Todd Blanche, in 1st appearance as acting AG, shrugs off suggestion Trump will ‘pressure’ him to target opponents
Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks during a news conference at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building, April 7, 2026, in Washington. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche used his first news conference Tuesday to shrug off any suggestion that he would use the Justice Department to more aggressively target perceived enemies of President Donald Trump, as he heaped praise on his ousted predecessor Pam Bondi.
“First of all, we have thousands of ongoing investigations and prosecutions going on in this country right now, and it is true that some of them involve men women and entities that the president in the past has had issues with and that believe should be investigated,” Blanche said. “That is his right, and indeed it is his duty to do that, meaning, to lead this country.”
Blanche denied he views President Trump’s public statements urging the prosecutions of his enemies as “pressure” on him in serving as the head of the DOJ. Trump, naming several of his perceived political foes in a September social media post, said, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!“
“I do not view this as pressure,” Blanche said. “I do not view this as something that is going to keep me up at night, except to make sure that we are investigating every case that we that we have to the fullest extent of the law and using all the resources we can.”
Trump announced Thursday that Bondi was being ousted as his attorney general in a post on his social media platform, saying she’ll move to a role working in the private sector. Blanche said it remains a mystery why Bondi was ousted, despite widespread reporting that it was due to Trump’s frustration with her lack of successful prosecutions against his political opponents and her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
“Nobody has any idea why the attorney general is no longer the attorney general and I’m the acting attorney general, except for President Trump,” Blanche said.
Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s defense attorney in the cases brought against him by former special counsel Jack Smith and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, repeatedly sparred with reporters at Tuesday’s press event, accusing the media of ignoring years of so-called “weaponization” under the Biden administration.
“When I’m asked questions, or when I see reporting about shock and awe at this supposed weaponization of this Department of Justice, it means nothing to me, because it’s completely false,” Blanche said. “People say the president wants to go after his political enemies. No, the president has said time and time again that he wants justice.”
With the news conference happening amid uncertainty over President Trump’s Tuesday morning threat to destroy the “civilization” of Iran, ABC News pressed Blanche on whether the DOJ is providing advice to the White House about what kind of military strikes could constitute potential war crimes.
“The Department of Justice, as it always does, supports the Department of War, the White House, Department of State to the extent that’s involved, and our intelligence communities, to the extent that that’s something that’s appropriate, and we provide counsel to them, and we have been doing that, as you would expect,” said Blanche, who declined to engage on the topic of potential war crimes.
Gerhardt Konig testifies during his attempted murder trial in Honolulu, April 2, 2026. (Pool via ABC News)
(OAHU, Hawaii) — Closing arguments are underway in the trial of a Hawaii doctor accused of trying to kill his wife on a hiking trail.
Dr. Gerhardt Konig, 47, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree attempted murder. Prosecutors allege the anesthesiologist attacked his wife, Arielle Konig, near a cliff while on the Pali Puka Trail on Oahu on March 24, 2025, by pushing her near the edge and then beating her multiple times with a rock.
The defense, meanwhile, has alleged that Arielle Konig attacked her husband first, and that he hit her with the rock in self-defense.
The jury is expected to begin deliberations Tuesday afternoon local time. If they are unable to find Gerhardt Konig guilty of second-degree attempted murder, they will consider whether he is guilty of attempted manslaughter based upon extreme mental or emotional disturbance, first-degree attempted assault, second-degree assault or third-degree assault.
Both Gerhardt Konig and his wife, who have two young sons together, took the stand during the three-week trial in Honolulu, presenting widely differing accounts of what happened on the hike.
Arielle Konig testified that the two had traveled to Oahu from their home in Maui to celebrate her birthday. She said they had been working on repairing their marriage after her husband found what she characterized as “flirty” WhatsApp messages between her and a colleague in December 2024 in what she said was an “emotional affair.”
Arielle Konig testified that during the hike, her husband pushed her toward the edge of the cliff. As they wrestled on the ground with him on top, pinning her down, he produced a syringe and vial, she said.
Arielle Konig further testified that her husband proceeded to beat her with a rock as many as 10 times, and that she believed he was trying to knock her unconscious in order to drag her over the edge of the cliff.
Arielle Konig testified that she fought back by biting her husband’s forearm and pleaded with him, saying, “You can’t do it,” and that “our kids will be orphans — you’ll go to jail and I’ll be dead.”
“He’s saying, ‘You’re done. We’re done with you. We don’t need you anymore. You’re done. You’re done,'” she told the court.
Arielle Konig testified that she yelled, “He’s trying to kill me,” and screamed for help, and two female hikers happened upon them. One of the hikers told a 911 operator, “Someone’s currently being attacked on the top of Pali Puka. There’s a man trying to kill her,” according to audio of the call played in court.
Prosecutors showed photos of Arielle Konig’s bloodied face following the incident. She testified that she crawled away from her husband and was helped down the rest of the trail by the two women. She said she was treated at a hospital for “severe complex scalp lacerations” and showed the court scarring on her scalp.
