significant strain. Last year, I worked with my colleagues. This committee worked together to maintain critical funding for both federal law enforcement agencies and the state and local departments that continue to serve as the backbone of public safety in communities across Kansas and the country. Attorney General, I saw the note in your written remarks about what a serious challenge FY twenty-six resources have been. and will continue to be. I particularly understand the enormous strain that the Bureau of Prisons, the One Beautiful Bill Act provided five billion to BOP for both recruitment and retention of staff and to address severe maintenance backlog. Additionally, the department is requesting an increase of two point two billion or twenty-seven percent for BOP. I assume that this reflects serious ongoing resource challenges. At the same time, I have some concerns about cuts proposed to the department's three grant-making offices. The grants administered by these offices provide uh significant support for state and local law enforcement, juvenile delinquency prevention, support for victims, and the safety of our nation's police and deputy sheriffs. For example, this budget proposes a cut to youth mentoring programs. This would have a significant impact on those organizations

Oh.

that mentor and operate in Kansas and across the country. Veteran treatment courts have been a program that I've been particularly interested in as I chair the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. I've worked closely with uh many in Kansas and across the country in regard to VTCs. Uh the Violence Against Women program is facing a cut which would have serious impacts on victims and the services provided to victims through organizations such as the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. I agree the department requires additional resources to fulfill its mission and keep our community safe. This is especially true for our federal law enforcement agencies, U. S. Attorney's offices, and the Bureau of Prisons. As this committee evaluates the department's request, we also have a responsibility to examine whether reductions to many of these community-based programs could ultimately place additional strains on law enforcement and local communities in the longer term. Attorney General, I look forward to learning more about the department's resource needs and your FY twenty-seven request. And I would recognize Senator Van Hollen for his opening statement.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, welcome. The acting attorney general is supposed to be the people's lawyer and defend the rule of law and not act as the president's personal lawyer. But in this administration, the Department of Justice is solely focused on pleasing one man, no matter the cost, lest anyone forget huge banners with Donald Trump's face hang from both sides of the main Justice building. This is the big banner of Donald Trump on one side of it. So that every single person who enters that building will see it and remember exactly what that man wants them to do. You're his former personal attorney, and you know exactly what he wants. In fact, he often posts it right here on social media, his truth social. account. He wants to weaponize the department for his own political ends. And right from the start, you and your cohorts have worked to deliver what he wants, doing his political dirty work. Two days ago, you even suggested that there was quote " a ton of evidence that the twenty twenty election was rigged against Trump." And here you are at a budget hearing asking for taxpayer funds to pursue the department's mission when you're using those funds to punish Trump's adversaries, reward his friends, and pursue his personal vendettas. It began with pardoning the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January sixth, and assaulted police officers. The revenge continued with the firing of more than a dozen lawyers who represented the Ju- the the Ju- Justice Department in those cases. Yesterday, you created a one point eight billion dollar slush fund to dole out taxpayer dollars to the president's supporters, including those who attacked this Capitol on January sixth. That is pure theft of public funds. And rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene. Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self-dealing scheme. You have also misspent resources on the blatant political prosecutions of James Comey and others. You couldn't find a single career lawyer to bring the first case against Comey. And lawyers resigned rather than participate in that charade. Now you've launched a ludicrous vindictive prosecution in the seashell case. It's a shameful dereliction of your duty to pursue impartial justice without fear or favor. You've also brought criminal just charges against journalists who were doing their jobs in Minneapolis. You've refused to hold accountable the DHS agents who shot and killed Rene Good. Instead, while members of the administration called both Rene Good and Alex Preti domestic terrorist, you ordered a criminal investigation of Rene Good's partner. Hardworking professional attorneys resigned rather than engage in that abuse of power. Others in the department have been fired for telling the truth to the courts, an insidious message to send to officers of the court. You have fired immigration judges who rendered decisions the administration didn't like more gross political interference in what is supposed to be an independent process. All told, DOJ lost over eight thousand five hundred staff last year and nearly one quarter of its lawyers. It's so bad that you're now offering twenty-five thousand dollar signing bonuses and hiring prosecutors with no prior legal experience, seeking applicants who personally pledge support to the president. You've also refused to share with members of Congress The Office of Legal Counsel's purported legal justification for the blatantly illegal war the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu started in Iran. You have clear conflicts of interest between your prior job as the President's personal lawyer and your duty to ensure justice. This is especially true with respect to the cases of the survivors of the heinous crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein. Many of those survivors are in New York's city today as we speak as part of a twenty-four hour public reading of the Epstein files, many reading excerpts from their own FBI three O two reports documenting the abuses they endured. These survivors have tried to share their stories with you. Instead, you spent two days interviewing his convicted associate, Jillaine Maxwell, and shortly thereafter she was moved to a lower security prison camp with special perks. Mister Blanche, the record is crystal clear. You are still acting as the president's personal lawyer, not as acting attorney general. It is hard to justify giving you any funds that will enable this pattern of wrongdoing to continue. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Senator Van Hollen, thank you. Senator Collins, you have an opening statement?

I jump, Mister Chairman. I look forward to it. to asking questions after hearing from the witness. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Collins, for joining us uh with that, General, you are recognized uh for your opening statement.

Thank you very much, uh Senator Moran. Um, good morning to all of you, Renke Minter, Van Hollen, Senator Collins, Senator Moran, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present President Trump's fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget for the Department of Justice. As Senator Moran noted, The request total is forty one point two billion, a thirteen percent increase over fiscal year twenty twenty six. This is underscores our department's renewed focus on reducing violent crime, combating the fentanyl crisis, strengthening border and immigration enforcement, expanding fraud prevention, and ensuring our law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to protect the American people. Violent crime reduction remains one of the department's highest priorities. Since January twentieth of last year, the DOJ has indicted um hundreds of members of TDA, crippling their leadership and dismantling operational networks. Across our major law enforcement components, the results have also been historic. Federal law enforcement helped drive a twenty percent increase decrease in the national murder rate in twenty twenty five arrested forty four thousand of violent offenders, which has doubled the prior year, by the way, and seized over two thousand two hundred kilograms of fentanyl. Last year, law enforcement captured eight of the FBI's ten most wanted fugitives, located six thousand three hundred missing children, and arrested more than two thousand child predators. The DEA has made thousands of fentanyl-related arrests and seized millions of fentanyl pills and hundreds of kilograms of fentanyl powder. In one August surge alone, DEA executed over six hundred arrests, seized multi-ton quantities of narcotics and recovered more than eleven million dollars in drug proceeds. With eighty-two offices in sixty-two countries and twenty-six U.S. field divisions DEA continues to disrupt global supply chains from source to street of illegal narcotics. The U. S. Marshal Service, one of the smallest federal agencies, law enforcement agencies, was roughly three thousand eight hundred deputies, arrested more than seventy-three thousand fugitives last year, conducted three hundred and eight thousand prisoner movements, and housed over fifty-five thousand detainees, and provided protection for eighteen federal protectees, including Supreme Court justices and their residences. The Marshals also manage over ten billion dollars in seized assets, and are obviously essential to federal judicial security. ATF continues to be a leader in the federal effort to combat violent firearms crime. Since January of last year, ATF has arrested more than eight thousand seven hundred violent offenders and seized nearly forty-four thousand firearms, including five thousand one hundred which were interdicted before reaching Mexico, which was their intended destination. ATF agencies two point seven million rounds of ammunition more than twenty-eight thousand illegal explosives and conducted over three thousand five hundred arson and explosives investigations. They process hundreds of thousands of traces every year, eight hundred and fifty-six thousand last year alone, um and and are continuing to do great work. To sustain these historic results, the fiscal year twenty-twenty-seven budget includes twenty-two point two billion for DOJ's n- law enforcement components and US attorney's offices. This is a sixteen percent increase over fiscal year twenty-six. And these investments will build on our tremendous progress and continue and will ensure our continued momentum in violent crime reduction nationwide. We are also strengthening immigration enforcement efforts. The Executive Office for Immigration Review has completed well over one million immigration cases and reduced backlog by more than four hundred and forty-seven thousand cases since President Trump took office last year. This budget provides for eight hundred and ninety-nine million dollars for EOR. This is to continue rebuilding our workforce and modernizing our case processing systems. Across the department, nearly four billion supports, four billion dollars supports immigration related enforcement activities. Finally, the department launched the National Fraud Enforcement Division earlier this year, to expand federal fraud enforcement and better protect taxpayer-funded programs. The budget includes thirty million dollars to hire one hundred attorneys and enhance data analytics capabilities to combat large-scale criminal fraud schemes. DOJ is also modernizing the grants process by consolidating COPS, OJP and OVW into the new Bureau of Justice Grants, providing a unified and simplified approach to federal grant making while obviously continuing to preserve the mission important missions of each office. The department faces serious budgetary constraints. Fiscal year twenty twenty six marked the second year of flat budgets for several components basically equating to a decrease in funding because costs and expenses increase every year but the budget remained flat. The Bureau of Prisons remains under-resourced, funded at eight point one billion dollars, almost three hundred million below fiscal year. twenty twenty five and risks insolvency without additional support. The President's request of ten point three billion for the Bureau of Prisons is essential to restore staffing and maintaining safe and secure federal facilities. In closing, the fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget reflects our unwavering commitment to public safety strong law enforcement partnerships and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. With your combined continued support, the Department of Justice will remain strong, effective, and fully equipped to protect the American people. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear in front of you, and I look forward to your questions.

Attorney General, thank you. I recognize recognize now the Chairwoman of the full committee, Senator Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, yesterday the Justice Department announced the creation of a nearly one point eight billion dollar anti-weaponization fund to compensate individuals who were purportedly targeted by the Biden administration in exchange for which President Trump dropped his ten billion dollar lawsuit against the IRS for the completely inappropriate leak. of the president and his organization's tax data. Amounts for this new fund will come from the judgment fund, a permanent law appropriation for playing paying claims and settlements brought against the United States government. Amounts in the judgment fund have traditionally been used for the payment of specific claims against the government, or amounts owned for the settlement of those claims, but not for future claims that have yet to be bought. So I have some questions for you. First, has the DOJ ever used amounts in the judgment fund to pay claims that have yet to be brought against the United States government based on the settlement of a completely unrelated case.

Thank you, Senator. So the short answer is yes. I mean, we have done this in the past. This was done during the Obama administration, something almost identical in structure to what we announced yesterday. In that case, there were allegations made by Native Americans that the Department of Agriculture had systematically, um, treated them unfairly, and some had filed claims, there was a pending lawsuit, but many had not. the a a a fund ver- very similar um to the one that was established yesterday was set up um it ha- it was funded by in today's dollars a little over a billion dollars um and and and a single claims commissioner was appointed to review the claims and to uh distribute funds in that case um at the end there was around three hundred million left over and the obama administration um had set it up so that money from the judgment fund was distributed to nonprofits and other NGOs. So so what we've done with this fund um and by the way, it is true that this is unusual. That is true. Um but it is not unprecedented and it was done to address something that um had never happened again either. So there is an unprecedented nature of what we did yesterday in response to to years and years of weaponization just to correct a few things, Senator, It's not limited to, um, to Republicans. It's not limited to Bid-

I didn't say it was.

It's not limited, it's not limited to, to the Biden weaponization. It's not limited to, um, in any way, scope or form to January six or to, um, Jack Smith. There's no limitation on the, on the claims. Um, so, and the other thing we've done, just to to finish up in comparison to to what was done previously, is we intend to appoint five commissioners um and also at the end the money goes back to the f- any left over funds go back to the federal government not to nonprofits.

So how will the commission that you've just referenced that oversees the fund determine whether future claims from the fund are eligible to be paid out of it and how will they determine how much will be paid for each claim? What's the legal basis for those decisions?

So there's, well, there's there's commissions that are established all the time where a commissioner is charged with determining the correct amount if any to repay a claimant who's asking for funds so in this case what we expect is the commissioners will will take in information it's entirely voluntary if if an individual wants to apply and assert that they were a victim of weaponization and the commission can do anything according to to what was set up yesterday from issuing an apology to the to the claimant to awarding um to awarding compensation and the monetary commis compensation. So it depends on on the claim and there will be five commissioners who will review each each claim. It won't be reviewed by me. It won't be reviewed by by others in the administration. It'll be reviewed by the five commissioners.

Aren't those commissioners appointed by the president?

No, they're appointed by

Who are they appointed by?

four of them are appointed by the attorney general and one of them is

Will the information related to the claims be publicly reported?

