(WASHINGTON) — A key GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee whose vote is needed to secure acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s confirmation as the next attorney general said Thursday that he will require Blanche to sit down with victims of deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein before he can vote for him. 

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., announced the new condition during a hearing Thursday where one of the witnesses was Epstein victim Dani Bensky.

Facing a potentially rocky confirmation, Blanche made a brief attempt to meet with Epstein survivors on Capitol Hill Thursday afternoon. 

He and his team arrived at a Senate Judiciary Committee office where they sat for about half an hour, but no one joined them.

“I rearranged my schedule to try to meet with them,” Blanche told ABC News after leaving the office. “I’ve been here waiting. It didn’t work out, so we’re going to see if there’s a way we can meet either later today or sometime soon.”

“There’s nothing newsworthy about this fact because the Department of Justice will always meet with victims or their representatives, and if those victims or their representatives have evidence that anybody committed a crime, whether it has to do with Jeffrey Epstein, anybody else that was associated with Jeffrey Epstein, or anybody else, we will of course move forward and investigate and prosecute,” Blanche said.

Bensky testified in Thursday’s hearing that Blanche has never responded to repeated attempts to reach him to sit down and recount her story. 

“Blanche was willing to say that he would meet with [Epstein victims] and counsel — I understand the restriction that counsel has to be present,” Tillis said. “I expect that meeting to occur before I vote to vote out of this committee and I’m trying to get to yes. But this is a very important part of getting to yes.”

“There should not be any reason why, based on what Mr. Blanche said yesterday, if he said that he would do it today, then he can certainly do it over the next two weeks,” Tillis added.

Blanche told lawmakers during his confirmation hearing Wednesday that he would be happy to meet with victims but initially said he couldn’t meet with them personally if they were represented by legal counsel, before correcting himself later in the hearing. 

“I never said I can’t meet with them. I said if they were represented, I had to meet through counsel,” Blanche said. “But of course, I can meet with them. I’m the acting attorney general of the United States, so yes, I can.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Joe Biden announced in a video message on Wednesday that he has written a book which is set to be released after the November midterm elections.

The book is titled “Promise Me, America” and is out on Nov. 17. 

Biden said the book is about the decisions he made as president and touches on response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy, “restoring our democracy” after Jan. 6, and conflicts in Afghanistan and Ukraine. It will also discuss why he chose to run for re-election and his decision to step aside.

“Most of all, it’s about my faith in the promise of America. The promise we made to those that have come before us and to honor their sacrifice,” Biden said. 

The book’s release, which will come two weeks after the midterms, could pull attention back to the former president just as Democrats hope to keep it fixed on President Donald Trump’s record, with promotional efforts risking distraction.

The former president said since he’s left office, he’s been spending time with his family and getting treatment for his prostate cancer, which he says has been going “really well.”

In the summer of 2024, Biden dropped his presidential bid after a widely criticized debate performance that prompted questions about his mental fitness. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who has detailed her run for office in a memoir, “107 Days,” said that it was “recklessness” to allow Biden to make the decision alone on running for re-election.

Former first lady Jill Biden wrote in her memoir “View from the East Wing,” releases last month, that she was concerned her husband might have been drugged ahead of his debate performance.

Joe Biden’s two earlier books include “Promises to Keep” and “Promise Me, Dad,” a memoir on his older son Beau who died of brain cancer.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday released a rendering of a commemorative coin featuring President Donald Trump, saying that the U.S. Mint will begin striking the $1 piece to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

“As America commemorates 250 years of independence, the [U.S. Mint] will begin striking this new $1 gold coin to honor the enduring legacy of liberty and a lasting symbol of patriotism,” Bessent wrote in a social media post. “Featuring President Trump, it celebrates the strength of American values, and the promise of a nation dedicated to preserving freedom for all.”

The coins — which are not real gold but will feature a gold-like finish — will be available in the fall, a Treasury Department spokesperson said.