Gerhardt Konig testified in his own defense over two days, maintaining that he never intended to hurt his wife and acted in self-defense when he struck her with the rock.
He told the court that his wife pushed him near the edge after they got into an argument about her affair, and that she hit him with a rock first while they struggled on the ground. He admitted to hitting her with the rock while on top of her, saying he struck her twice, though he denied having any syringes or trying to pull her toward the cliff’s edge.
Gerhardt Konig testified that he felt suicidal after the incident.
“I just felt hopeless at that point in terms of everything,” he said. “I felt horrified about what I did to her, that I had caused this to her, that I had resorted to violence against my wife, the person who I love the most in the world. And I just kind of felt hopeless in terms of our relationship, too.”
Shortly after the incident, Gerhardt Konig testified, he made a FaceTime call to his 20-year-old son from his prior marriage, Emile Konig, to say goodbye.
His son testified about the FaceTime call during the trial. Asked by the prosecutor to recount what his father said during the call, Emile Konig responded, “That he would not be making it back to Maui and to take good care of the younger kids, and that Ari, my stepmom, had been cheating on him, and that he tried to kill her.”
“During that call, the next plan that he said was to jump off the cliff,” Emile Konig testified, adding that his father said he was “at the end of his rope.”
Gerhardt Konig pushed back against his son’s testimony and denied making any confession. He told the court that what he said during the call was, “She said I tried to kill her.”
Gerhardt Konig was arrested following an hourslong manhunt, prosecutors said.
Arielle Konig filed for divorce in May 2025, seeking full custody of the couple’s two children.
Gerhardt Konig, who worked as an anesthesiologist on Maui, has been in jail since his arrest. Following his arrest, Maui Health said his medical staff privileges at Maui Memorial Medical Center have been suspended pending investigation.
Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff for policy, walks on the South Lawn of the White House after arriving on Marine One in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026. US President Donald Trump threw his support behind a legislative proposal that would expand sales of higher-ethanol E15 gasoline as he looked to build support for his economic record with a crowd that included farmers in Iowa. (Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Over the weekend, the former chief of staff of the Justice Department — who was one of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s top advisers during her first seven months on the job — issued a public call for lawyers who “support President Trump” to join the Justice Department’s ranks.
In a post on X, the former chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, seemed to suggest he could help such applicants become career federal prosecutors — who by law are supposed to be apolitical.
“DM me,” Mizelle wrote, referring to direct messages sent privately to him. “We need good prosecutors.”
Forty minutes later, one of President Donald Trump’s top policy advisers, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, reposted Mizelle’s message, adding, “Patriots needed.” And then on Monday, the current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quinones, also reposted Mizelle’s message, saying, “We are hiring!”
There are political appointees within the Justice Department, including certain leaders based in Washington and the U.S. attorneys who oversee offices around the country — but the assistant U.S. attorneys, or AUSAs, who investigate and prosecute cases in those offices are supposed to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan.
Appearing on a conservative podcast on Monday, Mizelle said he has received “hundreds and hundreds of inquiries already” from lawyers looking to become AUSAs. But his posting, and the subsequent promotion of it by current senior government officials, has roiled some former federal prosecutors on both sides of the political spectrum.
“We shouldn’t have a favorite politician in the Justice Department; we should have a favorite document, and that’s the Constitution,” former prosecutor Perry Carbone told ABC News.
Carbone, who spent more than three decades as a federal prosecutor and until May was the chief of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, said that Mizelle’s post has “generated a lot of discussion” among former federal prosecutors, who are concerned about its implications.
“It’s dangerous,” he said of what the post could mean. “The day that Department of Justice lawyers are hired based on loyalty to a person … is the day the rest of us should get very nervous.”
He said the message in Mizelle’s post — and the reposts by Reding Quinones and Miller — “flatly contradict” federal laws and regulations pertaining to the hiring of career federal employees.
He cited federal laws, including the Civil Service Reform Act, that specifically prohibit favoring or discriminating against applicants for federal civil-service jobs based on their “political affiliation.”
“The law is very clear,” Carbone said.
He also cited the Justice Department’s own manual, which says, “All personnel decisions regarding career positions in the Department must be made without regard to the applicant’s or occupant’s partisan affiliation.”
“Efforts to influence personnel decisions concerning career positions on partisan grounds should be reported to the Deputy Attorney General,” the manual states.
Andy McCarthy, a conservative commentator and frequent Trump critic who himself served as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York for nearly two decades, also blasted Mizelle’s post.
“If support for [the current] president is now a condition of enforcing federal law, Congress should defund DOJ. DOJ should only exist if it’s nonpartisan. Too dangerous to liberty otherwise,” McCarthy wrote.
“If AG Garland’s office had posted this, MAGA & GOP would be calling for impeachment,” he added, referring to Merrick Garland, the Biden administration’s attorney general.
