129

Blanche formally rescinds Trump’s $1.8bn ‘anti-weaponization fund’ ahead of nomination hearing (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Todd Blanche issues formal order terminating measure widely derided as a ‘slush fund’, in move that could clear path for his nomination as attorney general

Acting US attorney general Todd Blanche issued a formal order late on Sunday terminating Donald Trump’s $1.8bn “anti-weaponization fund” to compensate his political allies, a move that follows weeks of negotiations with two Republican senators who were blocking his nomination to become attorney general.

While Blanche has repeatedly said publicly that the fund was dead, the justice department had resisted formally confirming that in writing. That had drawn concern from lawmakers that it could be revived in some form, especially after Trump expressed continued support for the idea.

A spokesperson for Texas Senator John Cornyn, one of the senators holding up Blanche’s nomination, confirmed the agreement. The other GOP senator, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, did not have immediate comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

There's a new Guardian article now that addresses the sham of the confirmation agreement:

‘Completely hollow’: critics denounce Blanche deal to halt Trump slush fund

“These assurances are not worth the paper they’re written on,” Brandon DeBot, policy director at the Tax Law Center at NYU, said in a statement. “They don’t pull back on the ongoing attempts to give the president, his family, and his affiliates unauthorized immunity from tax audits. They don’t do anything new to stop the president from trying to bring back the fund, as he threatened to this weekend. It’s abundantly clear we need congressional action.”

The documents Blanche released only say the prior justice department order creating the weaponization fund is rescinded. It does not modify the original settlement agreement creating the fund, reached as the result of a Trump lawsuit seeking billions in damages for the unauthorized release of his tax returns.

Blanche acknowledged during his confirmation hearing that Trump or his sons – the plaintiffs in the case – could theoretically sue to enforce the agreement. Trump spent the weekend praising the slush fund, and even threatened to revive it.

Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee, said Blanche’s announcement does nothing to prevent the justice department and Trump from creating the weaponization fund under a different name.

Raskin said: “These hollow words are an affront to the American people, Congress and the courts, and are clearly designed to lull Senators Cornyn and Tillis into a false sense that their legitimate concerns have been addressed while leaving Blanche’s corrupt scheme fully intact.”

There's more if you're interested, but no one thinks for two seconds that this is legitimate, or more importantly, that it's actually going away. It's not going anywhere, because Blanche is going out of his way to ensure that it can be resurrected with any legal challenge by the orange chancre or his spawn.

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026

129 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30654 readers

1936 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News