The last and only time a living president was featured on hard currency struck by the U.S. Mint was a century ago for the U.S. Sesquicentennial. The half-dollar coin featured then-President Calvin Coolidge silhouetted behind the bust of President George Washington. At the time, the Mint produced a million of the coins with 860,000 of them ultimately returned and melted due to low demand.

While living presidents are generally barred from appearing on U.S. currency, the Trump administration has argued that the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act of 2020 permits the design because it authorizes the Treasury secretary to oversee the minting of special commemorative coins for the nation’s Semiquincentennial. And while the same law bars any person from appearing on the tail side of a commemorative coin, the restriction doesn’t apply to its face. 

Federal law also stipulates that coin designs be selected by the Treasury secretary after consultation with the Commission of Fine Arts, which approved the design last March, and review from the bipartisan Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, an 11-person body established by Congress in 2003 to advise on designs of hard currency.

But the Treasury Department appears to have skipped the latter committee, raising questions about the legality of the coin’s production.

Donald Scarinci, a numismatist and Democrat who’s spent over two decades on the committee, said aside from a last-minute attempt by the Mint to present the proposed coin to the committee in December, the body never had a chance to review the design as required by law.

“We’ve never seen any design with the portrait of Donald Trump on it,” Scarinci told ABC News on Wednesday. 

Scarinci said the proposed December meeting ultimately didn’t occur because it was impossible to reach a quorum of members on such short notice. 

During the committee’s February meeting, another member of the board, Kellen Hoard, a coin collector who represents the general public, also said that the board received no opportunity to weigh in on the coin, nor did they review the designs ultimately selected for the Semiquincentennial series of quarters. 

“I have never reviewed the Semiquincentennial $1 coin portfolio, much less been given an opportunity to review it. Is it legal now for the Mint to move forward with creating the Semiquincentennial $1 coin despite me never having the opportunity to review the piece?” Hoard asked acting Mint Chief Counsel Greg Weinman at the meeting. 

Weinman replied that he did not agree with Hoard’s characterization and said that the Mint’s position is the board made the decision to not review the design.

“I think the Mint made a significant effort to request the CCAC to review the portfolio. There was clearly a conscious decision not to do so. The Mint has moved forward accordingly. I am not prepared to discuss more than that at this meeting,” Weinman said. 

“I believe the CCAC was given — at least the chair of the CCAC was given a full opportunity to review this portfolio,” Weinman added later. “The Mint, in my opinion, attempted multiple times to find an opportunity for the CCAC to review the portfolio. The CCAC made a decision not to. At least the chair of the CCAC made the decision not to.”

“The concept that the secretary of the Treasury can create his own coin — it’s illegal,” Scarinci said of the move, adding that Congress would have the authority to confiscate and demonetize the coins and that concern about the coin crosses partisan boundaries on the committee.

“This is not a Democrat-Republican issue as far as the coin is concerned,” he said.

A Treasury spokesperson told ABC News, “During the January meeting, Megan Sullivan, the acting chief of the U.S. Mint’s office of design management, assured board members that ‘legal research from both the Mint and the Department of the Treasury determined that the proposed coin would not violate any laws and is legal under the law authorizing the minting of coins for the Sesquicentennial.'”

The coin is not the only piece of currency that the Treasury Department is putting Trump’s imprint on. Paper currency printed this year will also feature Trump’s signature above that of Bessent’s — a first for an American president. Bessent told Fox News earlier this week that, too, would go into circulation this fall.

In May, Trump administration officials pushed the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to move forward with designing a commemorative $250 bill with Trump’s portrait and signature, should legislation to create the new currency pass, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions.

That bill has been stuck in the House Financial Services Committee for more than a year.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Jay Clayton, President Donald Trump’s pick to serve as director of national intelligence, faced repeated questions from Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday about whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election — with Clayton saying Biden was certified as president, but stopped short of saying he won legitimately.

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the committee, asked whether Clayton denied that Biden won the 2020 election.

“I’m not an election denier,” Clayton said. “Joe Biden was certified as the president of the United States.

Independent Sen. Angus King later asked Clayton pointedly: “Who won the 2020 election?”

