Trump AG Nominee FREEZES After Gillibrand Reveals He Deleted Election Security

Añadido: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]That's not that's literally just a >> group.

[00:00:03]No, I was here in 2016. I know what happened. And after that, we did a whole of government approach. We put experts in at CISA. We put experts in at the FBI. And we put experts in at the Department of Defense. Together, whole of government approach, they went state by state by state to make sure that our electoral infrastructure was sound.

[00:00:24]However, your department and this administration has aggressively fired all the people that were put in charge of this.

[00:00:33]>> Senator Kirsten Gillibrand just brought a file full of undeniable evidence to the Senate hearing. We are talking about a comprehensive interrogation regarding a series of core national security and public safety programs. programs that are being restructured or slashed for which acting attorney general Todd Blanch seems to be struggling to provide a transparent explanation. To understand why this exchange is so tense, we need to take a step back. Since 9/11's in New York and especially after the election interference efforts in 2016, the US security system has operated under a principle called the whole government approach. This means that the CIA, NSA, Department of Defense, DoD, FBI, Department of Justice, DOJ, and local police forces like the NYPD no longer operate independently, but must share information and coordinate seamlessly.

[00:01:25]Senator Gillibrand represents New York a prime target. So for her, this coordination is a matter of survival.

[00:01:32]However, through the lens of congressional oversight, she pointed out that the DOJ is abandoning this model, firing core experts and slashing programs that have been proven to work.

[00:01:44]In the next 20 minutes, we will peel back the layers of this interrogation.

[00:01:48]We will see how a lawmaker corners the highest executive official of the DOJ with factual data and how a lack of information can endanger public safety.

[00:01:58]So first of all, do you think that China, Iran, Russia want to do us harm and would undermine our elections?

[00:02:05]>> Yes.

[00:02:07]>> Why did you delete the whole department then that is supposed to protect against the undermining of our elections?

[00:02:14]>> We So we we spend a ton of time, a ton of money, a ton of manhour, a ton of resources on that very issue.

[00:02:21]>> They should cancel the FBI's foreign influence task force.

[00:02:25]>> That's a task force. This is the first focal point of the debate, election security. Gillibrand does not hesitate to explicitly name the threats from China, Iran, and Russia. Her question is very simple. If you admit the threat is real, why did you disband the force responsible for protecting against it?

[00:02:42]Acting AG Blanch tries to downplay the importance of the old structure, calling the FBI's force literally just a group.

[00:02:49]Bledge's defensive argument is that the old force failed because it was too concentrated on federal officials in Washington. DC lacking local connection.

[00:03:00]The DOJ's current solution is to shut down that task force and establish Homeland Security Task Forces, HSTF, in every single state. Where that failed, there were no state and local involved.

[00:03:11]It was all just a bunch of federal people mostly out of Washington DC.

[00:03:15]Okay? And the FBI agents were all Washington DC. the way that we're agents not around the country where we needed them. So the way that we're addressing it by closing down that task force is by having HSTF set up in every sing including in New York City.

[00:03:28]>> At first glance, this sounds like a reasonable decentralization. But Gillibrand pointed out a massive flaw in this logic. personnel. Decentralizing to the local level does not mean you have to fire 300 to 400 seasoned experts who have worked through multiple administrations from both the Democratic and Republican parties. When Jill Brandt emphasizes that experts from CISA, Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency, the DoD, and the FBI were fired on mass, she is raising questions about the continuity of the security system.

[00:04:04]Starting over from scratch in a complex field like cyber security is not a recipe for success. Under this pressure, Lanch had to admit that not all of them were fired. But the disagreement over whether the new system actually works forced the senator to request an official report to the committee.

[00:04:22]>> Second issue, gun trafficking. We have been working so hard as a federal government to stop the flow of illicit guns into our communities where someone can sell guns out of the backs of their trucks from some criminal gun dealer who's trying to get these guns into the hands of criminals.

[00:04:41]And we are supposed to get data every year so we can show that our gun trafficking laws are working. These new enhanced laws where police officers can now go across state lines to do their investigation. Why are you not giving me the data about gun trafficking? I need to know if it's working. I need to know if these uh cases are being prosecuted.

[00:04:58]And I can't even get data out of your department.

[00:05:00]>> Well, the cases are being prosecuting.

[00:05:02]We did um >> Will you give me the data so I can >> I don't know what data you're talking about.