So that's a good question. I mean, look, there's privacy laws that exist, so I I don't wanna sit here today and say every scintilla of data collected will be released, but of course, I mean of course there's there's the there's accountability that that the commission has a quarterly report that has to come to the Attorney General, which will will certainly be public, there's a process that that you all will get information and there's a FOIA process. So I very much anticipate that the claims that are awarded, the the basis in the amount will will for sure be be made public along the way.

Let me switch to a different issue which Chairman Moran brought up. Along with Chairman Moran and other members of this committee, I was one of the leads. sponsors of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization of two th of twenty twenty two. These programs are critical to reducing violence against women, ensuring that justice is served, and strengthening services to victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. In Maine, the Rural Victims program is a especially critical. Despite the importance and effectiveness of these programs, the department's budget request proposes reducing funding from by about twenty-five percent. Why is the department proposing a reduction in funding to combat domestic violence and to support survivors?

Well, first of all, I completely agree with you that these are extraordinarily important programs, and the funds are are well used um to to support these programs. We have asked for five hundred and thirty-nine million dollars, I believe, in in in money to support all these programs and and that I mean look, there's a lot of money that goes a hundred and ninety million for grants to combat, you know, to stop uh the s- the stop grants, which is extraordinarily important, and so it is a priority. Um obviously there's we have to make choices and the president's budget has to make choices on where to spend that money, but it is extraordinarily important and and the five hundred and thirty-nine million dollars that we've asked for w- will go to support all these programs I mean so yes there's l- we are asking less for less money than than the budget had last year, but it's not because we don't view it as as extraordinarily important.

Well, I would suggest that cutting the budget for these important programs by twenty-five percent is a huge cut. And I hope that's something the subcommittee will take a close look at. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Van Hollen.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, this is an outrageous, unprecedented slush fund that you set up. Simple question, will elig will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund?

Well, as it makes plain

Anybody is a

Will they be el- just let me know. They're eligible for the fund.

As d- as - as was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they are victim of weaponization.

Mister Attorney General, let me ask you this. Are there gonna be rules that say that if you've assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer or committed a violent crime, you will not be eligible? Why not make that a rule?

I expect that the - well, because I'm not one of the commissioners setting up the rules,

But you're p- you're appointing four of the five members,

I expect that there will be rules set up.

aren't you, Mister Attorney General?

Pardon me?

You're appointing four of the five members.

I am appointing all five members.

You could certainly set up the rules. I would hope you would make a rule that anyone convicted of assaulting a police officer of a violent crime is simply not eligible they should not apply.

Well

Well, let me, let me ask you this, cuz you compared it to the Kiepsegel case. But I think you know full well that in that case the settlement agreement was approved by a federal judge, including the payments to people who were not originally parties to the lawsuit. No federal judge has approved this fund, have they, mister Attorney General?

No, no federal judge did approve this.

No. So that's a big difference between this case and the case that you compared it to.

No, it's not.

What, did a judge sign off on this case?

No.

A judge did sign off on the other one.

Yes, but it's,

Yeah.

your question was whether it's a big difference. It's not.

Of course it is, because that allows for an independent person to look at it, rather than the hand-in-former,

There was no independence.

personal

There was no independence.

attorney.

There was a single commissioner

That if

A judge signed off on it. A judge had nothing to do with deciding the money.

Mister Attorney General, there was a judge who looked at it and signed off on it. So to compare that case to this one is incredibly deceptive. Let me ask you this about the Epstein case, because as we speak, many Epstein survivors are in New York. They're reading portions of the Epstein files about the abuse that they suffered. Otherwise, they might have been here with us today. At a House hearing, your predecessor refused to acknowledge the pain experienced by some of those victims when the administration improperly released their names in identifying information so I want to know where you stand. I spoke to the representatives of some of the Epstein survivors yesterday. They are extremely frustrated that you keep calling for people to come forward with more evidence, but you have not met with them. to hear their stories. So simple question. If I connect you with these survivors, will you meet with them?

Absolutely, and what you just said is false. I have met with them. I've met with many, many of the lawyers for the survivors of victims, as did Attorney General Bondi. So whoever told you that unfortunately gave you bad information.

Okay, well

But I would encourage them, I would encourage them to reach out to the Department of Justice, because like we do every single day, we absolutely care for victims. and we absolutely wanna hear from them and their lawyers.

Well, I'm I I I've been told directly uh from the representatives they've not had a chance at least this group to meet with you, so anyway I'm good.

Did they represent the,

So I'm glad to hear that.

did they represent, they asked for a meeting?

Can I can I can I ask you to commit that the Justice Department will not recommend a pardon for anyone named in the Epstein files?

Can you repeat that question? I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said.

Can you commit that the Justice Department, you, the acting attorney general, will not recommend a pardon for people named in the Epstein files?

When you say people named, I have no, there's tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of quote people named,

How about Jillaine Maxwell?

right?

Can you commit that you will not be pardoned?

Yes, I can commit to that, of course.

Okay. Let me go back to this slush fund because There's also an individual who, after being pardoned by the president, uh went on to molest two children. And that person actually tried to buy the silence of these children by saying that he would pay them some of the funds that he was hoping to get from your slush fund. Can you commit to making the rule so that that person is not eligible for a payout under this fund?

Well, you're obviously lying in your question because there's no way that this person committed to that because the sl- the slush fund as you call it which is not,

He's,

didn't exist.

I I'm certainly not lying.

But I can commit, I

Mis- Mister Attorney General Don't ever do that again. I am reporting what he said.

Do what again?

He said on the expectation that he hoped to get some of the funds from a payout. He's he's been hearing, evolving hearing.

From the, no you said from the slush fund, Senator, and that didn't exist when he said that.

I- this is the fund that the president and all of you have been telegraphing. all along that you are going to use to help the president's friends.

Can you point to a single telegraph I made?

Mister Attorney General, I have a last question.

What telegraph did I make?

I have a last question for you.

Okay.

Do you know that it is a criminal offense to lie to Congress?

I am very well aware of that.

I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.

Senator Kennedy.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. General, how are you?

I'm great. Thank you, Senator.

Um. In America, unlike other countries, where they let you die in a ditch. In America, if you're too poor to be sick, we'll pay for your doctor. Isn't that right?

It is.

And it, it, and one of the programs we do that through is Medicaid.

Correct.

Okay? And this, this money for Medicaid, it didn't just fall from heaven, it, we thank heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets, didn't it?

Every dime of it.

And some of that money is stolen, isn't it?

Yes.

And the states, not all of them, but many of them allow it to be stolen, don't they?

Yes.

Let's take Medicaid in California, for example. I don't mean to just pick on California, uh, but because this happens in other states. We saw it happened in, it happened in Min- Minnesota, for example. But in California, for every dollar that the c- the the the California state government puts up for Medicaid, for the Obamacare portion of Medicaid, we put up, the federal taxpayer puts up nine dollars, don't they? And so, is that right?

That's correct, Senator.

And so as a result, California has allowed thousands and thousands of of of these social assistance and so-called health care providers pop up in California, haven't they?

Yes.

And some of those providers steal the money, don't they?

Uh, w- yes, we know that to be true, yes.

And the money never gets to the people they supposedly are trying to help. Isn't that correct?

Correct. That's correct.

And the other way that California and others abuse the fact that they're putting up one dollar and the American taxpayers putting up nine dollars. Did I mention it was nine dollars?

I think some say it's even more, but yes, nine work.

Yeah. Uh, they expand the services, don't they?

Yes.

Because some states like California, I don't want to paint with p- too broad a brush, it's not everybody in California's state government. But it's a lot of them. They see this as free money. Don't they?

Y- they're not paying for it, yes.

Isn't it a fact that, for example, Medicaid in California will pay a provider to provide tribal prayers? I looked all this up.

I mean, I'll accept that. I didn't know that, but yes, I'll accept that.

That that California will actually pay a health care provider. I didn't know this from some medical expertise. To pay for her exorcisms. Is that right?

I'll accept that, Senator, but that's that's

They pay, the California Medicaid program will pay for herbal medicines. Meal deliveries. They'll pay for housing. I don't know what housing has to do with health care. Is that correct?

Yes.

Were you aware that that the Medicaid program using federal uh, money, taxpayer money will pay for, um an in-home chef.

Yes. Even if it's a family member, yes.

Okay? Yeah, they'll even pay for for gymnasium fees through Medicaid in California. Um, they'll pay for bicycles, scooters, gym memberships. Did you know that?

Uh, yes, several states do, but California does for sure.

They'll even repay your student loans. Were you aware of that?

I was not aware of the student loans repayment.

Yeah, yeah, they'll be repay somebody's student loans to encourage them to become a health care provider. Um, I mean, California, they're just setting all kind of records. They, they, these folks are, are, are, uh, they're wild people. Um. They, th- California's got twelve percent of the population. In the last, uh, ten years, They're responsible for half of these new so-called health providers to provide exorcisms and other things. Now, what the hell are we doing about it? Why ha- has this gone on for so long?

It's a, Senator, listen, it's a great question, and what you just described are are programs that are allowed under the program. You have a whole other issue in California where a lot of these folks are just stealing the money not even not even running it through for exorcisms and everything.

They're thieves, aren't they?

They're thieves, correct, correct.

And and California just watches it happen, don't they? Not everybody in California. The government tho- does though, doesn't it?

Well, that's the challenge in a lot of states, is that we don't have a state government, which we, you all have entrusted to run these programs and take care of the money that you all give them. They're state structures that, that absolutely do not do any compliance and they don't do their job and and

Cuz they don't have an incentive to. They're getting free money. Isn't that right?

Yes, I think so, yes.

We gotta change this, General.

We're trying.

I call this a slush fund. You wanna talk about slush fund? This is, this is a tier one slush fund that's been going on for years and years and years. Billions, hundreds of billions of dollars is stolen.

Yes, Senator, and that's why, look, this department stood up a whole new fraud division. And AUSAs around the country prosecute fraud every day. So it's not as if we weren't we weren't we didn't have the work out there. But it's so systematically taking money from the American taxpayer that we very much believe that it needs its own stand-up structure and I and I think it's true, for the reasons that you just said.

If you need an extra system, you can go to California camp.

Thank you, Senator.

Uh, thank you, Chairman Moran, ranking member Van Hollen. Uh, thank you, Acting Attorney General Blanche,

Sure.

for appearing before us today. Uh, I wanna talk about some areas where I think we're making progress and we can work together, and then raise some real concerns I have. Um, I do think, um, it's worth recognizing the hard work of the men and women of the department in the progress they're making on combating fentanyl and a violent crime. Uh, I've long been involved in criminal justice reform, uh, talked with and worked with your predecessor on this. I was pleased to see the president's message during second chance month, uh, where he said he wants to insure those who take responsibility and seek to rebuild their lives have a chance to succeed. Senator Lee and I have a bill called the Safer Supervision Act. It's cosponsored by Senators Tillis and Wicker, Cramer and Langford. It's got strong law enforcement and conservative support and it fits squarely in that framework. Um, currently federal supervision is imposed in nearly every case, leading to badly overworked federal probation officers who then can't properly supervise those who actually most need it. There's more than a hundred and twenty thousand people on average per year being supervised. And this bill would help ensure courts are more thoughtful, more analytic, uh when deciding when to impose supervision. Is this a piece of legislation you can support?

So, what you just said I very much agree with. So I, without looking at every word of the legislation, what you, I I there's no disagreement from me on a word you just uttered.

Well, thank you. I'd like to work with you on that.

Yes, I I look forward to that.

Um, let me raise two questions. Um, I I've been gravely concerned about IP theft, especially from China the whole time I've served. I was struck that the department's proposed budget cuts the funds for IP enforcement. Why? And is the department under your leadership committed to protecting American innovation?

V-

Very committed, and w- w- while you're calling it a cut, Senator, I would say that that it's a a major focus of every work

It's a lack of an increase?

Well, no, no, no, I don't mean lack of an increase. I mean that it's we're we're focused on it at the US Attorney's Office level. So when we take money and spend it around the U. S. Attorney's offices and so it's it's it's baked into that big number.

Mm.

Rest assured, every U. S. Attorney's office, all ninety-three of them are focused on on the threats that we have from there, and so we're trying to spend our money more wisely.

