Acting AG Reverses Course on Anti-Weaponization Fund
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified to lawmakers Tuesday that the Justice Department has abandoned its plans for an "anti-weaponization fund" to compensate people who say they were wrongly prosecuted, marking a reversal after Republican congressional pressure.
Objective Facts
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified to lawmakers Tuesday that the Justice Department has abandoned its plans for an "anti-weaponization fund" to compensate people who say they were wrongly prosecuted by the government. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers the Justice Department is "not moving forward" with President Donald Trump's contentious $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund, following pressure from GOP sources as Senate GOP leaders pressed for a vote on Trump's $70 billion bill to fund immigration enforcement priorities. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Tuesday that the department was abandoning the fund but would not drop the second IRS provision of the deal. Blanche also told Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut during the hearing that the rest of the settlement between the IRS and Mr. Trump, from which the weaponization fund stemmed, remains in place, including the government's agreement to refrain from auditing any of the president or his family's previous tax returns. Democrats are skeptical of the commitment's permanence, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calling the administration's words "worthless" and saying Democrats still plan to force votes on abolishing the fund.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, said the Trump administration had engaged in "perhaps the most brazing acts of flagrant corruption," calling it "a corrupt payout scheme for the president and his political allies. It is shameful." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Monday that Senate Democrats will move to permanently stop President Donald Trump's controversial $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund and to "ensure no president can ever do this again". Democrats view Blanche's reversal as insufficient and potentially temporary. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday called the administration's words "worthless" and said Democrats still plan to force votes on abolishing the fund. Skye Perryman, the head of Democracy Forward, which filed the suit that led to the pause on the fund, called for Blanche to stand by his word in court, saying "If you can say it on TV, you should say it in court". In a "Dear Colleague" letter, Schumer had laid out plans for Democrats' to "launch a coordinated effort to kill the slush fund before one cent goes out the door" by introducing amendments to the reconciliation package, calling the fund Trump's "most brazen act of self-dealing" and "one of the most corrupt schemes ever launched by a president". Left-leaning coverage emphasizes the fund's connection to Trump's personal benefit through the IRS settlement. Rep. Rosa DeLauro said, "Simply put, you just gave the president's family a tax immunity to the tune of about $100 million," referring to the amount that The New York Times last month estimated could be the tax liability that Trump would have faced under a previously pending IRS audit. Democrats argue the reversal is only on the compensation fund itself, leaving intact the more significant prize—the IRS settlement that protects Trump from audit.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Republican reaction to the reversal was mixed, with many senators pressuring the administration to drop the fund for strategic rather than principled reasons. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said "It's pretty clear that the president has to say very explicitly that there's not going to be a weaponization fund," while Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.) added he wants the administration to set "this whole thing aside," permanently. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said Blanche "encountered a groundswell of opposition" at a private GOP meeting, noting there were "fireworks at an epic level — and I've got to say, it's one of the roughest meetings I've seen in my entire time in the Senate". However, some conservative voices remained committed to the principle of compensation. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina wrote that "it is imperative that we allow people with meritorious weaponization claims to come forward and receive compensation through this fund," and proposed to create "a weaponization fund that will be available to those who can prove their claim against the federal government through the Federal Tort Claims Act." Notably, The Wall Street Journal's editorial board decried the Justice Department's (DOJ) new "anti-weaponization fund," slamming the "rotten" nearly $2 billion fund in a Tuesday opinion piece. Right-leaning coverage differs from left-leaning in framing the reversal as pragmatic political necessity rather than a corruption scandal. GOP leaders believed it was possible to move forward on immigration funding even with a razor-thin margin since many GOP senators were using their votes as leverage until the Justice Department killed the program. Conservative outlets report this as Trump sacrificing a priority to unblock his immigration agenda rather than an admission of wrongdoing.
Deep Dive
The reversal reflects a rare moment of internal Republican pressure overriding a Trump administration priority. Senate Republicans departed for recess without passing President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement package after the Justice Department's controversial "anti-weaponization" fund sparked revolt within the GOP, with GOP senators saying they were blindsided by the $1.8 billion fund for individuals claiming they had been unfairly treated by past Justice Departments. The core tension was procedural: the bill would be subject to a marathon voting process known as a "vote-a-rama" where senators would have to vote on politically toxic amendments, which meant Senate Democrats could force Republican senators to vote repeatedly on eliminating the fund—an untenable position months before a midterm election. What each side gets right: Republicans correctly identified that the fund lacked adequate legal guardrails and oversight mechanisms for distributing $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds. Democrats correctly identified the structural conflict of interest: Trump simultaneously sued the government he oversees, received a $1.8 billion fund as settlement, and was promised audit immunity—all through the same IRS deal. Neither side is wrong on these points. What left-leaning coverage misses is acknowledging why Blanche's oral commitment proved enough to unblock legislation—GOP leadership calculated the political risk was contained with the fund eliminated. What right-leaning coverage downplays is that Blanche deliberately refused to put the commitment in writing, maintaining ambiguity that allowed the fund to legally remain settleable. The unresolved question is durability: A White House official said the statement was the first step toward dropping the fund, but the official cautioned that President Trump could change his mind. Blanche's refusal to file a formal rescission memo creates the possibility of reversal if Trump's political calculations change. US District Judge Kathleen Williams said she was considering reopening an unprecedented case brought by Trump, two of his children and the Trump Organization against the government that was dropped in recent weeks after the settlement was inked, at the urging of nearly three dozen former federal judges, with Williams ordered Trump to respond to accusations that the case itself represented a "fraud" on the court. This creates additional legal jeopardy that could force the administration's hand regardless of political preference.