Two Republican senators secured written confirmation from Todd Blanche that the $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund would not proceed, clearing the way for his nomination to the attorney general position to move to the full Senate. Blanche, a close legal advisor to Donald Trump, had previously defended the fund as compensation for those he claimed were unfairly targeted by political investigations. His confirmation now advances, but faces strong resistance from Democrats, who question whether he can lead the Department of Justice independently of the White House.
The fund was created in May as part of a legal settlement ending Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. This came after a former IRS contractor was sentenced to prison in 2024 for leaking the president’s confidential tax records. Critics warned that the fund risked becoming a form of taxpayer-funded support for Trump loyalists, including some individuals associated with the 6 January Capitol riot. Blanche issued a formal order last weekend to cancel the fund and restricted the scope of tax immunity to the original plaintiffs in the settlement.
Senators' Concerns Addressed
Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who had both resisted supporting Blanche until clear assurances were given, said their concerns had been met. Cornyn emphasized the importance of the agreement in future legal actions and said it was crucial for maintaining oversight. Tillis described the anti-weaponization fund as a “payout pot for punks” and confirmed it would no longer be in play. The two senators had been instrumental in pressuring Blanche to provide written confirmation that the fund was being permanently scrapped.
Cornyn and Tillis faced public criticism from Trump over the weekend for pressuring Blanche to put the fund’s cancellation in writing. Trump responded by threatening to keep Blanche in an acting capacity if the full Senate failed to confirm him. He also hinted at pushing to establish the fund through new legislation, suggesting he would work with Congress to achieve this goal. The pressure from the two senators had already led to Trump’s anger, showing how deeply this issue divided even his own party.
Though the fund was rescinded, the original settlement language leaves the door open for a future attorney general—or even Trump himself, with Congress’s backing—to try to revive it. In his official statement, Blanche highlighted that the fund had never actually become operational. No board had been appointed, no money had been transferred, and no claims had been filed or processed. While this clarification may have eased concerns about immediate financial consequences, it did not eliminate the possibility of the fund being reactivated in the future through legal or legislative action.
Settlement Terms and Reactions
The settlement also included broad immunity for Trump and his immediate family from future tax audits. This raised alarms among critics and lawmakers. The Department of Justice, however, clarified that the protection was limited to the original plaintiffs in the case and did not extend to a blanket immunity. The clarification aimed to address concerns about how the settlement might be interpreted in relation to Trump’s personal financial affairs and past investigations.
Despite the compromise reached with Cornyn and Tillis, Blanche still faces significant opposition from Democrats in the full Senate. His close ties to the White House, including his former role as one of Trump’s personal legal representatives, have raised doubts about his ability to lead an independent Justice Department. Many Democrats believe the attorney general must remain impartial and not serve the agenda of the sitting president, making Blanche’s nomination a test of both party unity and legal integrity.
Political Opposition and Criticism
Critics argue that the Department of Justice has a duty to operate independently, free from the influence of any administration. The nomination of someone so closely aligned with the president is seen as a potential conflict of interest. The full Senate vote will likely highlight the tensions between party loyalty and the need for impartial governance.
On Tuesday, Blanche was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 12-10 vote along party lines, the last major step before his confirmation is put to a full vote in the Senate in the coming days. The vote followed days of delay after Cornyn and Tillis voiced concerns over Blanche’s close relationship to Trump and the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponisation” fund. A federal judge has accused Blanche of double-dealing in the proceedings, alleging he was working on behalf of both the president’s personal interests and the government agency he was meant to defend. While experts have questioned whether the documents voiding the fund would be legally binding, Cornyn and Tillis shifted on Monday, saying they would support Blanche’s nomination.
Democrats on the committee, all of whom voted against Blanche’s nomination, accused Republicans of papering over concerns related to Blanche’s loyalty to Trump. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said, “citizens want and truly deserve an independent and transparent Department of Justice.” “I don’t think Mr Blanche can or even wants to deliver on that goal,” he said. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin charged Blanche has “aided and abetted the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States.” Of particular concern has been Blanche’s apparent willingness as acting attorney general to prosecute Trump’s political enemies. That includes former FBI Director James Comey, who was indicted for allegedly threatening the president with a social media post containing the numbers “86 47”. The term “86” emerged from the restaurant industry, referring to removing an item from a menu. The term “47” has been seen as a reference to Trump, the 47th president of the US. Legal experts have questioned the strength of the case, arguing the vague message likely falls under protected political speech.
Republican Tillis argued both parties have had a problem with the “weaponisation” of the federal justice system in recent years. “I’m going to support Mr Blanche’s nomination, but what I hope I see out of him is a bending of the curve of this absurdity,” he said.