50-49 Puts Trump's Ex-Lawyer in Charge of the Justice Department

The number tells only part of the story. The timing tells the rest. The final vote came early Saturday, Aug. 8, 2026, with NBC timestamping it to 4:33 a.m. EDT and CBS similarly reporting that it occurred early on Saturday.⁠4⁠7 Multiple outlets describe the confirmation as happening in the dead of night, the kind of hour reserved for nominations that cannot afford more daylight.⁠8⁠9⁠10 All of the reporting excerpts date the vote to Saturday, Aug. 8.⁠2⁠4⁠5⁠7⁠8⁠9⁠10 Our own video narration said Aug. 9; the record says Aug. 8.

That overnight vote ended weeks of uncertainty.⁠4 Blanche had already been running the department as acting attorney general since April and had previously served as its No. 2 official.⁠5⁠6 The BBC identifies him as Trump's ex-lawyer, while CBS calls him Trump's former defense lawyer.⁠5⁠7 The Guardian, reporting his swearing-in on Aug. 10, describes him as a loyalist and Trump's former personal lawyer.⁠11 In other words, the Senate was not confirming a stranger or a career outsider brought in cold. It was confirming the man already in charge — and deciding whether he should stay.

The opposition came from inside his own would-be coalition. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska opposed Blanche.⁠5⁠9 Murkowski said on Friday she would join the opposition, setting up a weekend in which every remaining vote mattered.⁠2

The deciding vote belonged to Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who announced his support on the Senate floor.⁠2⁠5 Cassidy said Blanche is not perfect but that no one is, and suggested another nominee might not be better.⁠2⁠5 It was less an endorsement than a calculation: imperfect in hand against unknown in the wings.

What nearly sank Blanche was not résumé but relationship. Senators raised concerns about his role in Trump's controversial IRS settlement deal and his prior work as the president's personal lawyer.⁠4 CNBC reports that Republican concerns focused on his independence and handling of Epstein-related documents.⁠6 That is the central tension of this appointment: the attorney general leads federal law enforcement inside the executive branch, yet the job has for much of modern history depended on a working distance from the White House — the expectation that prosecutorial decisions follow law and evidence rather than loyalty.

The holdouts did not settle for reassurance alone. CNBC reports that Blanche agreed in writing to narrow a tax-immunity deal and end anti-weaponization payments.⁠6 That detail matters because it reframes what happened in the final days. This was not simply a nominee talking wavering senators around; it was a nominee putting concessions on paper to get to 50. Whether written promises can carry weight once the news cycle moves on is now the test the department will live under.

What happened Aug. 10 was brief on the public record. Blanche was sworn in as attorney general on Aug. 10 after the bruising confirmation fight.⁠3 The Guardian reports the same milestone that day.⁠11 The excerpts provided do not say where the oath was administered, and they contain no verbatim remarks from Blanche himself at the swearing-in — only Cassidy's floor comments are quoted.⁠2 That absence is worth stating plainly. For an appointment this contested, the country has so far heard the math and the management, but not the mission in his own words.

The narrowness was not an accident of scheduling. Murkowski's Friday announcement made the weekend a head count, Cassidy's floor statement broke it, and a 4:33 a.m. vote closed it.⁠2⁠4⁠5 That sequence explains both the hour and the margin: leadership concluded this nomination could pass only if it moved before opposition hardened further. It did — by one.

Blanche now holds the job he had been filling on an acting basis since spring.⁠5⁠6 The question that follows him from personal counsel's office to the department's top floor is the one senators spent weeks circling and that written agreements were meant to answer: independence.⁠4⁠6 A 50-49 confirmation resolves who leads. It does not resolve whether career lawyers and the public will trust how he leads. That verdict will be written in the first politically charged decision he cannot avoid — and in whether the promises that bought the final vote look, in hindsight, like guardrails or paperwork.