Illustration depicting the DOJ policy reversal after Blanche rescinded the Trump anti-weaponization fund before the attorney general confirmation process.

Blanche Rescinds Trump's Anti-Weaponization Fund Ahead of Attorney General Confirmation

In a dramatic last-minute reversal, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has formally rescinded a controversial $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that had been holding up his Senate confirmation to become the next U.S. Attorney General. The move, announced late Sunday night just days before a scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee vote, appears to have cleared the biggest remaining obstacle standing between Blanche and one of the most powerful law enforcement positions in the country.

Here's a full breakdown of what happened, why the fund was so contentious, and what it means for Blanche's path to confirmation.

What Is the Anti-Weaponization Fund?

The Anti-Weaponization Fund was established through an order dated May 18, 2026, during Blanche's tenure as acting head of the Department of Justice. The fund was created as part of a legal settlement resolving a roughly $10 billion lawsuit that President Donald Trump had filed against the Internal Revenue Service.

Rather than simply closing out that legal dispute, the settlement set aside close to $1.8 billion, which critics say was designed to compensate individuals and groups the administration considered to have been unfairly targeted or "weaponized" against by federal agencies during previous administrations. Opponents of the fund argued it functioned less like a legal remedy and more like a mechanism for rewarding political allies with taxpayer-linked settlement money — a characterization that led detractors to label it a "slush fund."

Defenders of the arrangement framed it differently, describing it as a legitimate settlement outcome tied to correcting past instances of alleged government overreach. As with most politically charged funding disputes, the two sides describe the same set of facts in very different terms.

Why the Fund Became a Confirmation Roadblock

Blanche has served as acting Attorney General since April 2026, when Trump removed Pam Bondi from the role. Since then, Blanche has been formally nominated to hold the position on a permanent basis, a nomination that requires Senate confirmation.

That confirmation process hit a wall when two Republican senators — John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — announced they would not support Blanche's nomination unless the Justice Department provided written assurances that the Anti-Weaponization Fund would not move forward. The senators also raised concerns about a related Justice Department order that appeared to shield Trump, his family members, and associated businesses from further IRS audits tied to past tax filings.

Both senators occupy somewhat unusual positions within their own party on this issue. Cornyn recently lost his primary race to Trump-backed challenger Ken Paxton, while Tillis — a frequent critic of the president — has already announced he will not seek re-election when his term ends in January. Their independence from needing Trump's continued political support may have given them more room to push back than other Republican lawmakers facing tighter political calculations.

For several weeks, the standoff created real uncertainty about whether Blanche's nomination would advance at all. At one point last week, Trump reportedly floated the idea of temporarily withdrawing Blanche's nomination altogether, suggesting he could keep Blanche in the acting role and renominate him formally once Cornyn and Tillis were no longer in the Senate. Trump also indicated over the weekend that, regardless of the confirmation outcome, he intended to push Congress to codify a version of the anti-weaponization fund into law separately.

The Sunday Night Reversal

The standoff broke late Sunday, when Blanche posted directly to X announcing that he was formally rescinding the fund. In his post, Blanche indicated that his team had spent the previous several weeks in direct discussions with senators and committee members to address their concerns, describing the negotiations as productive.

Attached to that post was a formal order stating that the original May 18, 2026 directive establishing the Anti-Weaponization Fund was rescinded and would have no further force or effect. Blanche also issued a second, related order clarifying the scope of the earlier arrangement tied to the IRS settlement — specifically addressing the language around limits on future audits connected to Trump's past tax filings.

A spokesperson for Senator Cornyn confirmed shortly afterward that an agreement had been reached with the Justice Department, signaling that at least one of the two holdout senators considered his concerns resolved. Tillis, for his part, had written just a day earlier that he did not expect to support Blanche's confirmation given Trump's public comments suggesting the fund could be revived through legislation — though he also expressed hope that the matter could still be resolved before Tuesday's scheduled vote.