Chair Chair Collins raised a concern about the vict- the Violence Against Women Act funds. Let me raise uh a concern about the Victims of Child Abuse Act programs. Senator Roy Blunt and I worked to reauthorize this program. I've long been actively engaged with it. I've seen how children's advocacy centers in Delaware make a critical difference bringing together law enforcement medical mental health professionals uh to do child abuse investigations in a child-centered way to make sure children are not v- re-victimized the number of victims served by these centers has increased four-fold over twenty-five years why are you proposing cutting this program so we're we're we have uh asked for forty-one million dollars for that program and and I co- I agree with you and I I wanna work with you to make sure that we're spending that forty-one million where we should I

agree with you it's extraordinarily important and has had a lot of success over the past fifteen, twenty years as as it's been up and running.

Um, thank you, let me return to the line of questioning from the ranking member Senator Van Hollen um that I strongly agree with. Um, uh I'm just looking at the settlement agreement in Trump versus IRS,

Yes.

uh and I just wanna make sure I heard you properly when you responded previously. Um, your announcement said that the fund will send you quarterly reports. Will you commit to making these reports fully public so Americans know who's getting taxpayer dollars out of this settlement fund? This says they'll be confidential.

So

This is section four part E of the settlement agreement.

The reason why I wanna be careful in my answer is because there's obviously laws that exist around privacy that would may prevent some of the information that the that the commission takes in from being fully public. Beyond that, there will be full transparency, and I commit to you that, beyond the the applicable laws that exist around privacy and and privileges and whatnot. But as far as being transparent and having those quarterly reports released, yes.

Thank you. Y- you referenced a previous case. I think it was Keebs-Eagle versus Vilsack under the previous administration. Um, did that case involve a president suing his own government and then settling that case before it could be reviewed or approved by a judge?

So no, it neither does the commission.

No. It did not. And so when you suggested that they're nearly identical, they're not identical. I think there is a critical difference here. President Trump is the first president to sue his own government and then direct his chosen acting attorney general to reach this kind of settlement. Will you commit that none of President Trump's family will receive a direct payout from this fund?

W- w- yes, but you, what you just said is not true. I mean, I, if I can correct that.

Please.

The the president did not direct me to do anything. And secondly, when we said it was that the structure of the commission is similar to to Keebs-Eagle, you're, that's true, it wasn't the case, the underlying case is not the same.

Has it

The structure of the commission is the same as the Keebs-Eagle commission.

Has it ever happened that a sitting president sued his own government for ten billion dollars and then directed the settlement of the case and the establishment of a payout fund?

Not that I'm aware, but there's a lot of things that President Trump's the first of. No president had been indicted one, two, three, four, five,

Correct.

six, seven, eight times either,

Correct. No president's been indicted.

and

And will you commit that none of this money will go to President Trump's campaign donors?

I am not committing to anything beyond the settlement agreement itself. When you say campaign donors, that they are not excluded from seeking compensation if they were weaponized.

Last question. During police week, I heard from a number of law enforcement friends who found it appalling that there was the possibility that folks like the peace, the Oath Keepers, um, uh, the Proud Boys who had assaulted capital police officers could receive multi-million dollar payouts from this fund. Will you commit that no one who has been convicted of assaulting a police officer will receive a payout from this fund?

So I I shared the concerns that apparently members of law enforcement gave to you last week although none of this was announced last week so that's surprising, but

They had heard rumors there would be a settlement fund.

Um, I accept that. Okay. Um, but anybody can apply. The commission will set, the commissioners will, will set rules, I'm sure. Um, that's not for me to set. That's for the commissioners. And, and, and whether, and whether an individual, an oath keeper, as you just mentioned, applies for compensation, um, is anybody in this country can apply?

Well, we'll be watching this very closely. Uh, as this goes forward, uh, I don't think the settlement fund should be set up this way or for these purposes. I appreciate your answers today. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you. Senator McCall.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, Mister Attorney General, thank you for being here this morning and responding to our questions. I wanna uh follow on a couple that have been asked with regards to um uh the Department of Justice's state and local law enforcement programs. Um uh one point two billion dollars in in proposed cuts, we're looking at it very carefully because many of these grants and programs have significant impact on our state small population large area to deal with. Um the budget also calls for consolidation of the Office uh of Violence Against Women uh the community oriented policing services and uh the OG OJP programs. Um is the Office of Tribal Justice one of the offices that are also intended to be consolidated?

No, we're just consolidating the grant components. So so OJP um COPS and then OV and by the way, we're not combining them, we're just making them more efficient, so they will still maintain their own um independence and brand, for lack of a better word, but what we heard from the field is that there were incons- inappropriate inconsistencies and inefficiencies, and having three separate kind of um bureaucracies running each of those programs, so that's what we're trying to fix.

Don't don't disagree with wanting to reduce bureaucracies, my interest is making sure that uh the fidelity of these grants and the availability to very rural um um and oftentimes just very high cost because of what we're dealing with out there, um that they do not get get overlooked because when you have cuts to the level that you're proposing um one has to assume that, okay you can talk about reducing the bureaucracy and just um what the program itself might look like but again my interest is making sure that uh this much needed assistance is still uh push down to the very, very local levels.

S- Senator, um, I assure you that that the rural communities, and I I appreciate that there's they have the most challenges applying for grants because of just the way they're structured.

Right. Lack of capacity.

W- uh of course, and and there's obviously w- I forget the exact percentage, but a large percentage of our grants do go to rural communities as they should, and rural police departments as they should, and and we are going to continue to do that. I mean there's the cop's office is required to distribute half of it, half of the grants to to rural communities.

Right.

But just uh and I don't I don't wanna take up all your time, Senator, but that's one of the reasons why we built in, we're trying to make it more efficient, cuz the field said um in especially rural communities, big cities don't have issues applying for grants. They have a bunch of people that can do it. And so, yes, we we are very focused on that in in tribal justice space, but also in the grant space.

Well, um, know that we're watching this one very carefully, I I understand that. in response to Senator Collins you acknowledged twenty five percent uh cut to the office, uh on violence against women. Um, I was very involved in that reauthorization and within that, we provide that OVW may not be subsumed by another grant making component within DOJ. So, we wanna make sure that, again, DOJ is gonna maintain OVW's statutory responsibilities, um, and how they move forward with their grant making and and not losing out on that subject matter.

W we will, and and we're aware of that. Yes ma'am.

Let me let me ask about uh the Not Invisible Act. Uh this was legislation that I introduced some years ago, it became law. Um May fifth is the day that we recognize as Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Awareness Day. We had a big a round table that Senator Sullivan helped to organize uh just a couple weeks ago. I had a lot of the folks from from your department along with Alaska

Yes.

state and local as well as tribal. One of the things that kept coming up was we uh the the the commission issued its final report I thought it was pretty substantive um they issued it November one of twenty twenty three after great testimony and consultation all across Indian country but then it was removed, the report was removed um uh very early on in in the second Trump administration and the related materials have been removed from DOJ and the Department of Interior web sites. So people keep asking me where'd it go, why, what is happening, and uh I we tried to get further information to that um again up in Anchorage a couple of weeks ago so the question to you is why was the report taken down, when will it be restored, And more importantly, what concrete steps is GOJ taking with um the department of others and others to implement the recommendations? We don't want the work of this really important commission to just kind of sit and be ignored.

Yeah, so I I don't have an answer as to why it was taken down, but I will get back to you promptly. I will tell you

I would appreciate that, yeah.

i- and and and your big picture question, we are on the same page when it comes to um to tribal justice and the work that we have to do with our Native American community in making sure that we're giving them the resources, the law enforcement. I visited um two so far as uh as the Deputy Attorney General. My staff has gone out to multiples, to Northern New York, to Dakotas, Oklahoma, um and will continue to do that. I think that at the end of the day it is a funding and training issue that that is, that is our responsibility and and I I recognize that and it's a priority.

Well, and we've seen positive signals um in the first Trump administration, that was when Operation Lady Justice was stood up.

Sure.

I think that that is good.

Mm-hmm.

We need to continue on that. You've put good people um tasked to this, but this is where it's it gets confusing because when you have a public facing web site that helps people navigate through some of of the reporting and the lack of data uh that's where we could use a little help so if you can get back with me on that I would appreciate it.

Yes. I will, so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Um, thank you, Mister Acting Attorney General, for being here. Um, as you alluded to in your opening statement, there is an acute staffing shortage at the Bureau of Prisons. At FCI Berlin in New Hampshire, staffing levels have dropped to fifty-eight percent of authorized levels. And that's at a time when correctional officers are being asked to take on added duties where they have detainees being sent to our federal prison and the retention incentives have dropped significantly. So, as you point out, the Bureau received an additional three billion dollars in the reconciliation bill to address staffing issues. And you're asking for additional funding, which I appreciate. But how do you plan to use those supplemental funds to address recruitment and detention of staff at facilities like FCI Berlin?

Thank you for that question. It is a crisis. And the crisis on staffing is is twofold one is we're not paying them enough that they can walk across the street to county jails and make more money and two because we're not paying them enough there's shortages so they're required to work overtime they're required to to actually not

I I understand the problem can you explain what you're gonna do to address it?

so we're we're doing both I mean we're we're addressing the compensation and we've already um worked with with director Marshall over the past several months to give some retention money to to officers who are staying but we have to pay them more and we

Well, I can I can tell you that FCI Berlin has not seen that money yet and it's gonna be critical to get it out. Um, let me change to another topic because we have a new DEA drug lab in Londonderry, New Hampshire. I'm very pleased, um, that we've got that New England Regional Drug Lab. I worked hard, um, to try and support the effort to get it there, but I'm concerned now that DEA doesn't have personnel that they need in order to fully operate it. And when we raised this at hearings, both in the House and Senate, um with DEA, what they told us was that DOJ has routinely denied its request for greater allocations of personnel, um meaning that they are gonna have difficulties hiring the sufficient personnel they need to fully operate this new lab. So can you commit that you will ensure that the personnel that are needed to operate the lab, are able to be hired.

Yes, and our budget asks for that funding and, and I agree with you, Senator, that it's crucial to have that

Um.

and that there are shortages. You're right.

As, let me weigh in on with Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski and their concerns about the Office of Violence Against Women and the grants. Um, I don't support the cut of twenty-five percent for that budget. Um, but we have a a greater issue because my staff has heard from organizations in New Hampshire working on domestic violence concerns that the department is continuing to hold fiscal year twenty-five funding for the office and for some of these organizations they had their grants canceled early in twenty-twenty-five. This disruption has caused those organizations to scale back, um to start laying off staff, which limits their ability to help survivors. So when is the department gonna make available the fiscal year twenty-five and twenty-six grant funds that have already been approved by Congress?

So we the the NOFOs for two of the three agencies are all out and back. Um there's one NOFO that's that's that's pending from twenty-five that we expect to get out any day now, and then we'll start working on on twenty-six. And so we're it's done on a rolling basis and um we and we're working um every day very hard to get that money out. As far as um uh grants that were canceled, I believe three hundred and thirty-some were canceled, just about five or six percent of the overall grants awarded um for various reasons, but grants that were there - that more than that were initially canceled and - and the grantees

But those are grants that had been approved by Congress, that had already been sent out. Why is the department canceling funding that our organizations are depending on in order to help survivors.

Well, that's not that they were approved by Congress, the money was. And and so for for a very small portion of for a very small portion of grants,

And

they simply they were canceled for various reasons. So

Well, they were canceled because Doge came in and made significant cuts, and the depart- the administration has made cuts. I I guess the gr- I'm not gonna argue with you about why that happened. I think it was wrong. I'm gonna I acknowledge your commitment to ensure that those funds are gonna go out to the organizations that are depending on them so that they can serve the people who need it.

I commit to that.

Thank you. Um, last fall, the US trustee for Region one didn't name a new chapter thirteen standing trustee for New Hampshire. Instead, he assigned New Hampshire's duties to main standing trustee over the objections of the New Hampshire bankruptcy bar. The transition from New Hampshire standing trustee to the new Maine trustee who's supposed to be serving both states has not gone well. Um, debtors who had completed their payments were not being discharged from bankruptcy, creditors and attorneys were not getting paid. In fact, a motion to remove the New Hampshire and Maine trustee was filed, and the New Hampshire bankruptcy judge admonished the trustee, but unfortunately didn't ultimately remove him. I am very concerned that we have granite staters who need to use the chapter thirteen bankruptcy and that they're being disadvantaged because of this decision for whatever reason we have no idea because um the US government doesn't pay those standing trustees. There's no reason that's not a a benefit in terms of savings. So I don't know if it was a shot at New Hampshire or what the issue was, but will you commit to naming a New Hampshire only chapter thirteen standing trustee and look into this because it's a real problem.

W- so we have that.