Clayton danced around the answer multiple times — refusing to say outright that Biden won, while reiterating that he believes Biden was certified.

“He went through our processes, and Joe Biden became the president of the United States,” Clayton said.

King responded that “saying Joe Biden was certified is not an answer.”

Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff later said Clayton wasn’t being “honest or forthright” in his responses about Biden’s 2020 election victory.

“You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election. But you ask to lead America’s intelligence community,” Ossoff said. “Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question? To have to indulge the president’s delusions? We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to the question. Why can you not give it?”

Both Republicans and Democrats asked Clayton if he were involved in any way with Trump’s primetime address on Thursday that the president said will be a “very big announcement” that will touch on “free and fair elections.” The announcement is based on information he recently received from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence related to the 2020 election, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

Clayton said he is “not involved in that,” affirming that doing so would violate that understanding that he would take no actions that would presume his confirmation as DNI.

Clayton did say that he thought there was room to improve elections and that he would like to work with the committee to do that.

Questions about subpoenas to journalists

Clayton also faced questions about the subpoenas he issued to several journalists at the New York Times last week after the news outlet reported on security concerns involving Trump’s new Qatari-donated Air Force One.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden questioned Clayton about the subpoenas he issued — as U.S. attorney in Manhattan — to the journalists, asking when he was directed to issue the subpoenas and who asked him to do so.

Clayton responded that the subpoenas are in connection with an “ongoing national security investigation” and reiterated that he respects the First Amendment and the role of the press. But he did not directly answer Wyden’s question.

“Those subpoenas are in connection with an ongoing national security investigation. I’m happy to talk to you and this committee about our approach to the First Amendment and our efforts in all cases to limit to the greatest extent possible, any intrusion into the operation of the free press,” Clayton said.

Clayton later added that he consulted with career prosecutors in his office before making the decision to issue the subpoeanas. He added that he is confident that the procedures in place to protect the First Amendment and journalists were followed.

Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said the committee was “deeply concerned” with how the process played out, that it “doesn’t sound like the proper independent legal process that we would normally expect for issuance of a subpoena.”

Clayton said that while he understood her concerns, “I want to tell you, I am comfortable with where we are, and I’m comfortable with how we are proceeding from here.”

In a statement on Saturday, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that “reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”

Clayton, prior to his role as the U.S. attorney, was also the former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Apart from the national security cases he oversaw while serving as U.S. attorney, Clayton also lacks experience in intelligence-gathering and national security matters.

Clayton spent the bulk of his career as a corporate attorney, and prior to his appointment as U.S. attorney last year, lacked meaningful experience in criminal matters.

Clayton will replace the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Trump loyalist Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence. Clayton’s hearing came weeks after the president abruptly canceled his previously scheduled confirmation hearing.

Asked about why his hearing was postponed, Clayton said he was “not going to get into private conversations.”

Pulte has been serving as the acting director since June 19. The former DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, announced her intention to resign from the role in May, citing a desire to step away from public service to support her husband following his cancer diagnosis. Gabbard ultimately left the role on June 18, days earlier than planned.

The committee is expected to vote on Clayton’s nomination to be the next DNI some time next week.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday as he seeks confirmation to secure his role on a permanent basis.

Blanche is facing questions over a series of controversies from his time with the Justice Department, including the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and what he says is the now-defunct “Anti-Weaponization Fund” part of a settlement after President Donald Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service for $10 billion.

Formerly Trump’s defense attorney, Blanche faced a relatively smooth glide path to confirmation with unanimous Republican support last year when he was nominated to serve as the department’s No. 2 official.

Since Trump’s ouster of Pam Bondi as attorney general in April, Blanche has served in the position in an acting role and Trump formally nominated him in June.

“We are here today with the awesome responsibility of choosing the next attorney general of the United States of America. We’re here because there is a vacancy in the office. The president decided to fire the predecessor of Mr. Blanche after just 14 months on the job after courts and grand juries blocked her from prosecuting the president’s political opponents,” Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said in his opening statement. “Seemingly, President Trump believes you, Mr. Blanche, will be more successful.”

