Blanche defends $1.8B 'anti-weaponization' fund amid Democratic skepticism

Todd Blanche sat before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday afternoon and spent more than two hours defending something that didn't exist a week earlier: a $1.8 billion fund designed to compensate people the Justice Department determines were wronged by what it calls weaponization of federal power. The acting attorney general, who took over the department after President Trump fired his predecessor in April, had arrived prepared to discuss violent crime and drug trafficking. Instead, nearly every question turned to the fund, announced Monday alongside Trump's decision to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns.

Blanche conceded the arrangement was unusual, but insisted it operated without limits. Anyone could apply. Republicans, Democrats, people connected to January 6, people with no political affiliation whatsoever—the door was open to all. "There's no limitation on the claims," he said. Yet when pressed on specifics, his answers grew thin. None of the five commissioners who would actually decide who gets paid had been chosen. Those commissioners, whenever they were appointed, would write the rules for distributing the money. Blanche offered no timeline, no criteria, no framework beyond the assertion that the fund existed and was fair.

Democratic senators treated the fund as a transparent scheme to use taxpayer money to reward the president's allies. "Rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene," said Senator Chris Van Hollen. "Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self-dealing scheme." Senator Jeff Merkley pressed Blanche on a specific question: would people convicted of assaulting police officers on January 6 be eligible for compensation? Blanche deflected. "I will definitely encourage the commissioners to take everything into account," he said. When Merkley pushed harder—"You feel they should get compensation after being convicted of violent acts?"—Blanche replied flatly: "My feelings don't matter, Senator."

Blanche attempted to reframe the fund by comparing it to an Obama-era program that compensated Native American farmers alleging discrimination by the Department of Agriculture. The comparison collapsed under scrutiny. That settlement had been court-supervised, subject to judicial oversight. This fund would not. It would operate under the Justice Department's sole authority, with no external check on how the money flowed or to whom.

The acting attorney general returned repeatedly to a core grievance: that the Biden administration and former Attorney General Merrick Garland had weaponized the Justice Department against Trump and his circle. The fund, in this telling, was not a gift to allies but a correction of systemic abuse. "The idea that it is a 'slush fund,' which it's not," Blanche said, "only goes to prove Trump's claim that the Biden administration sought to destroy the previous administration." He added that Trump himself would not benefit financially. "President Trump isn't taking a dime," he said at the hearing's close.

The Epstein matter surfaced as well. Blanche faced questions about ongoing investigations into sex trafficking allegations connected to the late financier and those around him. When asked whether the Justice Department had open investigations, Blanche's response was terse: "He's dead." The question had become urgent after the previous attorney general, Pam Bondi, was fired in April—a departure widely attributed to her handling of Epstein-related matters. Blanche said investigations would continue if evidence supported them, but he would not base inquiries on political affiliation. Senator Merkley remained unconvinced. "This president has repeatedly spoken of an enemies list that he wants to go after," Merkley said, "and I must say it's one of the symbols of the breakdown of a democratic republic."

Blanche's testimony revealed the central tension of his position. He had been Trump's lawyer in two federal cases before taking over the Justice Department, and he was now clearly auditioning for the permanent attorney general role. His strategy involved a series of high-profile announcements: indictments against former FBI Director James Comey, charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center, rollbacks of gun control measures, and subpoenas to journalists for their sources. The anti-weaponization fund fit this pattern—a sweeping gesture that signaled realignment of the department's priorities. But the fund's vagueness, the absence of commissioners, the lack of any public standard for eligibility, and the timing alongside Trump's dropped lawsuit against the IRS created exactly the appearance Blanche insisted did not exist. The hearing ended with fundamental questions unanswered: who would decide who got paid, by what standard, and whether the fund would ultimately serve as a tool of political reward or genuine redress.