Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Fox News that the Department of Justice is running active investigations in Arizona, Georgia, and Fulton County, Georgia, into whether the 2020 presidential election was compromised, and he pledged to make the findings public.
Appearing on Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures," Blanche said DOJ investigators are focused on whether eligible voters cast the ballots, whether ineligible people voted, and whether the one-person-one-vote principle held. He described the work as difficult and ongoing, but left no ambiguity about his conclusion so far.
"Well, there's a ton of evidence that the election was rigged," Blanche told host Maria Bartiromo. "That's not something the DOJ needs to tell you about. There's been evidence about that for many, many years."
That statement, from the nation's top law enforcement official, marks the most direct public assertion yet from the current Justice Department that the 2020 contest was tainted. It also signals that the investigations could produce charges, an official report, or formal investigation results.
Bartiromo opened the exchange by referencing White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, who she said had "just said that we're going to find out that President Trump actually did win certain states in the 2020 election." She then pressed Blanche directly on what the DOJ had done and what evidence it possessed.
Blanche responded with a detailed outline of where the department's resources are deployed. He named three jurisdictions, Arizona, Georgia, and specifically Fulton County, Georgia, as sites of active investigations. He did not name specific suspects, case numbers, or DOJ components handling the probes.
But he described the targets of those probes in concrete terms. Blanche said investigators are "very focused on finding out whether the right people voted, whether people who were supposed to vote voted, whether there was one vote cast per voter." That language points squarely at potential voter fraud, duplicate ballots, ineligible voters, or manipulated rolls.
Blanche acknowledged the pace has frustrated some observers. He anticipated the question before Bartiromo could ask it.
"And I expect, and, again, people, you will say to me, how long is it taking? Why is it taking so long?"
His answer was blunt. The work is slow because the misconduct was well concealed.
"And the reality of the answer to that is because it takes a lot of work to uncover what happened in 2020. It takes a lot of old, good old-fashioned law enforcement, police work, which is what we're doing. And we have great prosecutors working on it as well."
Blanche's description of the opposition, "they're very good at hiding up misconduct and hiding what they're doing", did not name specific individuals or organizations. But it made plain that DOJ views the 2020 irregularities not as clerical errors but as deliberate concealment.
The most consequential portion of Blanche's remarks may have been his closing pledge. He told Bartiromo, and, by extension, the national audience, that whatever DOJ finds will be disclosed.
"I assure you, I assure the American people that as soon as we have something to say for it, whether it's charges, whether it's a report, whether it's the results of an investigation, the American people will learn about what we uncovered."
That promise covers a wide range of possible outcomes. Charges would mean criminal referrals and prosecutions. A report could take the form of a public accounting, similar to inspector general findings, without necessarily leading to indictments. And "results of an investigation" leaves room for a factual disclosure even if the evidence falls short of a prosecutable case.
Blanche's willingness to put all three options on the table suggests the DOJ is keeping its options open while the probes continue. It also puts a public marker down: the acting attorney general has now personally committed to transparency on the matter.
That commitment stands in contrast to years of institutional resistance. For much of the period since 2020, federal law enforcement agencies either declined to investigate election irregularities or actively dismissed claims of fraud. The previous DOJ leadership under the Biden administration showed no appetite for the kind of probes Blanche now describes.
Blanche's installation as acting attorney general came at President Trump's direction, and his tenure has already been marked by an aggressive posture on accountability across multiple fronts.
The 2020 election probes are not the only major investigations Blanche has publicly discussed. He has also revealed that the DOJ is investigating more than 8,000 fraud cases targeting taxpayer funds, signaling a department-wide emphasis on rooting out waste and criminal conduct across government programs.
Separately, Fox News reported that Blanche has discussed ongoing DOJ work into the origins of the Russia collusion probe alongside the 2020 election integrity investigations. In that context, Blanche described his office's "commitment to delivering definitive answers to the American people" and said investigators "are working diligently to uncover the truth."
The twin investigations, one looking backward at how the Russia collusion narrative was constructed, the other examining the mechanics of the 2020 vote, together represent a DOJ posture that treats the political warfare of the last decade as a subject for law enforcement, not just partisan debate.
That posture has drawn fierce opposition from Democrats. Rep. Jamie Raskin has attacked the DOJ over alleged settlements and misconduct issues, part of a broader effort by the minority party to frame Blanche's department as politically weaponized.
The charge of politicization cuts both ways. Critics on the left have accused the current DOJ of doing the president's bidding. But the same critics largely stayed silent, or actively cheered, when the previous administration's Justice Department pursued Trump allies, raided a former president's home, and appointed a special counsel whose prosecutions were ultimately abandoned or overturned.
The debate over whether the Justice Department serves the law or serves a political agenda is not new, but Blanche's public statements have sharpened it considerably.
For all of Blanche's directness, significant questions remain unanswered. He did not identify specific evidence during the interview. He named no suspects. He provided no timeline for when the investigations might conclude or when the public might see results.
He also did not specify which DOJ components, whether the FBI, U.S. Attorney's offices, or the department's Public Integrity Section, are handling the Arizona and Georgia probes. The distinction matters. Federal election-fraud cases historically carry high evidentiary bars, and the jurisdictional lines between federal and state authority over elections are complex.
Fulton County, Georgia, carries particular political weight. The county was at the center of post-2020 disputes over ballot handling, and it was also the jurisdiction where a local district attorney pursued a sprawling state racketeering case against Trump and his allies, a prosecution that collapsed under its own contradictions and ethical problems.
Whether DOJ's Fulton County investigation overlaps with, or runs parallel to, the wreckage of that state case is unclear. Blanche did not address it.
Arizona, too, has been a flashpoint. The state conducted a controversial post-election audit in Maricopa County that raised questions about ballot chain-of-custody procedures and voter roll accuracy. Whether DOJ's Arizona probe builds on that earlier work or starts fresh is another open question.
The gap between Blanche's confident public framing, "a ton of evidence", and the absence of disclosed specifics is worth watching. Public trust in institutions, including the Justice Department, has eroded badly over the past decade. Delivering on the promise of transparency will matter more than the promise itself.
Blanche seems to understand that. His repeated assurance, "the American people will learn about what we uncovered", reads less like a political talking point and more like a marker he knows he'll be held to.
The question now is whether the DOJ will produce results that match the acting attorney general's certainty. If the evidence is as substantial as Blanche says, the American public deserves to see it. And if it isn't, the credibility cost will fall squarely on his shoulders.
Five years is a long time to wait for answers about an election. The people who cast lawful ballots, and the ones whose votes may have been diluted by fraud, have been patient long enough.