What Happens Next in the Confirmation Process

With the fund formally rescinded, the immediate procedural hurdle facing Blanche's nomination appears to have been cleared. The Senate Judiciary Committee has a nomination vote scheduled for Tuesday, and Sunday's announcement significantly improves the odds that Blanche can move forward without further delay from Cornyn or Tillis.

Still, a few open questions remain:

• Will Tillis follow Cornyn's lead? While Cornyn's office confirmed a resolution, Tillis had not issued a matching statement of support as of Sunday night, leaving some uncertainty about whether both senators are fully on board.
• Could the fund resurface through legislation? Trump has already signaled interest in asking Congress to formally codify a version of the anti-weaponization concept, which means the underlying policy debate may not be fully settled even though the original executive order has been withdrawn.
• How will the audit-related clarification be interpreted? The second order Blanche issued, addressing the scope of protections related to IRS audits tied to Trump's past tax filings, is likely to draw its own scrutiny separate from the fund itself.

Why This Story Matters Beyond the Confirmation Vote

Attorney General confirmations don't typically generate this level of last-minute drama, especially over a dispute involving a relatively obscure settlement fund rather than a nominee's personal record or qualifications. But the episode highlights a few broader dynamics playing out in Washington.

First, it illustrates how even a president's own party can slow down a nomination when senators believe institutional or fiscal concerns are at stake — particularly senators like Cornyn and Tillis, who have less to lose politically given their circumstances heading into future election cycles.

Second, the dispute underscores ongoing tension over how the Justice Department settles high-profile legal disputes involving the president personally. Settlement structures that direct funds toward politically aligned individuals or groups tend to draw intense scrutiny, regardless of which administration is involved, because they blur the line between resolving legal liability and directing government resources toward political allies.

Finally, the fact that Trump has already suggested pursuing a legislative version of the fund suggests this issue may resurface in a different form even with the original order rescinded. Confirmation fights over personnel are often resolved through compromise language or rescinded orders, but the underlying policy disagreements frequently continue through other channels — in this case, potentially through future congressional action.

Background on Todd Blanche

Blanche previously served as one of Trump's personal defense attorneys before joining the Justice Department. His rise to acting Attorney General came after Trump removed Pam Bondi from the position in April 2026, positioning Blanche as the administration's choice to lead the department on a permanent basis. His nomination has been viewed as a signal of the administration's continued preference for placing personally trusted figures in top law enforcement roles.

Blanche appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in mid-July as part of his confirmation hearings, where questions about the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the related IRS settlement terms were reportedly among the most contentious topics raised by committee members.

Key Takeaways

• Todd Blanche, Trump's nominee for Attorney General, rescinded the $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" late Sunday night ahead of a scheduled Senate confirmation vote.
• The fund had been established in May 2026 as part of a settlement tied to Trump's IRS lawsuit, and was criticized by opponents as a mechanism to direct settlement funds toward political allies.
• Republican Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis had blocked Blanche's confirmation over concerns about the fund and a related IRS audit protection order.
• Cornyn's office confirmed a resolution following Blanche's announcement; Tillis's position remained less clear heading into Tuesday's vote.
• Trump has indicated he may still push for a legislative version of the fund, suggesting the underlying policy debate could continue even after the executive order was withdrawn.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the Anti-Weaponization Fund used for? It was established as part of a settlement resolving a lawsuit Trump filed against the IRS, setting aside close to $1.8 billion. Critics say it was intended to compensate political allies; supporters characterized it as a legitimate settlement remedy.

Why did Senate Republicans block Blanche's confirmation? Senators Cornyn and Tillis withheld support until they received assurances that the Justice Department would not move forward with the fund, along with concerns about a related order limiting future IRS audits connected to Trump's past taxes.

Is Blanche now confirmed as Attorney General? Not yet. As of this rescission, Blanche's nomination is still headed toward a Senate Judiciary Committee vote, with final Senate confirmation still required afterward.

Could the fund come back in a different form? Possibly. Trump has suggested he may ask Congress to codify a similar fund through legislation, separate from the now-rescinded executive order.