Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed at a congressional hearing Tuesday that the Trump administration is abandoning its $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund after the plan drew widespread criticism and warnings that it would serve as a “slush fund” of taxpayer money benefitting President Trump’s allies.
“We are not moving forward with the fund. Period,” Blanche told lawmakers at a Tuesday afternoon oversight hearing of a House Appropriations subcommittee.
The Justice Department said Monday that it would abide by a court order halting work on the fund at least until a hearing scheduled for June 12, but the statement left some uncertainty as to whether the administration was dropping the plan and doing so permanently.
Those questions left a cloud over Republican efforts to move ahead this week with a $70-plus billion budget reconciliation bill to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. The Senate last month had to scrap a planned vote on that funding bill amid a bipartisan backlash to the “anti-weaponization” fund and a separate $1 billion proposal that included money for Trump’s White House ballroom.
Blanche on Monday defended the impetus behind the “anti-weaponization” fund even as he sought to make clear that it is dead. “The reasons for the fund I think remain as important as they were before, but we are not moving forward with the fund,” he said.
Democratic Rep. Grace Meng asked if that meant the administration would never proceed with the fund.
“Correct,” Blanche said.
Blanche added that the administration is still moving ahead with other parts of the settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leaking of his tax records. Trump, two of his sons and his business dropped the suit last month in a deal that led to the announcement of the “anti-weaponization” fund. The agreement also barred the IRS “forever” from pursuing “any and all claims” regarding past tax filings that have been or could be filed against Trump and the other plaintiffs in the case. That portion of the deal reportedly could benefit Trump to the tune of $100 million.
“Nothing has changed with that,” Blanche said.
Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro expressed outrage over what she described as broad immunity for Trump and his family and a conflict of interest given Blanche’s former service as Trump’s personal attorney.
Blanche argued that portion of the agreement was normal as part of a settlement and did not represent broad immunity for Trump or the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “It’s standard. It’s typical,” he said.
A federal judge last week reopened the dropped IRS lawsuit and launched an inquiry into the suit and settlement agreement.
Some Republican senators on Tuesday objected to the ongoing bar of Trump audits. Sen. John Curtis of Utah reportedly called that portion of the deal “part of the problem” and said he wants it struck down, too. “I need it dead, dead,” Curtis said.
The bottom line: Lawmakers worried that the “anti-weaponization” fund was only mostly dead — and everybody knows that there’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Blanche’s testimony provides some assurance that the administration won’t pursue the controversial fund, but Democrats still want to get that commitment in writing, and the audit portion of the deal could still prove to be a contentious political issue that creates problems for Republicans.