And, Mister General, the time has expired, so if you can quickly wrap that up, I would appreciate it.

Okay, we we we have that in many districts, not just New Hampshire, and we're working very hard to rectify it um for the reasons that you say the challenges it presents.

So you will look into that and try and

We've been looking into it and we'll continue to do so,

is it

Senator, yes.

Thank you. Mister General, appreciate you being here today. I wanted to start with an issue that I raised with you in your confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Um, we talked about the executive office for immigration reform. Some people call it EOIR, some people call it EOR. Um, but ultimately it oversees our immigration courts. As you're aware, there was a significant backlog that was left by the Biden-Harris administration. Unfortunately, they created a culture of that. dragging their feet and not actually completing these cases. Um I I know they also rolled back a number of reforms that were put in place during the first Trump administration to ensure that our immigration courts functioned in an efficient manner. By contrast, obviously under the current Trump administration, um the courts in FY twenty-five have completed the highest number of cases that we have seen in a single year in EOR's history, um finally achieved a reduction in the case backlog. And hopefully that's something that we can continue. I saw on your budget that you increased this by twelve percent. I wanted to talk, is that gonna help you continue um on that on eliminating this backlog, improve efficiencies and operations of these immigration courts? And then also on that, how does the budget request support efforts to actually modernize this process, making sure that we're not only using the current system, but we're looking at how can we be more efficient in the future?

Yes, thank you, Senator. The first answer the in reverse order we have asked for thirty seven million dollars to to modernize the it programs that the immigration courts use that in and of itself will create efficiencies that will help us in in ways that that it should have happened years and years ago and it didn't we're also asking for more money because we need more judges and the big beautiful bill gave us uh uh uh authority to hire a bunch of immigration judges and we're hiring a ton um we have a graduation tomorrow graduation of of immigration judges um in in in many many years, if not history. And we're continuing to try to find good judges that will work hard. And and the the budget also, you know, a judge needs staff, so a judge needs clerks to help process the c- the cases. The, you know, we've we we have almost five hundred thousand um cases were processed last year. That's extraordinary.

Mm.

And we're we're getting into the backlog, but when you're when you have something like four million immigration cases, four million immigration cases backed up. Even if you you cut it down by a million a year, you're still looking at three or four years to catch up. But but we're we're very focused on doing that. We we tell our new judges they're gonna be working harder than they've ever worked in their lives. And and we expect that. And and so this budget is is really addressing that, the IT problem and the staffing challenge that we have.

Good. Thank you. Um, I'm changing gears a little bit. Uh Obviously we are so proud to see the crackdown on crime across the country, um lowest murder rate that that we have we have seen, um the significant just, you know, actually getting back to the mission of getting the bad guys and putting criminals behind bars. I talked to Director Patel about this last week, but there's great do- work being done by the FBI and DOJ and my home state. Um Operation Southern Star in Montgomery has been significant, that's where I live.

Yeah.

We appreciate that effort. Um, I know that communities across the country, um, appreciate the work that you're doing. Can you discuss how this request, increase in resources that you have in this budget is going to allow us to build on the current successes and enhance cooperation with state and local partners across the country so that we can do more of what we've seen in Montgomery over the Operation Southern Star?

Yes. So, there is nothing more important than our state and local partnerships when it comes to combating violent crime. nearly every violent criminal that's arrested by the feds, the feds are assisted by a cop or a detective or a trooper in that case. And so when we talk about the work that the federal government and the FBI and DEA and Marshals and ATF and HSI have done over the past year we are really talking about the work that they did partnering with the state and local. So our budget reflects that. We want two point nine billion for state and local grants. That's money that's gonna go to to law enforcement to to combat violent crime. Twelve billion for our budget. for violent crime. And you said that, but it's I I I wanna make sure I'm giving props to the great men and women of law enforcement in in our country. It worked. And we did see meaningful reductions in violent crime,

That's great.

which means everybody everybody's streets are safer than they were a year and a half ago. So

Well, as someone who is raising, uh, two two teenagers and wants these streets to be safer, particularly the ones, um, you know, where where all these families are trying to to build, um, their lives, we say thank you. Um, last question. I know that the budget um also uh is gonna stand up the National Fraud Enforcement Division. I know that there's been a lot of misnomers about that out there. I it is important we make sure that taxpayer dollars are used judiciously, and the people who do not do that are held accountable. Can you talk about some of the work that the division has been doing and how the funding will allow DOJ to continue protecting Americans and their hard-earned tax dollars?

Yes, so we asked for thirty million dollars because we need lawyers to to help build this new division up. And what we've done already, and you've seen it in the news, um, in Minnesota and other locations, really everywhere. Minnesota's been a focus, but but in every state the National Fraud Division has an AUSA assigned to to that division now. And their their goal is very simple, to find criminals who are stealing from the government. That's it. And so that that comes in the area of of health care, but it comes in in in a lot of different places and I expect that everybody in in this body will be very satisfied with the work when I come back um next time because it's doing great work.

Excellent. Americans are sick of people not being held accountable, so we hope that we we see some people um actually prosecuted for for these crimes. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um, Senator Merkley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator Murray, do you do you want to jump in first? Okay. Uh, th- thank you, Acting Attorney General. So the the budget has a five hundred million dollar cut to the COPS grants. Those grants are certainly important to our local law enforcement, for staff, for equipment, for investigations. Um, is there any particular reason that you think the police departments need less money now than they did did before? And and would you be supportive if if we advocate for more funding rather than less?

So, local law enforcement needs all the money we can get. I agree with that very much. and whether we would I would be supportive of of more money that you all come together for local law enforcement. Yeah, yes I will. I mean look, there's budget.

Thank thank you.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

Sure.

Uh there is a bill called the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act, uh that senators on both sides of the aisle supported, including Senators Tuberville and and Cornyn. And this is about the uh troubled teen industry where there are are basically all kinds of um fairly unregulated without oversight companies that say hey you send your teen to us and and we'll get him on the right path uh this institutional care often results in institutional abuse and what we did when we passed and funded that bill cause we have both authorized it and then we we funded it was to have the national counties of science study cause there's fifty thousand kids that are in these institutional settings each year they're often taken away in the middle of the uh middle of the night under arrangements with the the parents the parents think they're sending their kids to get help but often they're sending their kids in to abuse will you take a look at this issue

yeah

and just kind of track the national academies as they proceed to study this and if there are ways that we can reduce uh abuse um help help us find that path

y- yes of course

thank thank you uh to follow up uh you noted that it would be up to the five commissioners that you appoint to determine whether there are Will you encourage the folks that you select to ensure that folks who were convicted of violent acts against police officers do not get compensation from this fund?

Well, they, I expect they will. They don't have the option of establishing guidelines. The commissioners will establish guidelines. And so I I feel that

Will will you encourage them to have a guideline that says those who have been convicted of violent acts against police officers are not eligible?

I will. definitely encourage the commissioners to take everything into account when determining who should get compensation.

But why not this specific issue? Of violent acts, convicted of violent acts against police officers, they, do you feel they should get compensation after being convicted of violent acts?

My feelings don't don't matter, Senator, in my mind, my mind is not limiting to um to say this, yes, I will commit to this or that. What I will commit to is making sure that the commissioners are are are effectively doing their jobs, and that includes setting guidelines like you're describing.

Okay, I I I I'm disappointed that you feel it's acceptable that those who are convicted of violently assaulting

I definitely did not say that. Definitely did not say that. I didn't say I found it acceptable, Senator.

Will you agree to encourage those commissioners to set a guideline that compensation will not go to individuals who are convicted of assaulting police officers?

I expect

I just a yes would answer my question, or no.

I mean, you're asking whether I will encourage. I don't think that's a fair word. I don't think it's the Attorney General's job to encourage commissioners to do or not do anything.

Okay.

It's their

Well, we'll move on, but I will say that you have complete power over who you appoint, so you have huge influence. You are going to be evaluating the, uh, inclinations and and, uh, attitudes of those who will serve. And certainly this looks extraordinary. You described it as as as parallel to a fund set up to compensate Native Americans who were discriminated against in the agricultural world. It's not parallel at all. Uh, President Obama did not sue his own department of justice. He did not have a a judge saying that um Williams had, let's see, this, how did she put it? Kathleen Williams, the judge handling the lawsuit, dismissed the case and inter-finally admonished the government agency, notably the Justice Department, for not being transparent about the settlement deal Williams previously assigned a group of attorneys to determine whether there was a conflict of case since as sitting president Trump was suing entities quote " entities whose decisions are subject to his direction." This type of conflict of interest did not add all involved in the funds set up to compensate those who are discriminated against uh in the agricultural realm. I want to go on to the Epstein investigation. Is it closed or open?

When you say the Epstein investigation, what are you referring to, Senator?

Well, the FBI said in in uh last year in July that it had closed the Epstein investigation. So I'm just using their words, is it open or closed?

I don't believe the FBI said that. The the that that's I mean if you're referring to

Well, your your head of the Department of Justice is,

I am.

the Epstein investigation open or closed?

But I I I guess I don't understand what Epstein investigation means. The investigation into Jeffrey Epstein himself,

Well, let me put it differently.

yes, he's dead. Any investigation into potential other bad guys will always be open if we have evidence

OK, so uh Trump said in November. This is after the FBI. And it was the FBI awards when they said the investigation was closed. But what Trump wrote in November of last year, " I'll be asking the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's involvement and relationships with, and he gave a specific list, Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, people at JP Morgan, and many other people to determine what was going on. Is there a list, particularly targeted at Democrats, as opposed to being, if you will, blind, uh, blind to party affiliation, investigations that are being pursued under your direction?

The, the, any investigation, no matter, Republican, Democrat, man, woman, old, young, any investigation will be open if the Department of Justice and the FBI have evidence that a crime has been committed. And that doesn't, I mean, you're talking about Epstein.

You commit to pursue, regardless of political affiliation?

Excuse me, Senator?

You commit to pursuing investigations free of prejudice about party affiliation?

Of course, yes.

Well, you say of course, but this enemy has repeatedly this president has repeatedly spoken of an enemies list, that he wants to go after, and I must say it's one of the symbols of the breakdown of a democratic republic when a president uses his department of justice which you now had, to go after his perceived political enemies. I hope you won't be parted to that. Thank you.

I mean,

I mean, I couldn't agree with you more, and that's why what happened when during the Biden administration was so disgusting.

That is completely inappropriate and wrong. There is no comparison to the absolute fair-minded pursuit of justice under the previous administration and this administration's pursuit of an enemies Senator Murray. Senator Murray.

I believe Senator Fischer was next. Yeah.

Yes, you are.

Uh, Senator Fischer, so glad of you to join us.

Thank you, uh.

Trying to ingratiate myself with the ranking member of the committee.

No, you didn't you didn't see me at the kitty table. It's it's fine. So, Mister Attorney General, welcome. Uh, Senator Murkowski uh brought up to you about the consolidation of the grant programs and also

Yes.

that the budget request is one point two billion dollars um a cut to the state and local grants. I thank you for clarifying uh that uh this consolidation what it what it um is intent is, but I'm still concerned about the impact of funding reductions and what that would have on our state and local law enforcement agencies, so I hope that you will um be very cognizant of that as you look at the rural and really the under-resourced uh

Uh, yes, uh I will, Senator, yes.

agencies that are out there. Thank you. In twenty twenty four I passed legislation, the Recruit and Retain Act, and that was signed into law, and this authorized law enforcement agencies to use those COPS grants for recruitment and int and uh retention activities It required a study, the study came out, uh not surprisingly, it identified a relationship between local law enforcement staffing levels and crime rates. More staff uh leads to lower crime and and uh the study also found that from twenty nineteen through twenty twenty four officer resignations and retirements have increased and that's obviously then a decrease in officer staffing. So, Mister Attorney General, how do you anticipate that DOJ's proposal to consolidate its grant-making components, reducing that funding uh for that account, how's that going to impact recruitment and retention by those local a uh agencies, and how do you plan to address that?

So, we will spend s- tons and tons of grant money on that issue and not only giving money to state and locals to uh get them new bodies but also overtime and equipment which all goes to keeping people on the job. More meaningfully and and beyond the grant program itself, we are working we we are making law enforcement um a very good thing to be part of now. And that was one of the reasons that there was a a steep decline in a lot of retirements over the during the ti- twenty nineteen to twenty twenty four because there was this inappropriate stigma that law enforcement or cops were bad. That's not the case anymore. And so we're working every day, we have our Homeland Security Task Force is set up, which is a partnership with state and local law enforcement and sheriffs. They're getting money. They're getting overtime pay. We're we're thanking them. We're giving them cars. We're giving them vehicles. And so that's what we're gonna continue to do.

