Former U.S. Department of Justice Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer testified Thursday against the confirmation of acting Attorney General Todd Blanche [1].
Oyer's testimony represents a significant internal challenge to Blanche's appointment, as a former high-ranking DOJ official is publicly questioning his ethics and suitability for the nation's top legal post.
Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., Oyer delivered her opening statement on July 16, 2026 [1], during the second day of the confirmation hearings [2]. She said Blanche engaged in unethical behavior and argued that his priorities do not align with the impartial administration of justice.
"The priority of this DOJ is protecting powerful men," Oyer said [3].
Oyer's opposition extends beyond her live testimony. In a letter dated July 15, 2026, she urged the Senate to reject Blanche's confirmation [4]. The former attorney, who was fired from the DOJ in March 2026 [5], has linked Blanche's approach to the enforcement of personal vendettas rather than legal mandates [3].
The hearings began on July 15, 2026 [6], and have focused on Blanche's history as a defense attorney and his relationship with the executive branch. Oyer's testimony suggests a divide between the political leadership of the department and the career officials who previously managed the pardon process.
Throughout her statement, Oyer said the role of the Attorney General should be to uphold the rule of law regardless of the status of the individuals involved. She said Blanche's record indicates a preference for defending those with high social or political standing over the interests of the general public [3].
“"The priority of this DOJ is protecting powerful men."”
The testimony of Elizabeth Oyer adds a layer of institutional credibility to the opposition against Todd Blanche. Because Oyer served as the U.S. Pardon Attorney, her claims regarding the DOJ's priorities carry more weight than general political criticism. Her firing in early 2026 further frames this conflict as a clash between the Trump administration's loyalty-based appointments and the traditional norms of non-partisan legal enforcement.
