2026.09.28 PUBLIC Complaint to OSC - Attorney General Blanche - RNC Midterm Convention
The Steady State
September 27, 2026
Filed via electronic mail to: hatchact@osc.gov
The Honorable Charles N. Baldis
Special Counsel
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
Attn: Hatch Act Unit
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218
Washington, D.C. 20036-4505
Re: Complaint and request for investigation concerning possible prohibited political activity by the Attorney General of the United States in connection with remarks delivered at the Republican National Committee’s 2026 Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas, on September 9, 2026.
Dear Special Counsel Baldis:
The Steady State is an organization of more than 450 former national security, intelligence, diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and homeland security officials who served across administrations of both parties. Our concern here is institutional and not partisan: the Hatch Act’s restrictions on the political activity of executive branch employees exist so that the government’s law enforcement authority is not, and does not appear to be, deployed for the benefit of a political party. That interest is at its highest when the official involved is the head of the Department of Justice.
I write to file a complaint under the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321–7326, concerning remarks delivered by the Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche, at the Republican National Committee’s 2026 Midterm Convention on the evening of Wednesday, September 9, 2026, in Dallas, Texas.
This complaint concerns the conduct of one official. It does not address the appearance of any other speaker, and it should not be read as expressing a view on any of them. We address the Attorney General here because the interest the Hatch Act protects stands at its highest when the official concerned directs federal prosecutorial power.
Disclosure of related filings
In the interest of candor, we disclose the following:
1. On September 4, 2026, The Steady State filed a complaint with this Office concerning Attorney General Blanche’s appearance at a campaign event in Nassau County, New York, in August 2026 (HA-26-000451 and HA-26-000480). That complaint concerns a different event and a different factual record, and we do not ask that the two be consolidated.
2. On September 14, 2026, The Steady State filed a complaint with this Office concerning Mr. Blanche’s appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 26, 2026, when he held the office of Deputy Attorney General.
3. This is the third complaint The Steady State has submitted concerning this official. We submit this complaint because the conduct described here is distinct in kind from the conduct described in the other two. It occurred at a national party convention, after he became Attorney General, and it is documented on the recording credited on screen as an RNC handout.
We have filed no other complaint with this Office concerning the September 9, 2026 appearance.
The appearance
The 2026 Republican Midterm Convention was organized by the Republican National Committee and held at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas, on September 9 and 10, 2026. In a press release issued September 3, 2026, the Committee announced a “[t]wo-night Dallas convention [that] will feature candidates, congressional leaders and everyday Americans ahead of November’s midterm elections,” at which “Republicans draw a clear contrast between the mainstream policies delivering results for the American people and the extreme Democrat agenda,” and which would “make the case that the choice in November is clear.” The Committee’s convention website stated the purpose more directly: Republicans would convene in Dallas “for a clear purpose: To support the outstanding slate of GOP candidates running in the midterm elections this Fall ….” Each page of the Committee’s materials cited in this letter carries the notation “Paid for by the Republican National Committee. Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate’s Committee.”
According to the Denton County Republican Party, the national committee allocated a limited number of tickets and hotel accommodations to each state party and “encouraged every state GOP to maximize this opportunity as a fundraiser to support our Get Out The Vote efforts.” General admission tickets were later made available free of charge.
Immediately before Mr. Blanche’s remarks, the convention’s program ran a produced video whose narrator said that “the socialist extreme left sees a very different America” and concluded: “Two very different visions of America are before us. They put their faith into a radical system. We put our faith in the American people …. And this is what we believe America means.” The narrator did not use the words “Democrat,” “Republican,” “election” or “November.” The video was the
convention’s; nothing in the record indicates that Mr. Blanche selected it or knew what would precede him, and he did not refer to it.
On September 5, 2026, the Republican National Committee published a release announcing the convention’s keynote lineup and program. That release lists the respondent under the heading “Keynote Speakers” as “The Honorable Todd Blanche.” On September 8, 2026, the Committee published a second release setting the speaking order in hourly blocks, which placed him in the 7:00–8:00 p.m. block on Night One. That release states: “Note: All times are Eastern Daylight Time.”
Mr. Blanche took the stage at approximately 7:50 p.m. Eastern, as shown by C-SPAN’s on-screen clock, on Wednesday, September 9, 2026, and spoke for approximately five minutes and twenty-seven seconds. Times in this letter are Eastern, the clock the Republican National Committee used in its own published schedule. The hall is in the Central time zone, where the same moment was 6:50 p.m.
At the time of these remarks, Mr. Blanche was the Attorney General of the United States, having been confirmed by the Senate on August 8, 2026 and sworn in on August 10, 2026.
What the Attorney General said
The recording of the remarks is described in Exhibit A. Mr. Blanche opened with an account of the disappearance and death of Megan Bos, whose mother, Jennifer Bos, he said was present. That account included a specific assurance about future enforcement, followed later by a statement about the administration’s work with victims. We set out his words without adopting his factual claims.
