NPR’s Steve Inskeep speaks with Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., about the Senate Judiciary Committee’s anticipated vote on Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general.
Transcript
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
We’ve called Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator, good morning.
ALEX PADILLA: Good morning, Steve. Thanks for having me.
INSKEEP: OK. Ryan Lucas said there that Blanche’s statements are not legally binding. Does that mean he could revive the tax deal and the fund that Trump likes?
PADILLA: Well, that’s certainly how a lot of us are reading it, Steve, but let’s remember the bigger picture here. As I said during his confirmation hearing, Todd Blanche is simply unfit to serve as attorney general of the United States. He’s made no secret about carrying out Trump’s political agenda. He shunned any notion that the attorney general and the Department of Justice should serve independently of the political priorities of the president.
He’s been deputy attorney general for almost a year and a half and acting for the last couple of months and has carried out the agenda of retribution on behalf of Donald Trump. He botched the Epstein files, as we just discussed a minute ago – this tax-immunity deal. Todd Blanche claims he was Donald Trump’s personal attorney but is continuing to act as if he’s still Donald Trump’s personal attorney. And the American people deserve better.
INSKEEP: You mentioned the tax deal here, and one particular provision of it seems still to be in effect. Even if Blanche’s notes were binding, he left intact some provisions that would grant broad immunity to the president and his adult children and their business for past conduct. Do you regard that as binding on the next administration, whoever it may be?
PADILLA: No. And some people would – many people interpret this as not even binding to this administration because it’s not a formal legal document or memo. It’s a couple of paragraphs. Who knows who drafted them? They were signed by Todd Blanche. The original deal was signed by Todd Blanche after he negotiated with Todd Blanche, representing both the president and the Department of Justice. It makes no sense.
Nothing to keep this administration from creating another fund by another name for the same purpose tomorrow, maybe most likely right after the November election if they’re doing this to try to evade political consequences as we approach the midterms. And it does nothing to prevent payments to January 6 insurrectionists from other accounts at the Department of Justice.
So huge holes in this whole thing. Disappointed to see that Senators Cornyn and Tillis have shifted their opposition to support of Todd Blanche. We’re still in opposition on the Democratic side and hoping that there’s other Republicans, once this gets to the full Senate, that will step up and do the right thing.
INSKEEP: Senators Cornyn and Tillis can say, well, we got these written statements from the attorney general nominee. What would you say to them?
PADILLA: Yeah. The – again, disappointed because these written statements provide no assurances. The vast majority of lawyers will agree. Trump’s lawyers obviously will disagree.
INSKEEP: How much would you say the Department of Justice has changed over the past year and a half? Many people have been fired. Many people have walked out the door. Many offices have been changed. Priorities have been changed. How would you assess the overall change of that agency?
PADILLA: Yeah. It’s not a Department of Justice that you would recognize – that most people would recognize. And this was a key theme that I brought up, again during Todd Blanche’s most recent confirmation hearing – the historic independence of the Department of Justice. The people of the United States – the Constitution is best served when you have an attorney general who will serve and uphold the rule of law independent of the political priorities – certainly priorities of retribution – of the president of the United States.
When offered a chance to address that, Todd Blanche immediately reverted to, well, this is the executive branch. I serve as the president’s lawyers. That is exactly not what the job requires and not what the people expect and deserve.
INSKEEP: If we look below the level of Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, have the personnel – has the personnel of that agency changed dramatically? By which I mean, if there were a Democratic administration in a couple of years, would it be filled with people who take President Trump’s view of the law?
PADILLA: There’s – yeah – going to be a lot of culture reshifting back to the rule of law – not Democrat, not Republican, but to upholding the Constitution that needs to be repaired in the next administration. This administration has seen a lot of career professionals leave the Department of Justice. They’d rather leave the careers they were proud of than to pledge their loyalty to Donald Trump and his agenda. We’ve had recruitment problems at the Department of Justice. So I do think once there’s a new administration, a new tone of professionalism and respect for the Constitution that’s set, we’ll recruit back some talent. But in the meantime, American people are paying the price with these priorities that are just in the wrong direction.
INSKEEP: What should the Justice Department be doing? What role should it have in the upcoming fall elections, and what role, if any, do you fear it will have?
PADILLA: Well, I think we’re close enough to the election where, both by letter of the law and by practice, there’s nothing that should be done to change the rules or certainly interfere with the administration of the November election. The Department of Justice plays a role. It’s historically been one that observes to ensure there’s no foul play in the elections – nobody’s voting rights are infringed upon.
Any eligible voter should be able to register and cast their ballot free from interference or intimidation. So, no, no federal agents roving the polls across America to discourage people from voting. You know, quite the opposite. They should be on alert and uphold people’s access to the ballot and the administration of free and fair elections. Because there are so many people that don’t have the confidence that this administration and this Department of Justice will do it, others are doing it at the state level, at the local level. In the Senate, we just launched a Election Observer Program in that same spirit.
INSKEEP: How confident are you that there will be free and fair elections this fall?
PADILLA: I do feel confident that, by and large, it will be free and fair elections. As California’s former secretary of state, I know the hard work that state and local elections officials put into – the pride they take in doing their job administering elections, certainly the awareness of the voting public about what may or may not happen and encouraging voters to exercise all their options. They can vote by mail and avoid any potential conflict or tension at a polling place. You can vote early and not worry about what may or may not happen on Election Day. But on Election Day, plenty of voting rights advocates either on call or out and about to help protect people and their fundamental right to vote.
INSKEEP: Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California, thanks so much.
PADILLA: Thank you.
Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
