The agreement won over two Republican senators who had threatened to block Blanche’s nomination. Opponents say the underlying settlement remains largely untouched.
Todd Blanche reached a deal to halt a Trump-related slush fund on Sunday evening, withdrawing an 18 May order that allowed creation of a $1.8 billion “weaponization fund.” Critics called the deal completely hollow because, they say, Donald Trump could easily reverse it, but the compromise with two Republican senators could clear the way for Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general.
Democrats and several experts denounced Blanche’s move as a political fix more than a legal one. The central question now is whether the Department of Justice has actually killed the fund, or merely paused a plan that could return under another order, another name or another claims process.
A deal that unlocked votes
The agreement was worked out with Republican senators John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who had raised objections to Blanche’s nomination. After Blanche released two documents Sunday, both senators said Monday they would support him when the Senate judiciary committee takes up his vote Tuesday.
Cornyn and Tillis said the justice department had issued a formal order terminating the anti-weaponization fund. They also said the department acknowledged, in writing, that a related audit settlement was limited to the plaintiffs and defendants in that case, rather than creating broader protections.
For Blanche, the timing matters. A nomination that appeared to be in trouble gained two important Republican votes after the department moved to address the senators’ stated concerns.
For critics, that is exactly the problem. They argue the documents solved a Senate math problem without binding the administration in a durable way.
What Blanche actually withdrew
Blanche, the acting attorney general, posted two documents showing that he was rescinding the 18 May justice department order that had allowed for the creation of the $1.8 billion weaponization fund. He also clarified that broad tax immunity granted by the department applied retroactively only to Trump, his sons and their businesses.
The fund grew out of a lawsuit brought by Trump, his sons and his business against the federal government over the unauthorized release of Trump’s tax returns. The suit sought billions in damages. According to reporting cited by The Guardian, the justice department did not mount a defense in the case.
A federal judge later described the lawsuit as a “bad-faith” effort designed to engineer a favorable outcome for Trump. The New York Times reported in May that the tax immunity provision could potentially free Trump from a $100 million penalty tied to past audits of his returns.
The proposed fund drew criticism because of both its size and its design. It would have been overseen by five commissioners, most appointed by the attorney general, and it was not required to publicly disclose who received money or how much they received.
Why critics call it hollow
The strongest objection from Democrats and legal experts is technical but important: Blanche withdrew the justice department order, but critics say he did not change the underlying settlement agreement that made the fund possible.
Brandon DeBot, policy director at the Tax Law Center at NYU, said in a statement that the assurances were “not worth the paper they’re written on.” He argued the move did not stop ongoing attempts to give Trump, his family and affiliates unauthorized immunity from tax audits, and did not prevent the fund from being revived.
Virginia Canter, chief counsel and director of ethics and anti-corruption at Democracy Defenders Action, called the agreement “completely hollow.” Her argument is that the settlement itself cannot be changed without the consent of all parties, leaving Blanche or the administration room to reverse course.
That concern was reinforced by Blanche’s own testimony. During his confirmation hearing, he acknowledged that Trump or his sons, as plaintiffs in the case, could theoretically sue to enforce the agreement.
Trump’s praise sharpened doubts
Trump spent the weekend praising the fund and, according to the report, threatening to revive it. On Monday, he again defended the idea, saying people involved had been treated “so horribly” and that the fund could have given them “some solace.”
He also said he had not seen Blanche’s agreement. “I don’t know what they agreed to,” Trump said.
That disconnect is one reason opponents are not treating the announcement as a settled matter. If the president supports the fund and the underlying settlement remains in place, critics say a rescinded order may not be enough to prevent a future payout mechanism.
Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee, said Blanche’s announcement did not stop the justice department and Trump from creating the weaponization fund under a different name. He described the move as “hollow words” designed to reassure Cornyn and Tillis while leaving the broader scheme intact.
Other payout paths remain
Even if this specific fund never goes forward, Democrats point to other legal routes that could still produce federal payouts. One is the Federal Tort Claims Act, a process that allows people to seek damages from the government by filing a claim and, if necessary, bringing a lawsuit.
The justice department has broad discretion over whether to settle such cases. Some January 6 defendants are already pursuing claims for millions of dollars through that process, according to the report.
Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, argued on X that the deal does not prevent future payouts to what he called “violent insurrectionists.” He also warned that the administration could revive the fund or use the justice department’s Judgment Fund for a similar purpose.
Those claims are part of the broader dispute over whether the controversy is only about one fund, or about the administration’s ability to use settlement authority and claims processes to direct public money with limited transparency.
What remains unresolved
Watchdog group Democracy Forward, which sued over the fund and secured a court order stopping it, sent a letter to the justice department Monday pressing for more concrete commitments. The group said Blanche still had not stated under oath that the fund was not moving forward.
Democracy Forward also asked whether the justice department would seek to amend the underlying settlement agreement. That is the key legal move critics say would matter more than rescinding the department’s own order.
Skye Perryman, the group’s president, accused the department and Blanche of trying to “have their cake and eat it too” by reassuring senators while avoiding firm commitments in court about the fund’s future.
The immediate political result is clear: Blanche appears closer to confirmation after satisfying two skeptical Republican senators. The legal result is far murkier. Until the settlement itself is changed, or a court receives binding assurances, opponents will keep arguing that the $1.8 billion fund has not been killed so much as placed in storage.
Leave a Reply