[00:05:06]>> The number of number of number of weapons that have been seized, the number of cases that are being prosecuted. We keep track of how many weapons have been seized in that are that are trafficked. And I'm waiting from your department over a year to get that data. Moving on to the second issue, gun trafficking data. In the US, the flow of elicit guns from one state to another is a major challenge for law enforcement. Recently, new laws were enacted granting police more authority to conduct cross-state investigations.

[00:05:36]But how does Congress know if the new laws are effective? They need data. They need to know how many weapons have been seized and how many cases have actually been prosecuted. This moment in the hearing is a prime example of congressional oversight. For an executive agency like the DOJ to make Congress wait for over a year just to get a basic statistical data report is an unacceptable delay. It creates a transparency void. Blanch's promise that the cases are being prosecuted is not enough for a senator who needs actual numbers to assess policy.

[00:06:09]>> This next point, community violence intervention grants. You are slashing these community violence intervention grants. They work. We know they work.

[00:06:16]One of them was it to New York for 4.2 million slashed. It prevents youth violence. These are programs that are working. Did you analyze whether this program was working before you slash the funding?

[00:06:27]>> Yes, we there's still a ton of funding for those programs.

[00:06:30]>> Not the ones in New York.

[00:06:32]>> You just deleted them. Delete. Delete.

[00:06:33]Delete. It's It's shocking.

[00:06:35]>> It wasn't delete. Delete. Delete. That is >> Okay. Well, 4.2 was was was deleted for the local initiative support corporation that funds >> It's not a deletion. It's just that we're not seeking funding for it through this exact >> No, I'm seeking funding for it. I've asked for the money and we've gotten grants for this and you've just suspended this grant program.

[00:06:51]>> The confrontation reaches its peak when the discussion shifts to community level grants. Gillibrand specifically names a $4.2 million grant for the local initiative support corporation in New York aimed at preventing youth violence.

[00:07:07]Pay attention to the use of language.

[00:07:10]Jill Brand continuously repeats the word delete to emphasize the drastic nature of the budget cuts. Conversely, acting ag Blanch tries to reframe the issue. He rejects the word delete and explains that these programs still have funding.

[00:07:24]It's just that the DOJ is no longer seeking funding through this exact channel as before. But for local communities, when an effectively running program is suspended or its funding source is abruptly changed, it creates a severe disruption. Furthermore, Gillibrand goes on to list a series of other funds in Jeopardy. The cops fund, a core program that helps connect police with the community and grants for deescalation training. These are essential skills that modern police forces desperately need to handle crisis situations.

[00:07:54]>> And then drugs. We have an anti- heroin and anti-t methamphetamine task force and we need to be funded and it's not being funded.

[00:08:06]So I just >> it is being funded. Absolutely. There there is a different amount of funding but it is being funded.

[00:08:11]>> No no you've eliminated funding for both the anti- heroin anti-med methyl task force. So I'm sorry. Um which is the task force that stops the trafficking of heroin fentinyl and the very long word I can't pronounce.

[00:08:26]>> Okay. I mean Senator there's there's nothing more important to President Trump and to this Department of Justice than combating the illegal flora narcotics. So to the extent that there is a particular um funding revenue stream that is not being funded the same way, I commit to you that it is of the highest priority to combat drug.

[00:08:44]>> Last is the public safety officer benefit program. You say we just had police week. You say you stand with law enforcement. When you do not support this program and when these funds are not getting back to the loved ones who have lost their police officer loved one, it is not right. I need you to focus on this. I need you to get this right. And that was five minutes of questioning without a single wasted second. Regarding the drug issue, we see a familiar motif repeat itself. Blanch asserts that combating drugs is the number one priority, but then has to use the phrase a particular funding revenue stream that is not being funded the same way to evade answering directly about the existence of the anti- heroin and anti-methamphetamine task force. And Gillibrand's final blow digs deep into the contradiction between words and actions. The administration always honors police week, affirming they stand with law enforcement. But what does that honor mean if the public safety officer benefit program is neglected, preventing financial support from reaching the families of those who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty? This hearing is not just an argument over budgets. It is a lesson in transparency and accountability. Elected representatives have a duty to ask hard-hitting questions, demand factual data, and refuse to accept evasive answers when the safety of the community and the constitutional system hang in the ballots. When violence intervention programs are suspended, when gun data is kept hidden, and when election security experts are replaced, this system raises a massive question mark regarding its capacity to protect the public. What do you think about this interrogation? Is the DOJ's explanation of restructuring convincing enough, or is it just a cover for slashing essential programs? Leave your thoughts in the comment section below, and don't forget to hit subscribe so we can continue to follow the most important legal developments. Goodbye and see you next