Appearing on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s podcast Monday, Mizelle defended his post, saying that Article II of the Constitution explicitly states that “all executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States,” so “any time an executive branch officer is using executive power — an AUSA indicting somebody or … bringing criminal evidence against somebody — all of that is executive power that’s included.”
Mizelle said that when he was working for Bondi last year, his “job as chief of staff” was to “root out a lot of this stuff,” so, “On Day 1 we dismissed about 100 people who we thought were working against Donald J. Trump,” and then “thousands” more left.
“That’s how government should work. It should work that if you can’t follow the wishes of the duly elected president of the United States, then you need to leave. And all we’re looking for now are people who want to follow his agenda,” Mizelle said.
But Carbone said he rejects Mizelle’s analysis of the Constitution and the work of federal prosecutors under changing administrations. While policies may change, prosecutors “have to exercise independent professional judgment, not political obedience,” he said.
That’s underscored by a 2008 report from the Justice Department’s inspector general, who launched an investigation at the time into allegations that the Justice Department under President George W. Bush had been improperly using political affiliations to screen candidates for an apolitical summer internship program and a program that hired recent law graduates without prior legal experience.
In his report, the inspector general noted that “both DOJ policy and civil service law prohibit discrimination in hiring for DOJ career positions on the basis of political affiliations,” and said courts have considered “political affiliation” to include “commonality of political purpose, partisan activity, and political support.”
After his office’s investigation, the inspector general concluded that two political appointees in the department “took political or ideological affiliations into account in deselecting candidates in violation of Department policy and federal law.”
As for Mizelle’s recent post, Carbone said it is “just another symptom” afflicting a Justice Department that “has been building this reputation of independence for 50 years, since Watergate, and now here we are in a place where we’ve taken a giant step back.”
Mark Rotert, an AUSA in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago during the 1980s and 1990s, who was also on his office’s hiring committee, agreed, calling Mizelle’s post “disgraceful.”
“It never would have occurred to us to explore what the candidate’s views were about the president, or what kind of job the president is doing,” Rotert said of his time on the hiring committee. “Partisan politics were never considered a relevant or even an appropriate discussion point.”
Carbone also said that while Mizelle may not work at the Justice Department anymore, the boost it received from Miller, a senior White House official, and Reding Quinones, a U.S. attorney, shows how connected Mizelle still is — or at the least how his message “is supported by high-level people in the Justice Department.”
Mizelle’s post comes as the Justice Department faces increasing pressure over its handling of a wide array of politically charged matters, including firing prosecutors and investigators who were involved in previous Trump-related investigations; filing federal charges against or otherwise investigating many of President Trump’s political enemies; failing to initially investigate the officer who fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis last month; and most recently last week’s FBI seizure of ballots and other records related to the 2020 election from an elections office in Fulton County, Georgia.
A Justice Department spokesman did not respond to a message from ABC News seeking comment. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida also did not respond to a message seeking comment from ABC News.
Traffic moves along midtown Manhattan on Feb. 19, 2025, in New York. (Alex Kent/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A federal judge ruled that Manhattan’s congestion pricing program can continue and the Trump administration does not have the authority to kill the program, which is the first of its kind in the nation.
In a 149-page ruling, Judge Lewis Liman said the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke approval for the program was unlawful, handing a victory to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority following a monthslong legal battle.
“It is difficult to imagine more arbitrary and capricious decision-making than that at issue here,” Liman wrote.
The congestion pricing program went into effect last year in an effort to reduce traffic congestion during peak hours and to raise funds for the city’s public transit system. Passenger vehicles are charged $9 to access Manhattan below 60th Street during peak hours.
The extra per-ride surcharge is 75 cents for taxis and black car services, and $1.50 for Ubers and Lyfts. During peak hours, small trucks and charter buses will be charged $14.40, while large trucks and tour buses must pay $21.60.
The Trump administration moved to reverse approval of the program last year. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said at the time that the “scope of this pilot project as approved exceeds the authority authorized by Congress” under the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program, calling it “backwards and unfair.”
New York lawmakers pushed back against the decision and challenged the federal government in court.
The federal judge reaffirmed an order from last May upholding the program, but stopped short of completely barring the Trump administration from challenging the program again.
“[Trump] is obviously free to continue to make public statements as well as to ask the Secretary of Transportation to look into whether there are lawful means to end the [Central Business District Tolling Program]. And, as to the Secretary’s statements, he has a right to continue to fight his case and to take an appeal of this Court’s orders,” Liman said.
Overall, the program was the “product of a democratic process” and cannot be arbitrarily revoked, Liman said.
“The [Value Pricing Pilot Program] was passed by Congress. The [Traffic Mobility Act] was passed by democratically elected legislators and signed by a Governor elected by the people of New York. The [Value Pricing Pilot Program] Agreement was authorized by a Secretary nominated by a duly elected President and confirmed by the Senate. The democratic process worked,” the judge wrote.
The program applies for Manhattan south of 60th Street, except for the FDR Drive, the West Side Highway and the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel.