Have you Have you reached out to um local local agencies to see if their recruitment has improved because I can attest to um disappointment by many by many uh police departments, OPPD, Omaha for example has see did see their numbers really decrease.

Yeah.

Have you reached out uh and have any numbers on what it is now?

R regularly, including last week during police week I met with a lot, it's still a problem. We have not fixed it yet. I mean, you look at what happened over the past year with law enforcement officers getting doxed and getting having rocks thrown at them and having local leaders say to good hard-working cops, " You can't help." So this isn't something that we've won yet, but it's a priority to win that fight.

Thank you.

And and and I'll keep on talking to state and local sheriffs and cops and detectives, and letting them know that we appreciate them, and not only with our mouth, but with our pocketbooks as well.

We do. Thank you. Uh, last year the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations announced a new Homeland Security Task Force based out of Kansas City, Missouri. And that included a location in Omaha.

Yes.

And focus is obviously comb combating trafficking of humans and drugs and weapons, money laundering, aliens smuggling, homicide extortion, on and on. Uh, we did see members of this task force, uh, they arrested a MS thirteen gang leader in Grand Island, Nebraska,

Yep.

in the Middle Eastern part of the state. Um, the twenty-seven budget request cites the elimination of the organized crime drug enforcement task force's component, and instead requests appropriations be made directly to agencies like DEA and FBI. Can you share how this proposed reorganization is still going to insure strong inter-agency coordination so that we can see a continued focus on transnational crime uh threats uh and specifically with those local um law enforcement agencies. It's very important.

Uh I agree. So look, we dissolved the the OCDEF executive office, that is true, but the money that we're asking for, the money that we're going to spend is exactly like we've been spending for a long time except for more efficiently. So the HSTF model is is built off of the OCDEF model, but with a lot of improvement. Like there was a lot of overlap in OCDF money that we are now just, that we're now being more efficient with. So so the there is no doubt, as a matter of fact the opposite is true, that we're spending that same OCDF type money, we're spending more of it, and we're getting more of it out to the field through the Homeland Security Task Force. And so that that's what we're that's the goal.

So is that a line item uh within your agency or does it need to be a line item on on on appropriations.

So it's a

To make sure that it's covered.

it's so it's a line item through the appropriations, I believe, although I'll double check that and and and get back to you if I'm wrong.

We'll check it out.

I will, yes.

OK. Thank you very much.

Senator Fischer, thank you. Uh, now I would like to recognize the Vice Chair of the full committee, Senator Murray.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Acting Attorney General, right now families are paying four, five, even six or seven dollars for gas. Inflation is at its highest level in years because of the president's policies. But instead of helping Americans get by, President Trump is literally using their tax dollars to set up a slush fund to enrich his own friends. On Monday, your department settled the president's lawsuit by setting up a fund with one point eight billion dollars and you and the president pick the handful of people who decide how that money gets doled out. So let's be clear. What we're talking about is nothing short of the sitting President of the United States looting from the treasury for his own gain. Do you seriously think this arrangement is appropriate? The President telling the federal government to settle a case and let him pay billions to the people that he chooses?

What you just described wouldn't be appropriate, Absolutely not what happened, and that's not what's happening now.

Well

So you just set up a series of facts, most of which were not true,

No, they were

to say is it, no it's not. I mean, I

The president has set up a slush fund, however you wanna say that it got set up, and he literally will get to choose through his hand-picked appointees who gets paid that fund. That is absurd.

So The president did not sled up set up this fund. It's not a slush fund. It's it's been done many times. We have lots of funds, a step

Oh, I heard your response earlier to to Senator Van Hollen, this is not comparable to the case that you cited. A judge was not involved, this is the president versus himself setting up a fund,

The judge wasn't involved in the distribution uh in the Keebs-Hagel case at all.

and

It d just wasn't.

Well,

There was a single commissioner that was that was set up,

I

not not five, and so wha when I felt

The judge signed off on that case.

Yes, it was at a much later point in litigation, that's right.

Right. That's my point, that is all of our point, and it just I just have to tell you this is corruption that has never been more blatant or more rights-fed. What y is happening is you write the check, Trump and his cronies cash it, American taxpayers who are already being whacked with high prices are gonna foot the bill. That's what we are seeing today and that is what many of us are really, really angry about. So let me move to another topic. Um the this Department of Justice is sending the message that if you're wealthy, If you're powerful, if you are well-connected, you won't be held accountable, even if you abuse children. You know it's after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act and DOG finally began to release the files, your department exposed survivors' names, their sensitive personal information, and even nude photos, while redacting names of alleged perpetrators of those crimes. The message that sends is this Department of Justice worked harder to protect the privacy of potential child abusers than the survivors. Your predecessor refused to apologize to those victims, but I want to give you the same opportunity to apologize for the way the department handled the release of these documents. Will you apologize to the survivors?

When the president passed the Epstein transparency act, That was the only time w- w- the,

Pardon me?

when the president signed the FST the transparency act, that was when we were legally allowed to release the files. Prior to the passage of the act, which you all passed, I agree,

That is so not the question I'm asking.

we were not It was the, it was the question you asked.

I'm i- The point that

You asked five or six questions, I'm answering them in order.

No,

That was one of the questions you asked.

I am, uh the question I want you to answer is will you apologize to the victims, whose names, sensitive personal information, and ev- even nude photos were not redacted by your department. Will you apologize to them?

Of course. That was, we'd never wanna release a single victim's name,

Can I hear it today? That is what they are hearing to hear, want to hear.

but can I answer the question please? Is it fair?

I'm asking if you'll apologize.

So I, and I just said yes, but I wanted to, I would like an explanation to be given to that. What what this act did is it required us to review over six million pieces of paper in a very short period of time. And so point zero zero one percent, we made mistakes and we owned up to them. And the second that a victim or their lawyer told us that we made a mistake, we pulled that document down and we put lawyers twenty four seven in being responsive to victims and their lawyers to make sure that we fixed every single problem. And so, yes, the stakes were

I hear your anger and I will tell you,

I'm not angry, no, I'm not angry.

I hear your anger and I will tell you this really angry as people who had their nude

I'm just making sure it's understood that we we matter, that w-

photos released I just wanna hear you say I apologize to those victims.

So, as I just said, of course, any Anytime we release a victim's name that shouldn't be released, we have failed as a department of justice. And so we we have to do everything that we can to not fail.

So Well, I still I haven't heard the words.

And so

I apologize to you.

I'm trying to give you an explanation of what happened. I don't think you're really interested in that because you keep on cutting me off.

OK. Oh, well, I am, but I I have a few more questions here and I wanna know, and I know that Senator Van Hollen raised this, but but I wanna ask again. Will you personally commit to meeting with the survivors? I have heard from them personally that DOJ refused to meet them, and I'm asking about you. I'm asking about the Justice Department reaching out to them to be heard, not waiting for them to navigate a legal system that has obviously repeatedly failed them so far.

Can I answer?

Yeah, will you reach out to them?

Okay, so, as we have said repeatedly, of course, any lawyer, now, if a victim has a lawyer, I'm not allowed to reach out to the victim directly, you know that. But any lawyer can reach out to the Department of Justice. They have, and I've met with many victims and their lawyers, as has the F FBI as has the SDNY. We will always, always meet with victim's counsel. Any victim or the lawyer can come forward to the FBI at any time.

You will always meet with victim's counsel. With these women, and I've met with them and I know Senator Van Hollen has and some as many other p- They are personally so feeling abused again and again again by what happened to them originally and now why but what's happening by them I am saying to you, as a human being who don't make them navigate a system that is impossible to navigate,

So wait, you're asking me to call, you want me to personally call the victims?

I can help you reach them.

Is that what you're asking me to do? Oh, that would be great. Yes, because we have said from day one,

And you will meet with them if I reach out to you.

of course, ev- there have been members that have done that. And we immediately reach out to the victims or their lawyers when the lawyers want and they say they wanna do it.

Well, uh we will follow up on that. Thank you very much.

Let me ask a a few questions, uh, and uh, then we'll get to Senator Reid and Senator uh, Peter's, and then we'll have a conclusion of the hearing. I wanna Oh, yes. And Senator and Senator Gillibrand, excuse me for my lack of peripheral vision. The uh, we'll make certain, Senator Gillibrand, that you are called on. Uh, General uh, worried about staffing and operational strains at the Bureau of Prisons. Uh, this committee, this subcommittee and our full committee has tried to help in the last several years And there was uh money in the reconciliation bill, five billion dollars to support recruitment and uh retention efforts to address the BOP's uh maintenance uh backlog. Uh in correctional facilities in Kansas, and we have certainly a major federal and lots of state uh correctional facilities, but officers, wardens, stakeholders continue to hear concerns about staffing shortages, aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, officer retention, long-term strain placed on both personnel and inmates. Um, what what can you tell me about this budget uh request and can you help me understand the circumstances you see at the Bureau of Prisons in this regard?

So, thank you, Senator, we were given a broken agency when we took over. Not enough money, um, morale was very low, and and many of the prisons needed serious repairs. And so the President's budget this year tries to rectify a lot of that, as did the big beautiful bill. Um, the the vacancy rate is still twenty percent for corrections officers. I talked about this earlier. That has to do with retention, it has to do with how much we're paying them, and creating an environment at the BOP that they wanna work at. And so that's something we have to work on. Um, we have some of the investments we wanna make, four hundred and fifty million dollars to attack the vacancy rate and and start paying some of our correction officers more. Um, and then and then also a lot of money to make repairs. And so these are just safety repairs, but also structural repairs at prisons so that, again, it it makes sure our inmates are protected and and are are safe, and and that we're safe from them, and also creates an environment that's safe for the staff and the corrections officers that that are working there. And so it's a it's a big number, but it's extraordinarily important.

As recently as yesterday, uh, General, I continued to hear a from state and local law enforcement agencies about their desire and therefore the demand for training uh uh drones and counter UAS systems. We ha- Kansas City is a FIFA site,

Yep.

uh but tho- tha- that demand is significant. And um can you tell me how the department is working with the FBI to address this issue? Uh and and I think FIFA is a significant component of it, but with the prevalence of UAVs, I think it's just a broadly uh uh uh an issue that needs to be broadly addressed.

Yes, so we're training, the FBI is training a ton of state and locals every day and and we're on the clock because of FIFA but we're also doing it beyond FIFA because the UAS's the drones are are a big problem in every single state in this country and so we're, we have ATF also that a a certain portion of ATF also helps with the training as well at the FBI facility, and we're gonna continue to to do that, meaning we're gonna continue to offer and provide training to state and locals. We're also asking for money in our budget to help um shore that up a little bit so that so that we can continue to not only offer training but but have a defense to the US.

Um I would suggest that uh the the FBI training center is over capacity, needs more uh officers and the capabilities, and if the Department of Justice is interested in pursuing that, I'd be interested in trying to be helpful.

I'm interested in working with you, Senator. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Grant Administration, uh, I think things are getting better, but uh the Department of Justice, particularly in its grants to local law enforcement, it's been a really slow process uh this year in getting the money out the door. Congress shut down um the list is long for reasons that could be the case. Um but I w- I want to give you the opportunity to tell me that you are now positioned to see that local law enforcement in particular, but grants in general, and those grants exceed uh just local law enforcement, it's other community grants, mentoring grants, uh I wanna make sure that you believe you're now positioned in terms of uh staffing and and administrative uh abilities to to make that process work better.

We are, we are working on that, and and you're right, it's it's been slow, we now have all the twenty-fives out except for maybe one, we're starting on twenty-six now.

One program or one grant?

One grant.

One one grant.

One one one uh uh it could be off, a couple of grants, but we're we're mostly finished with that process. You're right, it didn't st- we you know, we didn't get the number from you guys till January, late January, so we had a late start. Um and we're gonna turn to twenty-six now and and get as much done as we can. As you know, they're distributed on a rolling basis, so it's not as if there's no money and then a ton of money, so we're trying to to get the the wheels turning as quickly as we can um to to get money out.

Thank you. Sort of read?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Blanche, how many taxpayers' returns were leaked in by the IRS contractor in the twenty twenty breach?

Um, how many taxpayers, excuse me?

How many taxpayers' returns were leaked by the IRS contractor in the twenty twenty breach?

I don't know the exact amount, but a lot.

