Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche reiterated on Wednesday that the Justice Department has no plans to launch a $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund, despite the fund being part of a controversial settlement between President Trump and the IRS. The settlement agreement, which has not been amended in federal court, has drawn bipartisan criticism and legal scrutiny.
Core Facts
Blanche told the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing that the fund is "dead," despite the settlement language remaining unchanged. The fund was intended to pay victims of alleged government "weaponization" and granted immunity to Trump, his sons, and related companies from future tax claims.
A federal judge in Miami sanctioned a Trump attorney earlier this week, finding the president pursued the lawsuit "for an improper purpose." The ruling raised questions about whether Blanche and Stanley Woodward, the No. 3 official at the Justice Department, violated ethical rules by citing the settlement in formal proceedings.
Deeper Dive & Context
Bipartisan Concerns
Both Democratic and Republican senators expressed concerns about the Justice Department's handling of the case. The settlement states that any changes must be agreed upon in writing by all parties, but no formal amendments have been filed.
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas read from the settlement, noting that modifications require "written agreement of the parties." He questioned whether such an agreement had been reached.
Legal and Ethical Questions
The Miami judge's ruling barred Blanche and Woodward from citing the settlement as evidence in court or government proceedings. The ruling also raised ethical questions about their involvement in the case.
Settlement Details
The settlement granted immunity to Trump, his two oldest sons, his company, and related entities from future tax claims. The fund was intended to compensate victims of alleged government "weaponization," but Blanche insisted it would not be established.
Ongoing Scrutiny
The lack of formal amendments to the settlement has fueled criticism from both sides of the aisle. The Justice Department has yet to clarify how the settlement will be enforced or modified, leaving the issue unresolved.