Of the person he described as responsible, he said: “But soft-on-crime laws allowed him to be released back onto our streets one day later. But I will tell you this. He has since been arrested by ICE and will never walk on American streets again.” Later, he said that “the Trump administration” was “working hard every day to make sure we take care of victims,” so that “families like Jennifer’s are not left alone.” These passages fall about one minute and about two and three-quarter minutes into the remarks.
He attributed those results to the President and the Vice President by name, and recited the following enforcement claims, which we set out as his words and not as findings of fact:
“President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance do not treat stories like Megan’s as acceptable in our society. They treat it as a failure of government. Now, they vowed, they vowed to fix the problem, and they back the men and women who secure the homeland, and they do not flinch when the work gets hard.”
“And under their leadership, 2.6 million criminal aliens who, who entered the country illegally and should never have been released into our neighborhoods are being swiftly removed.”
“Now that same leadership delivered results beyond the border. This law and order administration recorded the largest one-year decline in homicides in American history. Rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults fell. Police officer deaths on duty declined. Missing migrant children were recovered from trafficking and labor networks. Taxpayers were protected. Federal benefits were cut off for people who were never entitled to them. And the largest health care fraud takedown in American history stopped the thieves who were billing the sick and the elderly.”
He then promised accountability for categories of offenders and attributed it to the President personally:
“To evil men, to evil men and women in this country, know this. President Trump will hold you accountable. If you traffic children, you will be held accountable. If you sell death in a pill, you will be held accountable. If you choose violence, you will be held accountable. And if you steal from people who work hard and pay taxes, you will be held accountable.”
“Now that, that is making America safe again. President Trump and Vice President Vance set that course. They have always and they will always back the blue.”
He closed:
“The results are real. The work ahead is real. And Americans, thank you for choosing to make our country safe again. Now we are just getting started. And so God bless you and God bless the United States. Thank you very much.”
The remarks combined nationwide crime statistics, claims of federal enforcement results, and assurances of future action. The opening account included an assurance about a particular person’s future liberty. The later references to victim assistance and the “largest health care fraud takedown in American history” concerned government work. The warnings to categories of offenders promised that they “will be held accountable,” attributing that outcome to the President. We do not treat every statistic or enforcement function as the Department of Justice’s; ICE and immigration removals are principally within the Department of Homeland Security. “Held accountable” is his phrase. We infer a reference to prosecution; he did not expressly announce charges or a charging decision.
Ms. Bos testified at Mr. Blanche’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 16, 2026, when he was Acting Attorney General. In her written statement, she said: “From the time I have personally spent with Todd Blanche, I know that he makes victims a priority. Under his direction, the Department of Justice has engaged directly with Angel Families and treated us not as political props, but as partners in preventing future tragedies.” Her testimony connects his convention reference to “we” taking care of victims and “families like Jennifer’s” to departmental outreach she attributed to his direction.
How the Attorney General was presented — and what the party’s own documents show
Three features of the presentation are established by the party’s own materials and by the recordings.
First, Mr. Blanche did not state his office in his remarks, and the party’s September 5 and September 8 releases listed him as “The Honorable Todd Blanche,” without office. The C-SPAN recording shows that he walked on from a produced convention video that he did not introduce or refer to. He received no spoken introduction in that recording.
He began: “My name is Todd Blanche.” After applause, he continued: “But I want to start by talking about somebody else.” In the five and a half minutes that followed, he did not state his office, name the Department of Justice, or expressly identify the capacity in which he was speaking. Whether his words nonetheless conveyed official representation is addressed below.
Second, the convention’s own on-screen graphic identified him by a former position, not his current one. The recording of his remarks that USA TODAY published on September 9, 2026 carries the on-screen credit “RNC HANDOUT.” For about twelve seconds at its start, a lower-third graphic bearing the convention’s “DALLAS 2026” mark read:
THE HONORABLE TODD BLANCHE
FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR
The graphic appeared once and did not return. We have not established whether it was displayed on the screens inside the hall. C-SPAN carried its own graphics: its on-screen caption during the remarks began “AG BLANCHE SPEAKS,” alongside “REPUBLICAN MIDTERM CONVENTION” and “C-SPAN CAMPAIGN 2026.” C-SPAN’s program page for the broadcast also identifies him as “Attorney General, Department of Justice.” A still is reproduced in Exhibit A. The caption shows how television viewers were presented with the appearance; it does not show that Mr. Blanche, the Department, or the Committee supplied or approved that identification, or that attendees in the hall saw it.