Blanche’s road to confirmation is further complicated by the sudden death of Sen. Lindsey Graham, a veteran of the Judiciary Committee who was expected to be a strong advocate for Blanche with his GOP colleagues. Blanche will likely need the support of every Republican on the committee in order for his nomination to advance to the Senate floor, as all Democrats are expected to oppose him.

It’s not immediately clear when the full Senate would move for a vote on Blanche’s nomination if passed by the committee, though administration officials have said their goal would be for him to be confirmed before the August recess.

Blanche argued Wednesday that his leadership has restored trust that was lost under the previous administration when the Department of Justice prosecuted Trump and many of his supporters.

“In recent years, Americans watched the Justice Department turned against many of you and a former president, and it damaged the public’s faith in justice,” Blanche said. “We are fixing that. Members of this committee — on both sides — have fair questions about the hard debates of this past year, and I welcome them.”

Blanche defends handling of Epstein files
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the committee, asked Blanche to give his response to allegations that he and other department officials deliberately mishandled the release of millions of files from the Justice Department’s past investigations of Epstein. 

As he has in previous congressional testimony, Blanche acknowledged “mistakes” made in the process regarding failures to properly redact certain names of victims, which he said the department immediately sought to fix once they were notified. 

“Whenever we learned that any victim’s name had been improperly non-redacted, we immediately took the document down and fixed it as soon as we could,” Blanche said. “That doesn’t excuse the mistakes of which I take full responsibility, but it does mean that we tried to fix them.”

Blanche also used his time to directly address victims of Epstein — several of whom were in the audience — telling them that the department would gladly meet with them and open new investigations of potential co-conspirators of Epstein if they came forth with evidence that would warrant it. 

“If we learn today, if we learn next week, if we learn next month, that there’s an individual that we can investigate, indict and prosecute out of the Epstein files, you better believe it we will,” Blanche said.

Asked if he would notify the committee once such a meeting takes place with a victim of Epstein or their counsel, Blanche demurred — drawing a rebuke from Durbin. 

“Well, you’re dancing on the head of a pin here,” Durbin said. 

“I’m not dancing on any pin,” Blanche replied. 

Blanche confirms “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is “dead”
For the first time under oath, Blanche confirmed in an exchange with Republican Sen. John Cornyn that the so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is “dead.” 

Cornyn, one of the key Republican votes that Blanche will need to make it out of committee, repeatedly pushed him with specific and detailed questions regarding both the fund and the immunity agreement that would exempt President Trump and his family from IRS audits of their past taxes — which Cornyn described as “unusual.”

Cornyn repeatedly noted that the original settlement that first established the fund has still yet to be formally rescinded.

While Blanche acknowledged that, he also said the Department of Justice would be fine with codifying in some way to assure senators the fund would not move forward. 

“It is a moot issue, meaning there is no weaponization fund,” Blanche told lawmakers.

On Monday, a federal judge in Florida issued an extraordinary order that lambasted Trump and the Justice Department for misusing her court to legitimize a “settlement” that she says would never have survived judicial review.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who had previously been assigned to oversee Trump’s IRS lawsuit, referred Trump’s attorneys for potential sanctions and separately sent her ruling to the State Bar of New York for consideration in potential disciplinary proceedings for Blanche — who Williams said had potentially given “misleading” testimony to Congress about how the settlement was executed. 

Blanche, when asked during Wednesday’s hearing about Williams’ order, said he rejected her “insinuations” and said she had never given the Department of Justice a chance to respond in the case before issuing her order. Judge Williams noted in her order that while the department had 109 days to enter an appearance in the case, it never did so.

“I very much disagree with — with the judge’s insinuations about me, and we’re going to do what we can to make that right,” Blanche said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett made a rare appearance before Congress on Tuesday to pitch lawmakers on new security enhancements for the Supreme Court even as they fielded criticism about their transparency and ethics practices.

The hearing marked the first time since 2019 that members of the Supreme Court have testified on Capitol Hill and comes as the justices seek support for a larger budget — $228 million, up 10% from last year — to accommodate more security.

