Former Justice Department pardon attorney Liz Oyer said President Donald Trump seeks enablers to help him misuse presidential powers beyond their intended scope.
Oyer's allegations target the internal operations of the U.S. Department of Justice and the appointment of Todd Blanche, a senior official nominated by Trump as Attorney General. The claims suggest a systemic effort to install loyalists who will bypass legal norms to serve the president's personal or political interests.
Oyer specifically identified Blanche as an individual who facilitates this goal. "What [Trump] needs is people who will enable him to use those powers in ways that they are not designed and not intended, and Todd Blanche has demonstrated that he is one of those people," Oyer said [3].
The former attorney also detailed the circumstances surrounding her own departure from the government. Oyer said she was fired one day [3] after she refused to recommend restoring the gun rights of actor Mel Gibson [1].
This dismissal follows a period of internal friction within the department. Oyer previously testified at a congressional hearing on April 7, 2025 [2], where she accused the Justice Department of ongoing corruption and said she was removed during a broader internal dispute [2].
These developments occur as the administration manages significant financial resources. Reports indicate Trump's legal fund for dispensing claims amounts to over $1.7 billion [4].
Critics and legal observers suggest that the rise of officials like Blanche indicates a shift in the department's culture. The New York Times reported that practices once considered out of bounds within the Justice Department now appear to be the order of the day [2].
“"I was fired the day after I refused to recommend restoring Mel Gibson's gun rights."”
The allegations by a former pardon attorney highlight a tension between career civil service norms and the installation of political appointees in the U.S. Justice Department. If presidential powers are used to reward allies or punish dissenters—such as the alleged firing over a gun rights recommendation—it could signal a shift toward a more personalized application of federal law, potentially undermining the department's traditional independence.