Third, the Republican National Committee’s own release gives offices for some of its speakers and not for others. The September 5 release lists the President and the Vice President with their offices. It lists members of Congress with their offices and leadership positions. It lists state officials with their offices — including, under “Elected Officials”:
“Attorney General of Texas Ken Paxton, Candidate for U.S. Senate”
It lists no office for any of the Senate-confirmed officers of executive departments and agencies who appear on it: the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Each is listed as “The Honorable,” followed by a name.
Omitting the office, using “The Honorable,” and substituting a former position are consistent with an intended personal-capacity appearance. The regulation’s own example permits an employee
soliciting volunteer services to use “a general form of address, such as ‘The Honorable,’” in place of an official title. 5 C.F.R. § 734.302, Example 1. Neither the party’s omission of his office nor a broadcaster’s use of it resolves whether he represented the Department; the substance of the remarks bears on that question, and we address it below.
What this complaint does not allege
We state plainly what is not in this record, so that the Office is not required to discover it.
Mr. Blanche named the President and Vice President but did not identify anyone as a candidate or expressly advocate a candidacy. He did not identify an election, a race, a political party, or a chamber of Congress. He did not use the words “vote,” “midterms,” “November,” “Senate,” or “House.” He did not solicit contributions. Nothing in the remarks is an express appeal for the election or defeat of any candidate.
We do not allege that Mr. Blanche stated his official title or that he authorized C-SPAN’s use of it. His title appears in neither of the party’s releases nor its opening graphic, but it appears in the broadcast graphic described above. Title use is one instance of the conduct 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1) prohibits, not its definition. This Office has looked to “[t]he substance of [the] remarks” in deciding capacity, OSC File No. HA-26-000413 (July 8, 2026). We address official representation under § 734.101 below.
We do not assert that any federal funds were expended. We do not know. Whether they were is a records question addressed below under Political activity while on duty, and it is the principal reason we ask the Office to act promptly.
The conduct we ask the Office to examine is the Attorney General’s delivery, at his party’s national convention fifty-five days before the general election of November 3, 2026, of an address combining federal enforcement claims, an individualized assurance about future enforcement, statements about victim assistance, and promises of accountability for categories of offenders.
Potentially Applicable Law
Coverage. The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of “any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office in … an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office.” 5 U.S.C. § 7322(1). This Office has applied that provision to Senate-confirmed heads of executive departments. See OSC File No. HA-16-3113 (Julián Castro, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development), Report of Prohibited Political Activity, June 24, 2016, § III.A; OSC File No. HA-22-000223 (Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services), Report of Prohibited Political Activity, April 18, 2023, § III.A.
Political activity. “Political activity” means “an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.” 5 C.F.R. § 734.101.
On duty. An employee is “on duty” when he is “(1) In a pay status other than paid leave … or (2) Representing any agency or instrumentality of the United States Government in an official capacity.” 5 C.F.R. § 734.101.
Political activity while on duty. “An employee may not engage in political activity — (1) while the employee is on duty ….” 5 U.S.C. § 7324(a)(1).
Government aircraft. 41 C.F.R. §§ 301-10.261(b), 301-10.262, 301-10.264(c), 301-70.802; part 301-70 generally.
Exception for certain Senate-confirmed officers. An employee appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate who determines policies to be pursued in the nationwide administration of Federal laws, and “the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post,” “may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. § 7324(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B)(ii).
Reimbursement. 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(a)–(d). Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed appointees are subject to subparts B and C of part 734. Id. § 734.501. A Senate-confirmed officer who determines policies to be pursued in the nationwide administration of Federal laws “may participate … in political activities” while on duty or while using a Government-owned or leased vehicle, id. § 734.502(c), but only on the cost condition in § 734.503. The further restriction on taking “an active part in political management or political campaigns” does not reach an employee “appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 5 U.S.C. § 7323(b)(2)(A). Senate confirmation does not remove the prohibitions in § 7323(a).
Use of official authority. “An employee may not use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1).
Political activity while on duty — 5 U.S.C. § 7324
This is the provision we ask the Office to examine first, because it does not depend on the content of any electoral appeal.
A. Whether the appearance was political activity. The Republican National Committee is a national committee of a political party. Its midterm convention was the party’s own event, and Mr. Blanche was one of its announced speakers, listed by the Committee under the heading “Keynote Speakers.” An address delivered in that capacity is “directed toward the success … of a political party” within 5 C.F.R. § 734.101. No reference to a candidate is required by the definition, and none is needed here. The remarks reinforced that setting by contrasting “soft-on-crime laws” with Trump and Vance’s corrective leadership and assigning them credit for enforcement results. We rely on that contrast in the convention’s documented electoral context, not on a proposition that policy praise or criticism alone is political activity.