Uh, four hundred and five thousand four hundred and twenty seven. One of them was Donald Trump. Correct? One of them was Donald Trump, correct?

One of them was Donald Trump and his family, w- were others, correct?

Right. And uh, Donald Trump was president at the time.

Correct.

So it was his IRS department that allowed this breach of privacy, correct?

Was a criminal who worked in the IRS, yes.

Well, he was hired under Trump's, this is one of the Trump.

Well, there was a criminal breach that led to this, yes.

Very good. Um. How many of these four hundred thousand people have received monetary reimbursement for the breach?

I don't think any have, including the president.

No, they haven't. But you've authorized the president, do you agree, the president should have uh reimbursement, correct?

No, we settled the case. No, there's no reimbursement to President Trump.

Well, th- that's interesting.

He filed a suit, Senator, but there was a

So President Trump, you're gonna assure us President Trump and his family will get no proceeds from this?

Correct. He will not.

He will not get, his family will not get.

Correct.

And who will direct the disposition of these uh, who gets the the money?

From the from the victims fund?

Alright. No.

Well, there'll be a commission of five individuals that will be set up, and they will take in requests and claims and decide whether to do anything from mission of poverty or not.

Who will name the commissioners?

I will. Or the attorney general, whoever the attorney general is.

The attorney general, okay. Um.

Sorry, just to correct. And one of them will be done in consultation with leadership of this body.

Consultation. Well, that's good. But, um, when he first announced this, uh, suit on January thirtieth, he said, "I think what we'll do is something for charity, where I'll give the money to charity." I'm talking about the American Cancer Society. I would say established and respected charities. Uh, will you fulfill the president's wish that it goes to respected charities?

I'm aware that he put that in there or said that, but that's not ultimately what the settlement calls for.

Well, the settlement was negotiated between his lawyers and the Department of Justice, correct?

Correct.

So his lawyers did not urge that they adopt the president's vision of giving it to a respectable charity?

I am confident his lawyers urge the president's desires. Um, obviously there's not a a a charity.

Um. The order that you signed yesterday states that the government pay their settlement if the Secretary of Treasury has certified the payment. Is that correct?

Correct.

Uh, is it a coincidence that the General Counsel of the Department of Treasury resigned yesterday?

I I don't know if it's a coincidence.

Have you looked or checked?

Have I checked?

Yeah.

Uh, I've not. As to why he resigned?

It just seems to be very coincidental that the high-ranking member of the Department of Treasury, Senator confirmed would resign the day that the Treasury Department was required to s- required essentially to certify these payments.

Well, I believe the IRS signed the settlement agreement as well, um but yes. But I I I don't I can't speak to why he resigned, Senator.

Well, um this all seems uh to be an obvious uh abuse of power by the Department of Justice, by the President. He negotiated essentially with himself. You're his appointee. The IRS are his appointees. He's the uh plaintiff. And the American people I don't think are surprised that suddenly all this money is going to his friends or people that he in his orbit. Uh will you insure that none of this money goes to anyone convicted on the January sixth attack on the Congress?

W- well, the commissioners will determine who is eligible to receive the money, not the attorney general.

And who will, who are the commissioners?

They're not named yet.

Who will name them?

I will, or the attorney general will, if it's not me.

So, uh, with the suggestion of the president of the United States.

Excuse me?

With the suggestion of the American, of the president of the United States, your boss.

I do not make suggestions. I will, we'll have to point commissioners out.

No, no. He will make suggestions to you.

I had, I, I have no idea if he will or not. I, I really don't. I have no idea if he will or not.

Uh, I'm s- I would be shocked if you didn't tell you exactly who to put on, and I'd be more shocked if you did not put them on. This is a a travesty of the law in the United States and the constitution. Um, you had an opportunity to go down and talk to Jusceline Maxwell. And then a few days later she was transferred from a high security prison to a um, very comfortable,

I mean, that's not true.

very comfortable.

That's just not true. She was not in a high security prison. She was transferred from a low security prison to a low security prison. I mean, you're looking at me like that's uh that's verifiable.

Well, uh, I don't think at the other prison she had her own room, she had access to a private shower, she could have pet therapy, and

I don't know if any of that is true. I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't know what's true.

Uh, it is true and you should know it. Mister mister attorney general, you should know.

I should know that? Whether whether a a inmate has access to her own shower?

You don't know. Uh, this is a person of extra special interest to the president of the United States. He's known her. Why did he sent you down to talk to her?

He didn't send me. I went. What what do you mean? The pr- you think President Trump called and asked me to go interview a witness in federal prison? Honestly?

Yes, I do, frankly.

Well, you're right, he didn't.

Because you know why? Cuz the deal was in.

He didn't.

He needed somebody he could rely he needed somebody he could rely upon.

I mean, you could say that, but you want the truth? You want the truth?

to talk to her and say what would she say if she was asked about Jeff Repstein, and you were the perfect choice.

I

And you went down there, and suddenly, Shazam, she's out of what is a more confining situation into a

Every word

not a l- a much more relaxed federal prison.

Every word that I asked her is recorded and available to you to review. If there's criticisms of the question that I asked her, go ahead and make them. But he did,

Well

the president did not have anything to do with my choice to go interview Ms. Maxwell. If I wouldn't have went and a career would have went, you would have said, why didn't you go yourself? Just like you expect me to know whether she has access to her own shower.

You should.

So I did go.

Everyone in the United States who reads the newspapers know that. I guess you don't, you know, read things like that. You know, this this whole hearing I think is exposing something, which is to me very frightening. Uh, you're a very gifted lawyer. But from my perspective, you have very little faith to the Constitution and the people of America, and you're the president's consigliere.

Your perspective is completely wrong, Senator,

Well, I think the facts will prove me right.

respectfully.

Thank you.

It would be easy.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, um, last May my staff, uh, at Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, uh, released a report documenting that the, uh, Inspector General that President Trump fired had together, collectively, had uncovered billions of dollars in fraud, waste, uh and abuse. Uh we oversee uh uh IGs and uh believe that uh they're incredibly important to hold uh government uh accountable, uh which needs to be done uh f- so that American people have trust and confidence in the work that we do here. In fact it was uh quite um uh I thought striking, uh our the study showed that for every dollar that we spend uh on IGs, uh it's been estimated the return on that investment is roughly eighteen times, uh what we uh put into the IGs. Uh but despite the the administration's purported fo focus on fraud, uh your department, FY twenty-seven request would actually cut these IGs, their budget, by nearly a third. These are folks that have an eighteen to one return on investment. Prior to being in in public service, I spent twenty plus years in the investment business. If I told investors, this is an investment I'd like you to make and you're gonna have an eighteen to one return. They would jump out of their chair in excitement and say, absolutely, can I put how much money can I put in to get an eighteen to one return. So, while the request, and this happens while you're requesting an increase for your overall agency, through the reconciliation, so you're gonna be gaining additional funding. which I would argue requires oversight as you get additional funding, that's happens every government agency, not just yours. And to have a massive cut of IGs with an eighteen to one ROI, why was that decision made and and how do you intend to have robust oversight of the department when you're cutting the folks who are responsible for that and have a brilliant track record of doing that with every administration, Democratic or Republican, before you?

So I I agree the IGs are extraordinarily important. um the budget that was proposed um it was developed consulting with the IGs and so this is a budget that that that ONB and DOJ worked with the IGs office to come up with and this was um an agreed upon budget from them so while not just because you're not you you you you're not giving more money and you're even taking away money doesn't doesn't mean the conclusion you reach is accurate which is that it's gonna result in less work or less r return on our investment, um I just don't think that's true.

Well, well that makes no sense, of course. Uh, i if you have one third fewer folks working, uh, granted maybe they're they're incredibly more productive, I don't think that's not true. but it's r it's really clear with an eighteen to one return,

We're not talking work, sir.

investing, as your budget is growing, you're gonna have that kind of uh return. And and it makes no sense to do that. Why why? Uh, it there's no financial sense to do it, so is there another reason you just don't want IGs on the job?

I, as I just said, the IGs themselves work with um OMB and DOJ to develop this

What were

budget in a way that made them feel that they could get their job done.

So it wasn't like uh we've got a budget for you can either take this or you're gonna get

That's the budget.

a lot less.

I wasn't part of the conversation,

Well the I can't imagine uh IGs are gonna say okay we want fewer of us even though

but I assure you it was not.

we have an eighteen to one return and we're the sa we're the we're the guardian to make sure that people can trust what happens uh in federal government. And uh it makes no sense to me to have that cut. Um, and I think it's it speaks volumes of what this administration is really focused on, and it's not about reducing waste, fraud and abuse. You don't do that by decimating the IG core. You certainly saw him fire a number of IGs earlier and have serious concerns. Mister Blanche, uh, the president also signed an executive order on March thirty-one directing the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and the Postal Service to take a series of actions related to federal elections. including the creation of a federal citizenship list and new rules on mail ballot distribution. Uh, that order uh is rightly uh being challenged uh in federal court, as these are state functions, but a recent reporting indicated that the implementation of that order is being coordinated through the White House meetings involving senior Department of Justice leadership including Assistant Attorney General uh Hamed uh Dhillon. So my question for you, sir, is what is the department's role in implementing the March thirty-first executive order.

Well, it's uh I wanna be careful cuz it is under litigation, but it's as you just described. It's working with um other other agencies within the administration to to implement um the goals uh which I think are appropriate goals to make sure that we have free and fair elections um w- to make sure that those are implemented whether it's DOJ, that needs to implement them or some other federal agency.

Well, you you have other agencies, the same same reporting identified the official leading the Department of Homeland Security's work. as you said you're all working together on this, uh who now serves as the DHS uh Deputy Assistant Secretary for Election Integrity. Um her name is uh Heather Honey, uh who is uh in that position. Uh Miss Honey's prior claims were central to the effect to challenge the twenty twenty election results. Claims as you have as you know have been widely disproven. It's not true, none of this stuff. She's a key player there. So my question for you, sir, is the department taking policy direction Either formally or informally, you say they are from your previous answer, but from an official whose prior work was built on disproven claims about a prior federal election?

Yeah, our policy direction comes from President Trump and his leadership team. So I I I I know the person you're speaking about. She's she's part of, uh, DHS and and certainly in meetings that we have about election integrity. But as far as whether myself or Harmeet Dhillon take policy directions, we take them from the president.

So, uh Interesting. A person who uh is was part of these widely disproven false allegations and a president who of course subscribes to that as well. So that's what you're telling me. That's what's driving this effort by the federal government to to basically uh take powers that the constitution reserves for our states. I mean, that's not what that's not what I said. Thank you, Mister Chairman. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Welcome, General Blanche.

Thank you.

General Blanche, um, last week I took this topic up with Director Patel, I'd like to revisit it with you. That has to do with the work that's taking place in various jurisdictions across the country to make them more safe. And I wanna commend the department for the work on Memphis Safe. The task force there has resulted in a forty-three percent decrease in violent crime since the uh operation commenced. I think it's a shining example of what happens when you have state and local governments cooperating with the federal government uh and and the dramatic improvements that we've seen in in violent crime uh in enhancing safety uh are are are really very much appreciated. I just wanted to ask you to take a few minutes and walk us through the whole of government approach that you've taken and and and how how that's been executed and and from that what lessons we might learn that could be applied to other jurisdictions.

Thank you, Senator. Yes, um in your state the Memphis task force is one of the s shining stars of enforcement over the past year, it also DC as well, and the way that it works is that we no longer care about stats within an agency, the FBI, DEA, MARSHALLs, HSI, state and local, it's just one government and it's a one government approach. So what happens in Memphis and what should happen in every city in this country, is every day law enforcement gets together in a room and they decide who they're gonna go out and get that day, the whether it's a a someone wanted for murder, um rape, um any other burglary, whether it's just somebody who has a warrant out for their arrest, And then they focus on doing it. And they do it if if they need a prosecutor to write a warrant, they go to get the prosecutor to write a warrant. If they need a state DA to help, because it's a state charge, they get the state DA's office. And what you saw, you just described the reduction in crime. But you have streets in in in Memphis now that that were unwalkable six months ago, and that now there there was a few new restaurants opening, uh I heard um last week, and and that's complete success. I wish we could do what we were able to do in Memphis, in in every city in this country.

Could we stay on that for just a moment? Because I understand that there are other jurisdictions in

Yes.

the United States that are refusing to cooperate i- i- is there anything that we could do any tool that we could provide to to to help you with this, with these non-compliant jurisdictions?