The funding increase would go almost entirely toward beefing up personal protection for the justices, though the court has also asked for funding to support more building officers, an off-site security office and new cybersecurity hires.

Lawmakers seemed largely sympathetic to the justices on Tuesday, who cited a heightened threat environment — and the personal toll it takes on their daily lives — in recent years. The Supreme Court police report that threats against the justices increased by 38% last year and 25% the prior year.

In the hearing’s most personal moment, Justice Barrett shared that she brought a bulletproof vest home around the time of the court’s leaked opinion overturning Roe v. Wade — a precaution she struggled to explain to her 12-year-old son. 

“I didn’t expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one,” Barrett said, calling the threat environment “really high.”

Barrett also confirmed news reports that she was the target of a swatting incident six weeks ago, saying her teenage son opened the door to swarms of law enforcement. Swatting involves hoax calls about bogus shootings and other emergencies.

Other justices have also faced security concerns in recent years, most notably when a man went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in 2022 looking to assassinate him in the weeks after the Dobbs opinion was leaked.

Each member currently has between four and eight agents assigned to them, the justices testified on Tuesday — a number they said fluctuates based on the justices’ schedule and the scrutiny they’re under. 

The Supreme Court’s requested 2027 budget would significantly expand that security force. The justices are seeking $14.6 million to fund six additional agents per justice — a total of 54 new officers — and to hire 25 officers dedicated to the Supreme Court building.

The justices argued on Tuesday that the current staff allocation is insufficient. Barrett said it risks burn out and exhaustion, noting the same detail often drops her off at 11 p.m. and must then arrive in the morning again.

The court has also asked for $6.5 million to fund an “exterior visitor screening facility design.” The money would go toward blueprints and early planning for an off-campus security process for those entering the court.

Kagan briefly addressed the proposal, saying the justices were concerned about visitors entering the building before they had been screened. Currently, members of the public go through magnetometers and x-ray machines inside the lobby area beneath the grand staircase. 

The justices were also asked about more unconventional threats, including from drones and cyber warfare.

Barrett acknowledged that “drone mitigation measures are certainly on security’s radar.” She also said that cybersecurity attacks were increasing “by magnitudes year after year.” The Supreme Court has asked for $2.3 million to fund cybersecurity-related hires — part of a yearslong plan to protect its data and bolster technology infrastructure.

Though lawmakers largely steered clear of hot-button policy issues on Tuesday, Democrats pressed the justices on transparency-related concerns that they say have eroded trust in the court. 

Lawmakers appeared most frustrated with the court’s prolific use of the so-called “shadow docket” — also known as the “emergency docket” — to reach decisions on emergency requests more quickly and without a full briefing or oral argument.

Notably, Kagan — who has long been publicly critical of this practice — defended the practice on Tuesday. She said it was no longer accurate to refer to it as “shadow” because the court was more frequently providing explanations alongside their snap decisions on the docket.

“We have done, I think, a better job in the recent past of where appropriate — and it’s not always appropriate — but where appropriate, explaining ourselves at least to a moderate degree,” Kagan said.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, pressed the justices in particular on their ethical practices after recent ethics scandals, such as Justice Clarence Thomas’ unreported financial ties to and luxury travel with a billionaire GOP donor and Justice Samuel Alito’s reported luxury vacation he took with a wealthy hedge fund manager who later had business before the Supreme Court.

DeLauro called on the Supreme Court to adopt a gift ban, citing a bill reintroduced by her colleague Rep. Jamie Raskin on Tuesday that would prevent the justices from accepting gifts greater than $50.

DeLauro also pressed the justices on how they were enforcing their code of conduct, adopted in 2023. Though Barrett hesitated to endorse an independent enforcement mechanism, Kagan said she was supportive. 

“I think that we would be better off with an enforcement mechanism,” Kagan said. “I think that my colleagues are taking this code incredibly seriously, all making every effort — and I think successful efforts — to live by it. But if nothing else, for public confidence.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.