B. The remarks and documented official connections support a finding of official capacity. The second prong of § 734.101’s definition of “on duty” concerns representation of a federal agency in an official capacity and does not turn on the hour or pay status. The question is this: when a Senate-confirmed agency head gives an assurance about a particular person’s future treatment by the Government, describes his Department’s work with victims, recites federal enforcement results and promises accountability for categories of offenders, as the body of his remarks at a national party convention, is he “[r]epresenting [the] agency … in an official capacity” within 5 C.F.R. § 734.101 even though he did not state his title or name the Department? We submit that the individualized assurance, discussion of departmental work, and prospective enforcement warnings, considered together with the evidence below, support a finding that Mr. Blanche represented the Department in this appearance.
In Castro, this Office found that a Cabinet Secretary gave an interview in his official capacity because he was introduced by his title, the agency seal appeared behind him, and he “spent the first seven minutes talking exclusively about HUD programs and initiatives.” HA-16-3113 § III.B. In Becerra, official capacity was established because the Secretary “was introduced with his official title” and “discussed, among other things, the work of HHS and the Biden-Harris Administration.” HA-22-000223 § III.B.
“But I will tell you this” introduced a categorical assurance that the defendant arrested by ICE “will never walk on American streets again.” That statement addressed a particular person’s future treatment by the Government. It was not an express announcement of a sentence or charging decision. Its relevance is what an individualized assurance conveyed from the official directing federal law enforcement, considered alongside the documented victim-outreach connection.
ICE is within the Department of Homeland Security. We do not allege that Mr. Blanche investigated or prosecuted the Megan Bos matter. The reported criminal case is in Lake County, Illinois, and the same reporting indicates that by October 2025 the person had been ordered deported; the assurance may rest on that order. We ask the Office to ascertain the factual and official basis for his assurance.
Within the same sentence, Mr. Blanche moved from “the Trump administration” to “we take care of victims,” placing himself within the governmental work he described. Read alongside Ms. Bos’s testimony about the Department’s outreach under his direction, that wording supports the inference that he was describing his own Department’s work in an official capacity.
The health care fraud passage supplies a further connection. The Department’s announcement of its National Health Care Fraud Takedown on June 23, 2026 quotes him as Acting Attorney General presenting that enforcement work; the convention remarks do not identify the particular year’s operation.
HA-26-000413 did not hold that omitting the title ends the inquiry. It looked to “the substance of [the] remarks,” and in describing that substance it recorded four facts: no official title; no reference to the Department of War; a spoken disclaimer that he was speaking in his “personal capacity as a private citizen”; and remarks “focused on” a candidate, an opponent, and why listeners should
support the campaign. Two of those facts are present here and two are not. We do not suggest that they are a test, or that the absence of a disclaimer proves official capacity. Mr. Blanche did not use his title and did not name the Department of Justice. He gave no disclaimer. The substance of his remarks was not a candidate. It included enforcement results, an individualized assurance, victim assistance, and promises of future accountability.
Castro also records agency ethics advice that the Secretary, when speaking personally at a political event, should not discuss HUD or use his title. HA-16-3113 § II.D. That advice was fact-specific and is not a categorical rule that any discussion of agency work establishes official capacity. Here, the Office should distinguish a partisan description of the administration’s record from statements that, in context, convey the Department’s own work or commitments.
Taken together, the remarks and documented official connections support the inference that Mr. Blanche presented departmental performance and conveyed assurances of future governmental enforcement as a representative of DOJ.
His references to “the administration” in the third person do not remove his own official responsibilities from the analysis. He moved from enforcement accomplishments to directly addressing prospective offenders and assuring them of accountability. The Attorney General supervises federal litigation and federal prosecutors, 28 U.S.C. § 519; where federal jurisdiction exists, DOJ would help carry out the enforcement he described. The connection is between the work he described and his documented institutional responsibility for it.
The competing interpretation is that he was personally praising administration policies and predicting their effects. Public statistics, officeholding, and discussion of government work alone would not establish official representation. Castro’s official setting and agency seal also distinguish it from this appearance. But the public record here supplies affirmative evidence of capacity; nonpublic records are not a prerequisite to a finding. The Office should test the cumulative inference against the invitation, terms of acceptance, speech preparation and review, staff instructions, and any direction concerning the capacity in which he would speak.
C. The exception in § 7324(b)(1) is conditional, and the condition is a question of fact. Mr. Blanche is a Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed officer described in 5 U.S.C. § 7324(b)(2)(B)(ii). Section 7324(b)(1) therefore permits him to engage in political activity otherwise barred by § 7324(a) — but only “if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.” The exception is conditional, and the condition is the whole of it. See also OSC File No. HA-22-000173 n.66 (exception would not have applied where the official “never reimbursed the Treasury for the government-incurred costs”).
