Trump Fires Blue State Attorney After Less Than an Hour

The White House has found a novel way to ensure Donald Trump’s nominees ascend to power.

Federal judges in the Western District of Washington swore in former King County Superior Court Judge Roger Rogoff as U.S. attorney Wednesday morning. Within 54 minutes, Trump fired him.

The district’s 17 federal judges have been trying to find a replacement for Seattle’s First Assistant U.S. Attorney Neil Floyd, after Trump failed to formally nominate him. Floyd was appointed in October, though his name was never officially advanced to the Senate for consideration.

Federal law grants a district’s judges the power to appoint a U.S. attorney if the president and the acting attorney general fail to do so within 120 days, subsequently stonewalling the procedural Senate hearings.

Instead, Floyd became an interim U.S. attorney and, later, the first assistant, in an attempt to “sidestep the nomination process,” according to The Seattle Times.

Rogoff was elevated to the bench by Democrats and had been appointed to one of his previous roles by ​former Washington Governor Jay Inslee, also a Democrat. The veteran prosecutor told the newspaper that he was waiting in the lobby of the U.S. District Courthouse downtown to meet with Floyd when he received an email notifying him he’d been fired.

“We are working on legal action right now,” Rogoff said. The legal team representing the former federal prosecutor is expected to sue the administration and the Department of Justice, according to the Times.

The White House has taken a heavy interest in the regional position. One month after returning to office, Trump inexplicably fired Tessa Gormon, another court-appointed prosecutor. Gormon, too, represented the Western District of Washington and was ultimately replaced by Floyd.

Donald Kinsella, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York, also faced the ire of the White House earlier this year for daring to do his job unclouded by the interests of the administration. Kinsella was appointed in February by a panel of federal judges, but much like Rogoff, was fired within hours.

The New York State Bar Association condemned Kinsella’s abrupt ousting, describing acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s interference at the time as an “insult to separation of powers and the administration of justice.”

“While it is hardly surprising given the president’s regular abandonment of even the veneer of independence for the DOJ, it is no less appalling,” the organization wrote in a statement.

Blanche is currently in the midst of his own confirmation hearings to officially take on the role of attorney general. Hundreds of former federal prosecutors—including some of his own ex-colleagues—have urged the Senate to deny him the opportunity.

This story has been updated.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is demanding “testosterone deficiency” testing for U.S. soldiers to ensure they’re masculine enough to be a part of his anti-woke military.

Hegseth unveiled the new screening, which will be mandatory for service members over the age of 30, in a video announcement Wednesday.

“Today, I’m authorizing a new screening program for testosterone deficiency for our service members—ensuring you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best. Because it’s well-established science that as we age, testosterone levels often, naturally, drop,” Hegseth said. On X, he captioned the video, “The High-T Department of War.”

“Warfighters aged 30 and older are gonna be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessments.... Those under 30 can voluntarily choose to get the test as well,” Hegseth continued. “If treatment is recommended, it’s entirely your choice to receive testosterone replacement therapy.”

It’s unclear what will happen to soldiers over 30 who have “low testosterone” and don’t want to engage in the military’s gender-affirming services.

This is about as Hegsethian as it gets. It’s no surprise that the man who proclaimed, “I’m straight up just saying, we should not have women in combat roles” just one week before his confirmation now thinks that having higher testosterone levels is a real, urgent priority for soldiers in the midst of a war.

“This is the absolute dumbest thing imaginable for the Secretary of Defense to be focused on. We are literally at war and this idiot is in his office doing two camera make up videos on testosterone. What a complete clown show,” wrote Army vet, podcast host, and Democratic congressional candidate Fred Wellman. “I’m so sorry for our poor service members who have to deal with this ridiculous man.”

Answers given by Jay Clayton, Donald Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence, in his Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Wednesday suggest that, if confirmed, he would be a pawn in the president’s election-meddling pursuits in the vein of former DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff pressed Clayton about Gabbard’s presence at a February FBI raid at a Fulton County, Georgia, election facility. The operation was based on Trump’s debunked election fraud claims. And her attendance—at the president’s request, she has said—ignited a scandal, as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s role in election security is to counter foreign threats, rather than be weaponized for domestic, partisan ends.

Clayton prevaricated when asked about his familiarity with the Fulton County incident, claiming, to Ossoff’s dismay, that he had only learned about the raid the day before, when he met privately with the senator.

Ossoff then asked if Clayton would comply with a similar request from the president: “If the White House chief of staff or the president asks you to travel somewhere across the United States and oversee the execution of a domestic search warrant on a sensitive election facility, will you do it?” the senator asked. “Is that appropriate for the director of national intelligence?”

Clayton threw his hands up. “Um … that’s a hypothetical.” Pressed further, he declined to comment on the matter.

