Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche repeatedly told Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) that the Justice Department’s proposed $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund is dead, despite the Texas Republican’s insistence that the underlying settlement agreement remains legally enforceable. The fund was designed to provide monetary relief and formal apologies to Americans who claimed they had been targeted through politically motivated prosecutions, investigations, or other forms of government “lawfare.” Cornyn’s concern was that President Donald Trump or another plaintiff could eventually sue to force the department to create the fund because its removal has not been put in writing. Blanche said no such lawsuit could change the reality that the fund never opened, received no money, and will not be revived.
The contentious exchange occurred during Blanche’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee as he sought approval to serve as Attorney General. Cornyn, who has been treated as a potential swing vote on the nomination, centered his questioning on the Anti-Weaponization Fund created through a settlement between Trump, his sons, the Trump Organization, the IRS, and the Treasury Department. Trump and the other plaintiffs had sued over the unlawful disclosure of their confidential tax returns.
Under the original settlement, the Justice Department was supposed to receive $1.776 billion from the federal Judgement Fund and establish a five-member commission to review claims from people who said they had suffered government weaponization or lawfare. The commission would have been authorized to award monetary compensation and issue formal apologies, with any unused money eventually returning to the federal government. Trump and the other plaintiffs were not awarded personal damages through the agreement. They instead received a formal apology and agreed to dismiss their lawsuit and withdraw two additional administrative claims.
The Justice Department originally announced the fund in May, saying it would create a process for victims of improper political, personal, or ideological targeting to seek relief. The department later abandoned the plan following opposition from lawmakers. That reversal produced the dispute at Blanche’s hearing; Cornyn wanted to know whether declaring the fund dead was enough when the written settlement still contained language requiring its creation.
“First of all, I believe you have said that the weaponization fund is a moot issue. Is that your position?” Cornyn asked. Blanche did not hedge his response. “Yes, it is a moot issue, meaning there is no weaponization fund,” he said. “The weaponization fund is dead. It’s not moving forward.”
Cornyn then pointed to page four of the settlement agreement, which said the agreement could be modified only through the written consent of the parties. He asked whether Trump and the other parties had signed anything formally deleting the fund from the deal. “No, the settlement fund is just not moving forward,” Blanche answered. “There’s no modification. It’s just—it never started. No money went from the Treasury to any other account. There’s no commissioners. It’s not moving forward.”
Watch the exchange here:
"*" indicates required fields
Cornyn acknowledged Blanche’s answer but pressed him on whether the original settlement remained enforceable as a contract. Blanche agreed that the document itself was enforceable and said Trump’s attorneys could theoretically claim that the department breached the agreement by refusing to proceed. However, he rejected the idea that the plaintiffs could compel DOJ to establish and operate the fund. “They could try to enforce the contract,” Blanche said. “They can’t force the Department of Justice to move forward with the weaponization fund.”
Blanche added that neither Trump nor the other plaintiffs had filed a breach-of-contract claim and that he was unaware of any plans to do so. He also said the department would support an effort by Congress to codify the fund’s cancellation and eliminate any lingering disagreement about its status. “I have talked extensively with you and other colleagues about potentially codifying so there’s no weaponization fund, which is certainly something that could be done,” Blanche told Cornyn. “We very much are okay with that.”
Cornyn remained focused on the absence of a signed amendment. “But just to be clear, the president of the United States, who was the plaintiff in this lawsuit, has not agreed in writing to delete the weaponization fund,” he said. Cornyn added that there was no guarantee Trump or another plaintiff would not bring a breach-of-contract lawsuit in the future. Blanche responded that the plaintiffs had never possessed authority to administer the fund, select recipients, approve claims, or distribute federal money.
“Well, Senator, the plaintiffs have no power over the fund,” Blanche said. He explained that it would have been controlled by five commissioners working through the Justice Department, not by Trump or the other plaintiffs. “So no, they don’t have any power with respect to the fund at all,” he continued. “I suppose they could bring a lawsuit, and then we would litigate it. But even if we were litigating it, there’s no fund. So the results of such litigation, whatever it would be, wouldn’t be revival of the fund.”
Featured image credit: screengrab from the embedded video.