Weak Ethics and Deep Politics at DOJ in the Epstein Case
The Role of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has drawn attention--but not enough.
As explained by the Department of Justice, the Deputy Attorney General’s job is to “advise[] and assist[] the Attorney General in formulating and implementing departmental policies and programs and then providing overall supervision and direction to all organizational units of the Department.” For this reason, it is extraordinary that the current DAG, Trump’s former lawyer Todd Blanche, is leading the administration’s response to the Epstein controversy. He is not just “providing overall supervision”; he is involved at a granular level. He has taken over specific investigative functions and has issued statements for the department via his own social media account about the status of these investigative steps and the potential for more disclosures.
The exceptional level of his personal involvement has included most notably the nine hours over two days that he interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend and associate, who is now appealing her conviction for facilitating and participating in the sex trafficking of minors. Maxwell agreed to the interview pursuant to a limited grant of immunity for this purpose. And her lawyers have advised Congress that she will not testify before the House Oversight Committee without immunity and only upon the conclusion of her appeals—unless the president pardons her, in which case she “welcomes the opportunity to share the truth.”
Maxwell is now the central figure in this controversy and Todd Blanche is the senior DOJ official in charge of the administration’s response. He knows what she would say if she were to testify. And he would be a key—if not the key— person to advise the president on the strategic next steps. Among those options available to the president, informed by what Blanche knows, are encouragement to congressional Republicans to grant or deny her testimonial immunity, or to pardon Maxwell if Trump is motivated to break the logjam because he concludes, on Blanche’s advice, that it is in his interest to do so.
Experts have suggested that Blanche’s role presents a possible conflict of interest, but, as I discuss below, I believe that this concern has been understated. The extent to which conflicts are even acknowledged in this administration, much less managed, becomes clearer by examining the different ways they are playing out in Blanche’s leading role in the Epstein file controversy.
DOJ ethics rules and process
Once confirmed, Blanche became subject to department rules and procedures for complying with ethical standards. Under those procedures, DOJ employees “should” seek advice from a designated ethics official whenever asked to “participate in a matter that might cause a reasonable person to question his or her impartiality.” As the Office of Government Ethics has counseled, this impartiality rule “applies even when the employee is free of financial conflicts of interest.” It is designed to “breathe life” into a basic ethical principle: “that employees must avoid even the appearance of impropriety,” particularly “favoritism” or its appearance in “government decision-making.” Four attorney advisers and ethics specialists serve in Blanche’s office to assist him in meeting this and other ethical responsibilities.
It is hard to imagine that Blanche would take the position that there is no appearance of a conflict under the impartiality rule. He was only months ago a personal counsel to the president to whom he owes his current high-level appointment, and the case in question is one in which Trump has clear personal and political interests. In fact, OGE guidance notes that the rule by its express terms applies when an employee has served an individual professionally “as an attorney…in the past year.” Blanche has represented Trump in the past year, apparently up to the time Trump nominated him for the DAG position in November 2024.
Note that the one-year limit does not define the extent of the department employee’s ethical obligations. The same “appearance” issues are likely to arise regardless of when the representation concluded.. The relevant rule provides specifically that consideration of all relevant circumstances may “raise a question regarding [the employee’s] impartiality.” (5 C.F.R §§ 2635. 501, Note 1; 2635.502 (a)(3)). In a case like this, where the prior relationship is with the president of the United States and the nature of the matter is so sensitive and personally and politically significant to him, the question of Blanche’s impartiality is squarely presented. As Blanche described this relationship to the Senate, “I…consider my representation of President Trump to be the highlight of my professional life and an honor that I will cherish until the day I die.”
That the Senate confirmed Blanche with full knowledge of this relationship does not answer the ethical question as it is raised in the particular case. Like any other DOJ employee, he is bound by the ethical rules and the process by which their application in specific circumstances is determined.
The question so far unasked is whether Blanche sought advice as provided under the rules. He informed the Senate that “in the event of any potential conflict of interest, I will consult with the appropriate Department of Justice ethics officials and act consistent with governing regulations.” It seems highly unlikely he has done that in the Epstein matter: When given the opportunity to comment on Blanche’s role in the case, the Department refused. Had Blanche sought a review and been cleared for the assignment, the department surely would have said something to that effect. It could have made a point of Blanche’s compliance with his commitment to the Senate. For the department, it would have been a “win-win”: it could confirm that Blanche sought advice and then was found good to go. As it is, the department apparently did not believe the question was worthy of reply, which might suggest that Blanche did not bother to take the potential conflict seriously either. But if he did seek the advice and his ethics advisers dismissed any conflict concerns, this would say much about the weight ethics rules carry within the department at the highest levels.