Look, I think one thing we can do is just keep on doing showing the American people how what what it looks like when you do it right and hopefully these local politicians that are doing it wrong will be shamed into doing it right. And we also are in many cases suing filing lawsuits against these some of these cities where they're actually violating the constitution and violating federal law in the way that they're um that they're treating federal law enforcement and the work that law enforcement federal law enforcement is doing but all i can do as the acting attorney general is is is offer everybody um that we will work as hard as we can with our law enforcement to work with the state and locals to to combat crime

thank you

um and that's what president trump ordered me to do and that's what i will continue to do

well thank you for that i would just like to show my colleagues i got a daily report on the results of what's happening in Memphis from from your team and many others, and it's quite impressive. The accountability makes a real difference. I'd like to turn to another issue though, one that's deeply concerning, I think it is concerning to me, it should be concerning to every American, and that's bringing to light what happened under the previous administration, the Biden Department's Department of Justice, uh when they weaponized the extraordinary the extraordinary powers of your department with arctic frost um if you think about it, they used this Arctic frost to persecute the president and also go after his closest allies, including me. And in in in, you know, I was shocked to find out last year that under President Biden, the DOJ had secretly obtained my phone records from Verizon. And even though Verizon was obligated to let me know that, they chose not to. And and when I brought the problem to Verizon's attention, all they've done is tried to stonewall me. and we've brought it before the FCC in the form of a complaint, again Verizon simply continues to stonewall. And i- if I think about what Verizon with the the Biden DOJ did, they specifically chose to ignore the fact that nothing can or should provi- stop a phone provider from notifying a member of Congress when their constitutional rights are being violated as mine were violated. It turns out that uh Verizon's chief legal officer Vandana Ven Venkatesh used to work for Henry Waxman, one of the most partisan players up here. And she is the general counsel. You know, I'm I'm seriously concerned at least uh that Miss Venkatesh and Verizon may have collaborated with their friends at the Biden DOJ. They never told me or my colleagues about it because they might have been worried that the truth would come out. They might have been worried that that would endanger their plans to make a twenty billion dollar acquisition of frontier communications. It's contemptible, it's damning, but I think there may be a, may have been a real reason there. I want justice to be done here, and I really would appreciate your help getting to the bottom of it. So here's my question. Can I get your commitment that the DOJ will work with me and my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson, in bringing full accountability to this abuse of power?

Um, a- absolutely, and obviously, Senator, one way we do that is by the work we're doing to to make sure you you all get your oversight responsibilities um as much as you deserve to get the materials that we're reviewing and collecting but then also in proactively the work that we're doing to make sure that what happened never happened again I mean make I mean understand that there are times when when we subpoena phone records we do not want the bad guys to know that that that well we we did it cause we're still investigating but the idea that that could be done to a United States Senator and that it would be okay for a prosecutor to just do it not even a scintilla of evidence anybody did anything wrong, and then not provide notice to is is in some ways the worst form of um of abuse by the Department of Justice.

Well, in fact,

So

there's a constitutional ban, and I think a first year law student should know that. You know, when AT&T was requested uh to to provide the same records, they saw the constitutional problem. They stopped. Verizon was willingly handing over my records and those of other my colleagues. And I just asked myself, what was the purpose? What was the motivation for them to violate my constitutional rights? Was it because they wanted to make friends with the FCC, maybe Miss Venkatesh, to get an appointment sometime later? I don't know. Was it because of this frontier acquisition that they had in mind? I don't know. But we need to get to the bottom of it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You're welcome. Senator Gillibrand.

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, Acting Attorney General, for being here. I've listened to your testimony today and I have a concern about your focus. Um New York City uh was the site of the last major terrorist attack against the United States. At nine eleven. We benefit greatly from what you've mentioned, this whole of government approach,

Yes.

uh where we integrate CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI, DOJ all integrated seamlessly, NYPD, to keep our city safe. It's one of the biggest cities in the country, it's one of the most dynamic cities in the country, and our public safety is paramount. But I've looked at your record. And I am deeply concerned that you are not using this whole of government approach, because I see you slashing programs left and right that we know work for all certain thing, all sorts of things, from drugs, to gun trafficking, to community uh policing, to cops program, slashing so many programs that I know work. So I wanna take you through them and hear from you why your focus isn't where New York City and the state and the country need you to be which is our public safety. So first of all, do you think that China, Iran, Russia want to do us harm and would undermine our elections?

Yes.

Why did you delete the whole department then that is supposed to protect against the undermining of our elections?

We so we we spend a ton of time, a ton of money, a ton of man hours, a ton of resources on that very issue. So I'm not

Yeah, but you canceled the FBI's foreign influence task force.

That's not that's literally just a group,

It was the no no no no no, no no no no. I was here in twenty sixteen.

you know where the task force is. That's not getting rid of anything.

I know what happened. And after that we did a whole of government approach.

Yes.

We put experts in at CISA. We put experts in at the FBI. And we put experts in at the Department of Defense. Together, whole of government approach, they went state by state by state to make sure that our electoral infrastructure was sound however your department and this administration has aggressively fired all the people that were put in charge of this. So they were the people at the FBI in charge of it. So why have you dismissed those operations?

W- were that failed, there were no state and local involved, it was all just a bunch of federal people, mostly out of Washington DC, okay? And the FBI agents were all Washington DC, the way they were agents, not around the country where we needed them. So the way that we're addressing it, by closing down that task force, is by having HSTF set up an Every single, including in New York City, um every single agency, every single state now has a HSTF and that is one of their main focuses. And it does work with state and local which have

I want a complete report on this because I don't have confidence that you are doing what needs to be done because if all the three hundred four hundred expert people that were in our previous administrations multiple administrations, Democrat and Republican administrations, if none of them are good and you're starting over from scratch, that doesn't sound like the recipe for success.

I I didn't say none of them were good. That's not what I said. That I did not say that.

Well, they've all been dismissed and they've all been fired in all three areas.

They have not all been. That's not true. That's not true. They have not all been dismissed.

We fired the people from DOD, we fired the people from CISA, we fired the people of the FBI. They were all dismissed.

They were not all dismissed. Many of them were still here.

If you ask for a briefing, look into it, and give a report to this committee, because I'm telling you, if you agree that our adversaries do not our have our goodness in in in mind, they don't have our protective elections in mind,

I do agree with that. Yes.

I need laser-like focus. on solving this problem.

You're getting laser-like focus.

All right, I'd like a report on that. Second issue, gun trafficking. We have been working so hard as a federal government to stop the flow of illicit guns into our communities where someone can sell guns out of the backs of their trucks, from some criminal gun dealer who's trying to get these guns into the hands of criminals. And we are supposed to get data every year so we can show that our gun trafficking laws are working. These new enhanced laws where Police officers can now go cross state lines to do their investigation. Why are you not giving me the data about gun trafficking? I need to know if it's working. I need to know if these uh cases are being prosecuted, and I can't even get data out of your department.

Well, the cases are being prosecuted. We did um hundreds of

Well, you gave me the data so I can assess it.

I don't know what data you're talking about.

Just the number of c- number of number of weapons that have been seized,

It doesn't have to be critical. I don't know.

the number of cases that are being prosecuted. We keep track of how many weapons have been seized. i- that are, that are trafficked, and I'm waiting from your department over a year to get that data.

To the extent there's data that, that we're required to,

Will you send it? Okay, next point.

no, that, no, it's not, okay,

I, I got like five points.

come on, it's okay.

I only get five minutes. Next point. Community violence intervention grants. You are slashing these community violence intervention grants. They work. We know they work. One of them was i- to New York for w- four point two million, slashed. It prevents youth violence. These are programs that are working. Did you analyze whether this program was working before you slashed the funding?

Yes, we we there's still a ton of funding for those programs.

Not not the ones in New York.

They do work. They do.

You just deleted them. Delete, delete, delete. It's it's shocking.

It wasn't delete, delete, delete. That is absolutely not true.

Okay, well four point two was dis was was deleted for the local initiative support corporation, that funds

It's not a deletion. It's just that we're not seeking funding for it through this exact process for that exact

No, no, I'm seeking funding for it. I've asked for the money. And we've gotten grants for this,

Uh

and you've just suspended this grant program.

I'm happy to work with you to make sure we're

Okay.

spending the grant money in the right way.

I don't have any more time, but there's a community oriented policing grant cuts as well, the COPS funds. This is something our police officers at our community policing development microgrants, they benefit from it. De-escalation training grants, programs that work, our police officers need it, and then drugs. We have an anti-heroin, an anti-metha-thet- meh meh methamphetamine task force, and we need to be funded, and it's not being funded, so I just

It is being funded, absolutely. There there is a different amount of funding.

Hmm.

But it is being funded.

No, no, you've eliminated funding for both the anti-heramin, anti-methamethylthin task force. So I'm sorry.

That's

Um, which is the task force that stops the trafficking of heroin, fentanyl, and the very long word I can't pronounce.

I mean, Senator, there's there's nothing more important to President Trump and to this Department of Justice than combating the illegal floor narcotics. So to the extent that there is a particular, um, funding revenue stream that is not being funded the same way,

It's

I commit to you that it is of the highest priority to combat drug trafficking.

Last is the public safety officer benefit program. You say, we just had police week, you say you stand with law enforcement, when you do not support this program and when these funds are not getting back to the loved ones who have lost their police officer loved one, it is not right. I need you to focus on this, I need you to get this right.

We're committed. Thank you, sir.

Here's a little rant, I had the same thought.

Thank you. Uh, thank you, uh, Acting Attorney General. Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Um, I want to talk about the ATS National Tra- Training Center Tracing Center which you know is located in,

Yes.

in Martinsburg, West Virginia. I think this is a stunning statistic for people to realize that fiscal year twenty twenty four alone the National Tracing Center processed more than six hundred thousand requests. I mean, that is a an immense amount of work. It also helped to uh uh identify the deranged individual who attempted to um assassinate President Trump in Pennsylvania.

Right.

So uh obviously uh it's great work out there, but I I am concerned uh that we have to pres- present prevent the release of firearm trace data to anyone other than law enforcement for investigative purposes. Can you elaborate on the important of the N the importance of the NTC, but also how it functions within the ATF? And can you describe how your budget request will sustain these critical services?

Y yes, of course, Senator. And I agree with you, it is an extraordinarily valuable law enforcement tool, uh, and and but it can be abused. And so what the ATF has to make sure we're doing is we're using those tracing, the tracing data, and by the way, it's not just for federal cases, it's for state and local cases, it's for local crimes, and so it's a true testament of the of the power of the federal government to help the states um we have to make sure that that data is shared only where it needs to be shared and and only to to further law enforcement investigations um. Our director is is laser focused on that, he's he's we have the the benefit of having somebody who's been an ATF agent for two decades um and so we'll we'll continue to make sure that not only we're spending the money to to make sure that we're successful but also making sure that we have have guardrails around it so that so that it doesn't get abused either by ATF or by anybody state and local wise.

Thank you, thank you very much. I want to talk about the Haida Task Force uh collaboration. I know DOJ is a a valuable member of the Haida Task Force and honestly, ev- we had the uh uh the ONDCP Director, Sarah Carter, came to West Virginia a few weeks ago, we had a round table, US attorneys were there, local partners, local law enforcement. uh very interesting uh conversation. I personally want to see the high intensity drug trafficking, the high-dip program stay within the White House. I know this may not be a decision uh that you're you're actively involved in or or because there's always through through several administrations a a a desire to move it over to DOJ. Do you have any perspectives on that and um what does this budget have to say about that?

Look, I know that President Trump is gonna give a ton of money, I think over eleven um point four billion dollars um to combat the the drug crisis, and that includes a lot of money to Haida. Um the way that the way that it's f- running through the ONDCP now as opposed to directly to DOJ doesn't make a difference to how to the effectiveness that we can have to run in these programs it hasn't made a difference over the past year it will not

Yeah.

make a difference in the coming years it to the contrary it remember another big part of the drug fight is is DHS and HSI right.

Right.

And so one benefit of having um having it go through kind of a a one higher place is that we make sure we're spending the money um across the federal government in the ways that it's smart. So I have had zero issues with it that set up and I don't think um Administrator Cole has had any issues with it or any of other law enforcement people.

Mm. Mm. I I mean personally I think the issue is so large and you heard Senator Gillibrand talking about it in New York. Uh our state has a particular issue uh and uh I am so pleased with the President's uh

Yes.

uh southern border initiatives, uh fentanyl seizures are way d are are down, uh meaning less fentanyl into the country, but it's just such a devastating and and terrifying um drug that's killing too many people.