The regulation supplies the framework. Costs associated with political activity may not be paid from the Treasury unless they are reimbursed within a reasonable period of time. 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(a). Costs the Government would have incurred regardless of the political activity are excluded from the reimbursable amount; the regulation gives as examples the employee’s own compensation, the value of any office or other real property owned or leased by the Government, the compensation and
expenses of any Government employee required in the performance of his or her duties to accompany or assist the person engaging in the political activity, and the cost of special security arrangements, including special transportation vehicles or methods. Id. § 734.503(b). Where travel serves both official and political purposes, the political share is determined by the ratio of time spent on political activity to total activity time — “the amount of time actually spent by the employee in meetings, receptions, rallies, and similar activities” — excluding time spent in actual travel, private study, or rest and recreation, and event-specific costs are assigned separately. Id. § 734.503(c). Where a cost of the political activity is required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission, the allocation method prescribed under the Federal Election Campaign Act applies in place of the time-based method. Id. § 734.503(d).
The Steady State does not contend that the excluded costs give rise to a violation. The Attorney General of the United States travels with a protective detail, and Department personnel required in the performance of their duties to accompany him do so as a matter of course. Section 734.503(b) places the cost of special security arrangements and the compensation and expenses of employees “required in the performance of [their] duties to accompany or assist” him outside the reimbursement requirement, and we do not ask the Office to treat either as a cost subject to the condition in § 7324(b)(1). Whether any particular employee’s work on this appearance falls within that exclusion is a question for the Office; we do not prejudge it.
The question is narrower. It is whether any nonexcluded cost associated with the September 9 appearance — transportation, lodging, per diem, ground transportation, event-specific expenses, or the allocable share of any travel serving both official and political purposes — was paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States and, if so, whether it was allocated and reimbursed as § 734.503 requires and within a reasonable period. Because the appearance was at an event of a national committee of a political party held fifty-five days before a federal election, the Office should also determine whether any cost of the activity was required to be reported under the Federal Election Campaign Act, which would make § 734.503(d)’s method the applicable one rather than § 734.503(c)’s.
The sequence is on the public record. On September 8, 2026, in the Department’s own words, the “Department of Justice Holds Memorial Honoring the 25th Anniversary of 9/11,” at which “Attorney General Todd Blanche delivered remarks.” That was official business in Washington. The convention appearance was the following day, in Dallas. A review of the Department’s public products — justice.gov, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Dallas field office — for September 8 through 10, 2026 located no announcement of official Attorney General business in Dallas. That review is of public releases only; it is not a review of travel vouchers, calendars, or visitor logs, and we do not treat the silence as proof that no official activity occurred.
We do not assert that any nonexcluded cost was borne by the Treasury, and we do not assert that reimbursement did not occur. The regulation allows reimbursement “within a reasonable period of
time,” and that period may not yet have run. We do not have the records. They are not public. We ask the Office to obtain them and to determine the amount, the payor, and the date.
Two further points belong in the Office’s inquiry. First, the regulation provides that where “a minor, clearly incidental percentage of the activity of a mixed trip is devoted to either official or political activity, e.g. less than 3%, the entire trip should be treated as if it was wholly of the type represented by the substantial figure.” 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(c)(6). A five-and-a-half-minute address could be presented as incidental to a longer official itinerary. Whether it was depends on the complete itinerary, the time properly classified as political and official activity, and whether paragraph (d) displaces paragraph (c). We ask the Office to obtain the itinerary and supporting records for the complete trip associated with the appearance, including any portions outside September 8–10, and to classify the time under the applicable regulation. Time spent in actual travel is excluded from total activity time under § 734.503(c). How arrival and holding-room time is classified is for the Office to determine on the records. Second, 5 U.S.C. § 7324(a)(4) separately reaches political activity “using any vehicle owned or leased by the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof,” whatever the capacity in which the remarks were delivered. For this officer that use is permitted on the same cost condition, and the cost of “special transportation vehicles” used for security is among the exclusions in § 734.503(b); we raise it so that the vehicle question is answered on the records and not assumed.
D. If any portion of the travel was on a Government aircraft, a written record should exist, and reimbursement under the Federal Travel Regulation would not by itself satisfy § 7324(b)(1). We do not know how the Attorney General traveled to Dallas. If any portion of it was on a Government aircraft, two things follow.
First, a written authorization and any required-use determination should exist under 41 C.F.R. §§ 301-10.261–.262, together with a record of any reimbursement and the calculation behind it. Second, a coach-fare payment alone would not establish compliance without identifying the applicable reimbursement rate, the allocation method, the exclusions applied and the timing of payment. The travel regulation’s coach-fare measure is itself conditional: “If other laws or regulations specify a different reimbursement amount, that specified amount applies.” 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.264(c). Section 734.503 governs how costs are allocated between official and political purposes; it does not set an airfare rate. If a cost of this travel was required to be reported under the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Federal Election Commission’s travel rules may supply the rate, see 11 C.F.R. § 100.93(e), and 11 C.F.R. § 106.3 applies only to the travel it covers. We ask the Office to determine which measure governed, what amount was calculated, and whether and when it was paid. This complaint does not treat the full operating cost of an aircraft as the measure.