The Department and Politics
In the confirmation process, Blanche assured Senators of his commitment to keeping “politics” out of the department—a fundamental concern with ensuring only the law and the facts, not the political implications of a case, would drive law enforcement decisions. But the Epstein case is a good reason to question whether he has kept it.
The current activity within the Department of Justice relates to a criminal case involving Epstein and Maxwell that is officially closed. The criminal legal issues have been worked through. Epstein is dead, Maxwell has been convicted (though she has filed appeals), and the DOJ has formally announced that it “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.” There is no allegation that Donald Trump violated the law.
The politics of the MAGA movement are the impetus for the government’s intense concern with Epstein at the present time. What is absorbing the department’s time and attention is agitation within the movement about access to information about Epstein’s ties to the rich and famous. It is about a promise made but not kept to political supporters about transparency, and about the potential for more scandalous revelations, not limited to those with criminal legal significance. For Democrats, the case presents an opportunity to expose what they see as provable lies Trump has told about his personal history with Epstein and a cover-up now in progress at the DOJ to protect him.
It is this high-voltage political dimension of this controversy that casts doubt on Blanche’s declared intention as deputy attorney general to keep the DOJ out of politics. His job in the Epstein matter is to help contain or solve a major political problem for the president. The road to the Maxwell interview began with his stewardship of an extraordinary deployment of hundreds of FBI employees and department prosecutors to conduct an intensive review of the case files to identify, among other items, high-profile names—including Donald Trump’s. According to press reports, “[T]he sheer amount of resources the administration dedicated in conducting a chaotic review reflected the desire by top officials to bring new information to light to appease Mr. Trump’s supporters and try to head off what promised to be a political firestorm.” Notwithstanding his commitment to a department insulated from politics, Blanche’s office was in charge of a critical part of the effort to put out this “political firestorm.”
Maxwell and Clemency
President Trump has declined to rule out clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell. He has said that he has not “thought” about a pardon (or commutation) but made a point of stating the obvious—that he is “allowed” to do so. Maxwell’s lawyer has been open about his hope that the Blanche-led process would eventually make clemency possible. While he has “yet” to formally seek a pardon, he implied that he would and noted the president’s refusal to rule out favorable consideration. Now he is pressing clemency as the fastest path to any congressional testimony.
This testimony could prove critical to Trump’s defense against this scandal. Maxwell could, of course, provide support for Trump’s claim that he and Epstein were not really that close. She could throw in for good measure names of Democrats with alleged histories with Epstein. And the president could grant Maxwell clemency to reward this “cooperation.” Her lawyer has stressed that, as he recounts it, she “honestly” answered all the questions Todd Blanche put to her.
Blanche’s role, and in particular the nine hours he interviewed Maxwell, puts him in the middle of any pardon consideration. He is the senior official now best positioned to advise Trump on the content of her testimony and on whether it can meet any test of “cooperation” relevant to the consideration of clemency. Blanche’s involvement would be a source of considerable personal reassurance to the president. And Trump has no reason for qualms about whatever part in all this his pardon attorney, Ed Martin, would play.
Conclusion
By every relevant measure, this Department of Justice’s handling of the Epstein matter reveals the long reach of politics and a slight regard for formal ethical limits. Todd Blanche’s role is the key proof point. This has not become a scandal within the wider scandal, because the department is running the way President Trump has set it up to run. Conflict of interest is not a cost or byproduct of Trump’s selection of Blanche based on past services and loyalty. Blanche and others in the department were selected to supply the president with the very self-protection that go hand in hand with the potential for conflicts of interest.
Blanche’s role in the Epstein matter does not in this sense present standard conflict issues. By placing individuals like Blanche in senior roles, with the expectation that they will take on an assignment like the Epstein matter, Trump has ensured that conflicts issues will not constrain how the DOJ operates in areas of personal or political importance to him.
It is still worth establishing a clear record of how successful he has been. The president is getting what he wants. At the same time, as I wrote previously, the department’s conscription into this political role has rendered it useless to the president in achieving a credible end to the Epstein scandal.