“Disqualifying,” Ossoff replied.

Moments later, Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, chastised Clayton for his waffling.

“It strains credibility to think that you are not aware of Director Gabbard’s intervention in the domestic election activities in Fulton County, and that that was subject of a great deal of consternation and review,” Warner told the nominee. “Even if you weren’t aware, in preparation for this hearing, I would’ve thought, ‘Hey, we gotta be ready for the Gabbard questions.’”

Clayton mustered a far from reassuring response: “To be clear, the ODNI’s role is principally outside of the United States.”

Also in his heated exchange with Ossoff, as well as with other senators, Clayton, like countless other Trump nominees before him, avoided saying that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, instead opting for weasel words so as not to contradict the president’s election denialism.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tried to claim at his Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday that he was committed to meeting with Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, but quickly backtracked. 

“When it comes to the victims of this horrible man, we will never, never not talk to victims. We will never not do everything we can to prosecute anybody that committed any crimes against any of these women,” Blanche told the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

But when pressed by Democratic Senator Richard Durbin on why he hasn’t met with Epstein survivors yet, and whether he’ll commit to doing so in the next 30 days, he struggled to answer. 

“If they have lawyers, as you know. I’m prohibited from meeting directly with them,” Blanche said. “I have met with counsel for survivors, as have many people in the Department of Justice. But if they are represented by counsel, we will work with their counsel.”

“It can get done as soon as today. It could have gotten done last week. We remain available to meet with any victim at any time.”

That’s not what Epstein’s survivors say. In May, Blanche said at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing that he had met with survivors and their lawyers, drawing an immediate statement from 18 of Epstein’s victims, who said he was lying. 

“Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not met with any of us. As survivors, we previously sought a meeting with former Attorney General Bondi and Department of Justice officials, but no meeting occurred,” the survivors said. “We should not have to be this persistent to engage with DOJ—the department responsible for handling the Epstein files, protecting their privacy, and answering for years of secrecy and failure.”

Last month, 19 victims came out publicly against Blanche’s attorney general nomination after a New York Times report revealed he was among the Trump administration officials who met in the White House Situation Room to discuss how to respond to public pressure for more transparency on the government’s Epstein files.  

These survivors have multiple grievances against Blanche for inconsistent redactions on the released files, which have put some of them in danger after exposing their names, personal information, and illicit photos.

“We are especially concerned that Todd Blanche, the person nominated for the highest law enforcement position in the country, was at that table. Blanche has consistently minimized legitimate concerns about how the files have been handled, including problematic redactions and the exposure of survivors’ personal information. Blanche failed to deliver transparency, and he has gravely failed survivors. This is failing upward, plain and simple,” the women said last month. 

Republican Senator John Cornyn directed serious concerns about the status of President Trump’s “anti-weaponization” slush fund to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche at his confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

In a series of well-directed questions, the Texas senator undermined the very basis of the settlement agreement resolving the Trump family’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over Trump’s leaked tax returns, which created the slush fund.

“There’s so much that’s unusual about this,” Cornyn said. “[The leaked tax returns] happened back in 2020, and the lawsuit wasn’t brought until 2026, so with the two-year statute of limitations … that struck me as unusual.”

Cornyn then moved on to the text of the settlement agreement.

“On page four: ‘This settlement agreement … may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties’ Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement fund?”

“No, the settlement fund is just not moving forward,” Blanche replied. “There’s no modification. It’s just it never started. No money went from the Treasury to any other account. There’s no commissioners. It’s not moving forward.”

“Is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?”

“Well, yes, it’s an enforceable document,” Blanche conceded. “So I suppose if President Trump’s counsel sought to enforce it, that they potentially could.”

“Including the weaponization fund,” Cornyn said, making the obvious connection.

“Well, they could try to enforce the contract. They can’t force the Department of Justice to move forward with the weaponization fund. They could potentially say that, I suppose, that we breached by not moving forward. They haven’t done that, and I’m not aware that they’re planning on doing that,” Blanche replied.

Cornyn then asked directly what Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer, had been avoiding.

“But just to be clear, the president of the United States, who was the plaintiff in this lawsuit, has not agreed in writing to delete the weaponization fund, and there’s no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might raise that issue by way of a lawsuit and a breach of contract lawsuit in the future?”

“Well, senator, the plaintiffs have no power over the fund. The fund was administered solely by the five commissioners and through the Department of Justice. So no, they don’t have any power with respect to the fund at all. I suppose they could bring a lawsuit, and then we would litigate it. But even if we were litigating it, there’s no fund, so the results of such litigation, whatever it would be, wouldn’t be a revival of the fund.”

Blanche can say how dead the slush fund is as much as he wants, but that won’t convince anyone until it’s actually in writing, which it isn’t. It’s a bad look for Blanche when even Republicans realize that.