Because these records are maintained on routine retention schedules and may be disposed of in the ordinary course, we ask the Office to direct their preservation now. The Requested action section below sets out what we believe should be preserved.
Use of official authority or influence — 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1)
We submit that the remarks, considered together with the convention’s stated electoral purpose and the evidence discussed above, support a finding under § 7323(a)(1). The use of official influence consists of presenting departmental accomplishments and assurances of future accountability as reasons to credit the President and the Vice President, at an event the Committee said was held “[t]o support the outstanding slate of GOP candidates running in the midterm elections.” His reference to “we” taking care of victims, read alongside Ms. Bos’s account of the Department’s engagement with victims’ families under his direction, further supports that inference.
Unlike the statements at issue in Castro and Becerra, these remarks contain no express appeal for the election or defeat of a named candidate. That absence does not resolve whether he used official authority or influence for an electoral purpose. We ask the Office to determine whether his participation put the Department’s authority behind the convention’s electoral message. An independently established violation of § 7323(a)(1) would not be cured by reimbursement or excused by § 7324(b).
The “personal capacity” characterization
The Department of Justice has stated publicly that Mr. Blanche appeared in his “personal capacity.” At about 11:30 a.m. Eastern on the day of the appearance, hours before he spoke, the Department’s rapid-response account on X, @DOJRR47, stated that “Todd Blanche’s appearance this evening in his personal capacity is legal (and has been approved by ethics).” The post and verification of the account’s Department affiliation are Exhibit C.
Three points bear on that characterization, and all three come from this Office’s own files.
First, a personal-capacity characterization is not, by itself, answered by the label. In Castro, the Secretary said on camera that he was “taking off my HUD hat for a second and just speaking individually.” This Office held that “that disclaimer could not negate the fact that he was appearing in his official capacity for the rest of the interview,” because his political comments were “bracketed by statements concerning official HUD policies and programs.” HA-16-3113 § III.B. The Office concluded that his statements “impermissibly mixed his personal political views with official government agency business.” Id. § IV.
Mr. Blanche made no express personal-capacity disclaimer. The characterization was supplied by his Department before the appearance took place. Its accuracy should be assessed against what he actually said, including the individualized enforcement assurance, the reference to “we” taking care of victims, and the discussion of enforcement results. The absence of a disclaimer is not itself proof of official capacity.
Second, the agency ethics advice recorded in Castro is relevant context, with the limits discussed above under Political activity while on duty. HA-16-3113 § II.D.
Castro identifies agency business as a relevant indicator of official capacity, alongside the circumstances in which the appearance was arranged and presented. We ask the Office to weigh it here.
Third, an internal policy change does not displace the statute, and the Department has said so. By a memorandum dated February 27, 2026, first reported on March 4, Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded the Department’s policy barring political appointees from participating in partisan political events. Mr. Blanche was then the Deputy Attorney General; he was confirmed as Attorney General on August 8, 2026. We have not obtained the memorandum. In describing the change, the Department stated that “the Hatch Act continues to govern the behavior of Department employees”; that quoted statement is sourced to contemporaneous reporting of the Department’s description of the change. We agree with it and note that an agency cannot by internal policy authorize what a statute forbids. The rescission changed what the Department permits its appointees to do; it did not change what 5 C.F.R. § 734.101 means. This Office has said that it “does not have jurisdiction to enforce or interpret agency policies,” HA-26-000413, and that holds in both directions: a Department policy that permits an appearance does not decide the capacity in which it was made. Ethics approval is not dispositive. The advice given, and the facts on which it was sought, bear on capacity, on how the appearance was arranged, and on whether any violation was knowing; they are among the records we ask the Office to obtain.
Equal application of the Act
This Office has reported Hatch Act violations by Cabinet officers to the President, and recently.
• A Cabinet Secretary, 2016. HUD Secretary Julián Castro — report to the President, 5 U.S.C. § 1215(b). HA-16-3113.
• A Cabinet Secretary, 2023. HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra — report to the President. HA-22-000223.
We cite those files for official capacity and for the written report under 5 U.S.C. § 1215(b). The reimbursement condition is addressed above under § 7324(b)(1).
Questions warranting examination
1. Was Mr. Blanche representing the Department of Justice in an official capacity, within 5 C.F.R. § 734.101, when he delivered these remarks?
2. Was any nonexcluded cost associated with the appearance — transportation, lodging, per diem, ground transportation, event-specific expenses, or the allocable share of any travel serving both official and political purposes — paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States? If so, was it allocated and reimbursed as 5 C.F.R. § 734.503 requires and within a reasonable period? Was any cost of the activity required to be reported under the Federal Election Campaign Act, such that § 734.503(d) supplies the method?