Yes.

Um I did wanna make, I noticed in your opening statement you made a comment about the Bureau of Prisons, I just had a conversation with my fellow West Virginian Billy Marshall who's head of the BOP, um I am in full support of the ten billion dollar request that you've made, and he's made great strides there in getting good leadership. And uh they're safer. We have several uh federal prisons in in and around West Virginia and not not only are the uh staff safer but the the inmates are safer as well and uh I would encourage you to keep uh pounding that drum.

We will, thank you Senator.

Let me ask you a question in the last few minutes that I have. There's a few seconds, all right, geez. Um. There's always a headline about uh Assistant Attorney General leaves DOJ, and it sounds you know like it's a political statement rather than or a lack of confidence statement or doesn't like the way the direction that the the department is going and I know you see this the the public reports isn't this the way it's always been at DOJ people moving in and out and uh you yourself was were um uh at DOJ at one point before you went into private practice I didn't know if you wanted to talk about at the upper echelons of your leadership team uh where you see this uh going and is it a political statement or is it uh the cost of doing business

Look,

and ebb and flow of workforce

I think we have a great team and and not only DOJ but President Trump's entire administration that necessarily means that sometimes people come in, and sometimes people leave. I was a federal prosecutor until I had not no money left and I had to go to the private sector and I think there's there's pressures on on family and and there's, so it it's it's not a political statement, I think the president has assembled a phenomenal cabinet and the cabinet has then assembled leadership that I think is everyday working hard to to fulfill the president's agenda and and when it comes to DOJ to make America safe again. And so um my team my team that that works at DOJ um some of them will will stay for four years and some of them will probably leave in the next month or two. And that's that's natural and and all we can do is thank them for their public service and and to keep on hiring great people.

Thank you for your service. Thank you so much. Representative

Thank you, Senator Capito.

Thank you.

We're gonna conclude this uh hearing in just a moment. Senator Van Hollen and I have the practice of like wrapping up uh our thoughts with questions or statements, uh and then we'll conclude. I'm in a particular hurry to get to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to ask questions there, so I if I quit explaining what we're going to do I'll get there sooner, and I now recognize Senator Van Hollen.

Uh thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Blanche, in response to Senator Coons saying that Capitol Hill police officers were worried that people who assaulted them on January sixth might benefit from a slush fund. You said that couldn't be true because it hadn't been set up until yesterday.

I didn't say it couldn't be true, Senator. I didn't say it couldn't be true, I said it was surprising it was true.

Okay. So it is very possible that people have been anticipating getting payments from the administration people who were part of the attack on the Capitol on Ca- on January sixth, right?

You're asking me to speculate on the possibility of something?

Have you not heard of anybody anticipating getting payments from that?

Uh, no, I haven't, I I don't know what that means, actually.

OK. All right, all right. Uh, mister chairman,

But I won't speculate.

I w- I w- I wanna put it in the record, um, submit for the record a a January twenty twenty six Washington Post story, a long story entitled " For many January sixth rioters, pardon from Trump wasn't enough and it it goes on to quote, the president of the United States when asked about this, these payments said, "A lot of people in government now talk about it because a lot of people in government really like that group of people," unquote, referring to the January six writers. Are you not aware of that statement from the president?

I I have never read The Washington Post.

Well, I I can tell you that there are a lot of people for a long time who've been anticipating

I accept that you read it.

payments. You're not aware of that?

That the,

In fact, when I asked you

the, the, you're telling me there's a lot of people that were anticipating payments?

Yes.

No.

Well,

I'm not aware of that.

okay, well, Mister Attorney General, you are in a bubble because the reality is

Because I don't read The Washington Post?

I w- No, no,

Okay.

no, obviously you should be in touch with some of these, the, these folks because, um, I asked you specifically about an individual who had molested kids and been convicted about his anticipation of getting a payment. And you said that couldn't be true. In fact, that was a lie. I wanna read you

I didn't say that.

You, I'm, I got the transcript right.

Good.

You said it was obvious, I'm obviously lying in the question because there's no way the person committed to that because the slush fund did not exist. That's what you said. I'm gonna read from you, Mister Attorney General, an affidavit from the Hernando County, Florida, Sheriff's Office. And I want you to listen carefully to what this police officer said about this criminal, criminal named Andrew, pardoned by the president, now being charged for child molestation. He says, Andrew also told that since he was pardoned for storming the Capitol on January sixth, two thousand twenty one, and he was being awarded ten million dollars as a result of being a January Sixer, Andrew did tell that he would be putting him in his will. referring to one of the victims of his molestation. He would be putting him in his will to take any money he had left over. This tactic was believed to be used to keep from exposing what Andrew had done to him, signed under penalty of perjury by someone in the sheriff's office. And you're telling me you don't know about all these people who have been signaled by the president of the United States and others that they're gonna get payments.

I th- I think that that's what you just read is disgusting. I'm very ho- It's horrible that that happened, but what that's not what I said.

What?

I mean, you can you can say you're telling me and then make up something that I'm not saying,

I've got I've

or you can let me speak.

Mister Attorney General,

Yes.

I'm reading from the statement here, I got a transcript of what we our exchange earlier. And you essentially said, well, I'm you're obviously lying in your question cuz there's no way this person committed to that, because the slush fund of which you called it did not exist. Just as you suggested.

Right. And and and I and it's true that even the affidavit that you just read

Okay.

said that he would be awarded this this terminal

Criminals.

suggested he'd be awarded ten million dollars.

So now you're playing absolute word games.

That's

You're the Attorney General,

I am not playing a word game.

the worse you are because people are anticipating these payments.

And also words matter, words matter. So if you're gonna quote me, quote me accurately.

Mister Um, Mister Chairman, I'd like to put in the record January six, Ryder, pardoned by Trump, was sentenced to life in prison for child abuse. Pardoned, Capitol Hill, Ryder, tried to bribe child sex victim with promise of January six payout. And I will close with this, mister Attorney General. You can't tell us today that this individual would not be eligible for a payout from this fund. I find that obscene. And I'm gonna ask you one last time. You keep comparing this case to the Keep Eagle case. In that case, as you've admitted, a judge ultimately signed off. I'm asking you, before you proceed with this fund, will you have a federal judge sign off on it?

I didn't compare the cases. What I said is the commission that we set up yesterday is nearly identical to the commission that was set up during Keeps Eagle.

But it's not.

So please, you repeatedly put words on my mouth,

No, no, mis-

and then you, and then you say, oh, I'm playing words,

Wait, wait.

words matter.

Wait, wait, wait. Mister Chairman,

And so if you

it, they do matter, you said they were cl- I, I, I got a look, the transcript will speak for itself.

It will.

But you, but you compared in your own release, in the Department of Justice's own release, you compared it to this case. And in this case a judge signed, my final question is,

But I am comparing the pieces.

will you agree, as they did in that case, that before you proceed with this fund, a federal judge will sign off and approve it?

There's a federal judge.

You agree to that?

So there's no

Actually,

Okay, cuz the case was the, the case was dismissed.

there is a federal judge presiding over this case.

The, that was, the case was dismissed by the judge last night.

Because Yeah, because you moved to create this fund.

I didn't move. I did not move.

The settlement result,

That's not true.

Mister Attorney General, come on. So,

Yes.

let me, let me, so you're not going to ps- you're not gonna submit this proposal to any federal judge or independent

There is no judge.

Any independent authority that

An indepe- what does that mean, an independent authority?

It means not somebody who's getting to pick

What does that mean?

five of the members who was the president's former personal attorney. That would be somebody who would be independent, right?

I'm the acting attorney general, okay?

And you also

The fact that I used to be President Trump's lawyer is just a fact, but I am the acting attorney general. So don't say the president's former personal lawyer will do something. The acting attorney general will do something.

Mister Attorney General, you are acting today like the president's personal attorney. And that's the whole problem. You've got his whole, you have a whole banner of his face hanging over the Department of Justice, and you and everybody else walks under it and you are acting like you're his current personal attorney. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Um, Attorney General, let me let me ask this question in this regard to the fund. Is there in your mind the a nature or a description of the individuals that you hope to find to serve uh on that uh board that makes the decisions that we're talking about?

Yeah, we want we want people who will

we'll have the ability to evaluate, I mean, with a couple of the questions from the senator and from others today, evaluate whether a a somebody who's applying for um for compensation is entitled to it and if they are entitled to it um what amount and and how to go about doing that. So we expect there'll be experienced people. It'll be public. People can be critical if they so choose. And so we haven't come up with names yet and and we will, you know, I think we have thirty days to do so and and when we when we have the names we'll we'll announce them.

And what's the standard by which a determination is made that compensation should be had?

So, in the broadest sense, it's weaponization. It's not limited to Republicans, it's not limited to Democrats, it's not limited to January six um defendants, it's it's it's limited um only by the term weaponization. And so I expect that the commissioners and and what I expect they will do, cuz they'll have to, is set up guidelines and set up um procedures for individuals to apply for that.

the weaponization then gets defined could be, I assume you can't expand the word def uh uh weaponization, but you you can narrow where it b seems to be most applicable, where the weapon weaponization, if it occurred, is the most egregious, make is is there some kind of standard by which you would evaluate a case-by-case basis?

Sure. I think there has to be standards and I think it is a case-by-case basis. I think that it it will depend on but but by when you say there's a standard, and then say it's case by case, that's that's the issue, right, is that the case the case by case analysis is what's gonna have to be done, and and I expect that it that it will be done. I mean, I think it's telling that, um, everybody on the left and everybody in the the the liberal side of the media immediately says it's a slush fund for President Trump's friends. If anything else, that's a outright admission that they know that the people that really had this Department of Justice weaponized against them were President Trump and his friends. But that is not what the commission says. That is not what the what what the AG order that I signed yesterday says. It does not limit it to President Trump or President Trump's friends. To the contrary, President Trump isn't taking a dime. And so so the the the fact that there's a view that this slush fund, which it's not, is going to be only given to Republicans or friends of the president is is as for, is one, not true, but two, it's very telling that that's the reaction from Democrats. Because it proves the point that that President Trump has been saying for a very long time, which happens to be true, which was was for the first time in our nation's history, you had an administration seek to destroy the previous administration, not just President Trump, anybody that came in contact with him. I've said it before, but you're talking about his gardeners being put in the grand jury, his secret service detail being put multiple times in the grand jury. That's what the last administration did to try to destroy President Trump. And and he has said publicly, and and I very much agree with him, that he doesn't want this to ever happen again to anybody. And so how do you go about making sure it doesn't happen again to anybody? Well, you change the culture, which is what we're doing. You also set up a a mechanism where people that did have it weaponized, have this this Department of Justice and this federal government weaponized against them, can apply. Does it mean they're gonna get money? No. It doesn't mean they're gonna get money. It just invites them to apply.

And they they make a case of some kind to meet some Some standard, right? That

Yes, and you know, there's a flaw in the legal system because this legal system was not set up to compensate for what the Democrats and what Biden and what Garland did for four years. It doesn't know how to cope with the fact that, um, hundreds and hundreds of administration officials had their phones taken from them. Members of the Senate had their, um, had had had had had their phone records, um, subpoenaed and weren't told about it. The system isn't it's set up for that.

In in in answers to questions previously put before you th th this morning. Did you you took uh I assume because what the settlement agreement says, you eliminated certain individuals from being qualified to receive benefits from this fund. What's the list of that those individuals?

Well, the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit have agreed to accept an apology. So that's President Trump and and his son um sons, I believe. And and otherwise there is no limitation. So, um, whether you're Hunter Biden or whether you're another, um, individual who believed they were a victim of, of, of weaponization, they can all apply for, um, to this fund. And again, it doesn't mean the commissioners will agree. It doesn't mean that they're getting ten million dollars or what, whatever was just read a few minutes ago. It just means that you can apply.

And the decision by the commission is by a majority?

Yes.

Three or five?

Correct.

And, um, finally, this issue while it's of interest to all of us as United States senators. This committee has no jurisdiction over this issue in a sense, because this is mandatory spending. Have you had conversations with Senator Durbin or Senator Grassley or the Judiciary Committee?

I have not had conversations over the past, you know, twenty-four hours about this, no, I have not.

Uh, General, anything you'd like to add to what you've said today or take away from whatever you said today?

No, just thank you and the committee for their time today.

Um, there are no further questions. Uh, senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's official hearing record. We request that the attorney general respond to those, uh, questions within thirty days. The, uh, subcommittee stands at recess to the call of the chair.