3. Did the Attorney General travel to or from Dallas on a Government aircraft? If so, was a written authorization or required-use determination made under 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.262, what did it state, who reimbursed the Government under § 301-10.264(c), and in what amount?
4. What ethics advice was sought and given before the appearance, by whom, and on what stated facts — including whether the person seeking the advice disclosed that the remarks would consist of federal enforcement results attributed to the President and the Vice President?
5. Did Department personnel or resources support the appearance — including preparation or review of the remarks, communications with the Committee about how Mr. Blanche would be introduced or identified on screen, and press or communications support such as the @DOJRR47 post?
Requested action
The Steady State respectfully requests that the Office:
1. Direct the preservation of all records bearing on the appearance, including:
a. travel authorizations, orders, vouchers, and reimbursement records for the Attorney General and any accompanying Department personnel, and all records concerning cost allocation or reimbursement under 5 C.F.R. § 734.503, including the identity of any payor;
b. if any portion of the travel was on a Government aircraft: the written authorization and any written required-use determination or standing determination under 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.262, any aircraft authorization, use and cost records maintained under 41 C.F.R. part 301-70, and any record of reimbursement under § 301-10.264(c), together with the identity of the payor and the calculation on which the amount was based;
c. protective-detail deployment, staffing and cost records, which we ask the Office to obtain so that the categories excluded under 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(b) can be identified and set aside and the nonexcluded remainder allocated, not because we contend that those costs give rise to a violation;
d. per diem and lodging records;
e. calendars, scheduling records and the complete itinerary for the trip associated with the September 9 appearance, including any portions outside September 8–10, 2026, and records sufficient to identify and classify time spent on official and political activities;
f. communications between the Department and the Republican National Committee, the convention’s organizers, or any host committee;
g. drafts of the remarks and records of their preparation and review, including Department personnel time and briefings supporting the statements about the Bos family and the defendant’s future treatment;
h. records of ethics advice sought or given concerning the appearance; and 14
i. records sufficient to establish the Department’s outreach involving the Bos family, any briefing Mr. Blanche received on the Bos matter before September 9, 2026, and the factual or official basis supplied for the assurance that the person described would never walk on
American streets again. This request concerns capacity and the basis for the statement; it does not presume interference with a proceeding.
We ask that preservation be directed promptly, because records of this kind are maintained on routine retention schedules and are disposed of in the ordinary course.
2. Determine whether Mr. Blanche was representing the Department of Justice in an official capacity, and therefore on duty, within 5 C.F.R. § 734.101. We submit that the public evidence set out above supports that finding; if the Office concludes otherwise, we ask that it explain why the personal-capacity reading better accounts for that evidence.
3. Determine, whatever the answer to item 2, whether any cost of the appearance was paid from the Treasury and whether it was allocated and reimbursed as 5 C.F.R. § 734.503 requires. If the activity falls within any prohibition in § 7324(a), including § 7324(a)(4), determine whether the exception in § 7324(b)(1) applies, including whether any cost of the activity was required to be reported under the Federal Election Campaign Act so that 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(d) supplies the method.
If the Office treats any cost as reimbursed, we ask that the written disposition identify (i) the category of cost, (ii) whether allocation was under 5 C.F.R. § 734.503(c) or (d), (iii) the amount, (iv) the payor, and (v) the date of payment. If the Office confirms reimbursement but concludes that those particulars cannot be included in a letter to the complainant, we ask that it say so in the disposition rather than treat confirmation as a fact that need not be described.
4. Determine whether the remarks or associated conduct used official authority or influence for an electoral purpose within 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1).
5. Issue a written disposition. Whatever the outcome, we ask that the Office state its conclusion in writing. Where the Office finds a violation by a Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed officer, 5 U.S.C. § 1215(b) provides for a report to the President; the Office followed that course in Castro and in Becerra. We ask for the written determination regardless, because the public record of what the Act requires of the Attorney General has value independent of any sanction.
Anticipated responses
“He appeared in his personal capacity.” The characterization was made by his Department; he made no express disclaimer himself. Castro shows that a disclaimer is not dispositive. Capacity must be assessed from the circumstances of the appearance, including the content of the remarks.
“This Office closed a complaint on that ground in July.” It did, and the complaint was ours. In OSC File No. HA-26-000413 (July 8, 2026), the Office concluded that the Secretary of War spoke at a campaign rally in his personal capacity because “[t]he substance of Secretary Hegseth’s remarks—including the disclaimer he gave and lack of reference to his official title or agency—shows that he was speaking in his personal capacity.” The Office recorded that he “neither used his official title nor referred to the Department of War,” that he prefaced his remarks by saying he spoke in his “personal capacity as a private citizen,” and that his remarks “were focused on” the candidate, the candidate’s opponent, and why listeners should support the campaign.
HA-26-000413 treated the substance of the remarks as relevant; omission of a title did not alone resolve capacity. Here Mr. Blanche did not state his title or name DOJ, but the remarks included individualized and prospective enforcement assurances connected to documented departmental work. We ask that the disposition explain whether this substance conveyed official representation, and the weight given to how he was presented. The absence of a spoken disclaimer is not independently dispositive.
“He never mentioned an election.” Correct, and we say so above under What this complaint does not allege. Our primary count does not depend on it. As set out above, the absence of an express appeal does not resolve the § 7323(a)(1) question.
“The travel was reimbursed.” If so, we ask that the Office obtain the records and determine the amount, the payor, the date, and the allocation method. In HA-26-000413 the Office wrote that it had “confirmed that after the event the government was reimbursed a pro-rata share of Secretary Hegseth’s travel costs in accordance with the Hatch Act regulations governing mixed travel.” The letter stated no amount, payor, date or allocation method. We requested the records substantiating that sentence (FOIA-2026-153, item 2); the 102 pages released contain no reimbursement documentation, and the General Counsel has since told us that the Office received earlier complaints about the same event, in whose files such records may be held. AP-2026-013 (Sept. 16, 2026). We do not ask the Office to reopen HA-26-000413. We ask that the disposition here state the particulars set out in Requested action, or state that they were verified and why they are not described. The closure letter, item 2 of our request, the Office’s determination and the appeal decision are Exhibit D. A coach-fare payment under the Federal Travel Regulation would not, without the rate, the allocation method, the exclusions and the date, show that the condition in § 7324(b)(1) was met.
“The Department’s policy permits this.” Addressed above under The “personal capacity” characterization. The Department’s own statement on rescinding the policy was that the Hatch Act continues to govern.
“This is the third complaint against the same official.” It is, and we disclose all three with their dates: September 4, 2026 (Nassau County), September 14, 2026 (the 2026 Conservative Political Action Conference), and this one. This one differs: this appearance occurred at a national party convention rather than a campaign rally or a conference, and it is documented on the recording credited on screen as an RNC handout and on an independent gavel-to-gavel broadcast.
Sufficiency of the record
The Office need not accept our characterization of the remarks. The recording credited on screen as an RNC handout and the independent C-SPAN broadcast provide evidence of what was said and how it was presented, including their different graphics. Exhibit A describes and authenticates both recordings and sets out the quotations with their place in each. Exhibit B contains the party’s releases and the convention-purpose page. The public sources for Ms. Bos’s testimony and the Department’s takedown announcement are linked where they are cited.
We distinguish statements established by recordings or documents, assertions attributed to witnesses or reporting, and inferences we ask the Office to draw.
Urgency
We ask for prompt action for one reason and state it plainly: records that could inform capacity and resolve the cost and reimbursement questions are held by the Department and by other custodians — the Republican National Committee, its vendors, and any other agency that supported the travel — and not by the public. Travel and reimbursement records are what make the condition in § 7324(b)(1) true or false. We do not assert that any particular record is near destruction; retention periods for travel documentation are generally measured in years. The materials whose retention we cannot establish are the informal ones — scheduling and planning messages, drafts of the remarks, and coordination with the convention’s organizers — and those are the records most likely to be lost through ordinary practice. We ask the Office to take whatever preservation measures it considers appropriate, and to do so at the outset.
The election to which the convention was directed was fifty-five days away when these remarks were delivered, and is nearer now.
Conclusion
The Attorney General delivered an address at his party’s national convention fifty-five days before a federal election. He combined an individualized assurance about future governmental treatment, victim-assistance work connected to his own Department, enforcement accomplishments, and warnings of future accountability. His own words and the party’s materials omitted his office. We submit that the substance of the remarks and their documented connections to his official work together support a finding of official representation. We ask the Office to evaluate that evidence and the competing personal-capacity interpretation expressly.
We ask the Office to determine whether that was political activity while on duty, and whether the statutory exception that might permit it is available on the facts.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise, to the extent permitted by law, whether it has been directed to the appropriate investigative components.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven A. Cash
Executive Director, The Steady State
(212) 685-9660
Enclosures:
Exhibit A — Recordings, transcription and authentication
Exhibit B — Republican National Committee releases of September 3, September 5 and September 8, 2026, and the convention-purpose page
Exhibit C — The Department of Justice’s post of September 9, 2026 (@DOJRR47), with affiliation verification
Exhibit D — OSC closure letter in HA-26-000413 (July 8, 2026); item 2 of FOIA-2026-153; determination of August 25, 2026; appeal decision AP-2026-013 (September 16, 2026)
Public copy. Exhibits A·D are available on request. Street address redacted.