Acting attorney general Todd Blanche has insisted for weeks that President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund is completely, undeniably dead.
Read more At typically tranquil Camp David, Trump publicly lashes out at political enemies
But on Friday, Trump twice undermined Blanche’s sworn testimony, first suggesting the fund — established to resolve his lawsuit against the IRS — was very much alive, and later conceding that it was dead but that he very much wished it were alive.
That contradiction has reinforced a fear among lawmakers of both parties that Trump could try to resurrect the fund at some point. And it helps explain the insistence by two Republican senators that Blanche do what attorneys say would be done in any ordinary situation: put the changes in writing.
“The President made it clear today that the so-called Anti Weaponization Fund is still alive, which is exactly why we are attempting to formally end it,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) said on social media in response to Trump’s Friday morning social media post.
In that post, Trump reiterated his strong belief that those targeted by government “weaponization” deserve compensation. “I will always feel that these victims of government abuse should be paid back for what they were forced to endure, their lives have been ruined!” he wrote, in what was widely seen as a reference to those who were prosecuted for attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Blanche’s reluctance to formally rewrite the Justice Department’s settlement with Trump could doom his chances of becoming the next confirmed attorney general of the United States.
Some critics said Blanche’s refusal to rewrite the agreement suggests a greater loyalty to Trump’s interests than those of the U.S. government, which should be his priority as attorney general.
“Todd Blanche is a lawyer who represents a defendant. The defendant happens to be the federal government,” said Anthony J. Sebok, professor at Cardozo School of Law. “It is extremely unusual for a defense to roll over so completely without providing even the minimum of an aggressive and zealous defense of their client.”
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Blanche said during his confirmation hearing that there is no reason to amend the agreement given the administration’s repeated public declarations that it no longer exists.
“It is a moot issue, meaning there is no weaponization fund,” Blanche said. “The weaponization fund is dead. It’s not moving forward.”
It is unclear whether Trump, or another White House official, is directing Blanche to reject the senators’ demands. Trump’s comments Friday suggest the president has no interest in compromising with Tillis or Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
But legal experts said that as the acting attorney general, Blanche should be expected to employ best legal practices, which include putting changes to any existing agreement in writing rather than insisting that oral assurances should suffice.
Tillis and Cornyn have said they will not vote to advance Blanche’s nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee until he not only ends the weaponization fund in writing but also formally limits another part of the deal protecting the Trump family from previous tax claims.
“Asking him to confirm that this is dead is in a sense asking him to display decent and reasonable legal judgment,” said Benjamin C. Zipursky, professor at Fordham Law School. “Do you have sufficient detachment to see when something is plainly and legally unacceptable? We want to see that.”
The Justice Department’s May settlement with Trump — which resolved his lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns — included both the weaponization fund and tax protection provisions.
The weaponization fund faced an immediate backlash from Republicans and Democrats, who immediately began holding up legislation in protest. The Justice Department responded by saying it would no longer pursue the fund, though the tax protections for Trump were intact.
But because the settlement’s terms have not been updated in writing, Blanche conceded at his recent confirmation hearing that Trump could in theory try to resurrect the fund by suing the government for breaching the agreement.
Read more Photographer of viral ICE image threatens to sue super PAC for using it
“I suppose if President Trump’s counsel sought to enforce it, they potentially could,” Blanche told senators on July 15 before quickly revising his remarks. “Well, they could try to enforce the contract,” he said. “They can’t force the Department of Justice to move forward with the weaponization fund.”
Cornyn has questioned why the tax protection portion of the agreement was written so vaguely, saying a broad interpretation could mean that more than 100 Trump family entities could receive this tax shield. He asked if Blanche would rewrite the agreement to clarify that the protections apply only to Trump, his two sons and the Trump organization — the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the IRS.
Cornyn also demanded clarification that the deal would only give Trump protection from IRS audits — and not also from Justice Department and Security Exchange Commission investigations.
Blanche responded, “In this case, it binds only the IRS and, by extension, the Treasury.” Cornyn fired back, “Well, I hear what you’re saying, but I certainly don’t read that in the agreement.”
Blanche has said that Cornyn’s narrow reading of the settlement is accurate — it applies only to Trump and the other plaintiffs, and only to past claims by the IRS. So there is no need to amend it, he added.
Cornyn and Tillis have suggested that the White House, not Blanche, is the main source of resistance to updating and formalizing the agreement.
“It’s a shame his confirmation has hit a snag only because an incompetent personal advisor to the President refuses to amend the bogus settlement,” Tillis wrote on social media.
But Tillis did not name the advisor or give any evidence for his claim, and Trump on Friday made clear his personal resistance to the senators’ demands, dismissing Cornyn as “very angry” because Trump endorsed his primary opponent.
The federal judge assigned to oversee Trump’s IRS suit denounced the deal, which was reached without her approval, as an improper attempt to “manipulate” the court process. She decried the fact that there was no legitimate legal dispute between the parties, given that both sides ultimately reported to Trump.
Lawyers for Trump filed notice with the court Friday that they intend to appeal that ruling.
Trump has suggested he might withdraw Blanche’s nomination to become attorney general until next year, when both Cornyn and Tillis will be out of office.
But even if the nomination is pulled, Blanche, who is currently serving as deputy attorney general after being confirmed by the Senate to that position, could probably remain as the acting attorney general for an extended period.
Some legal experts said Blanche should be trying to put forth a settlement that could withstand legal scrutiny.
Cassandra Burke Robertson, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said the government — unlike some private parties — generally cannot make legal promises outside of court, as Blanche is purporting to do. That high standard, she said, is because there are so many government employees who can make disparate statements on behalf of the administration.
“When the government is a party in a litigation, there is a higher expectation that any promises are made very formally through the litigation process,” she said. “These sort of informal, out-of-court statements — they aren’t enforceable against the government.”
Read more Trump blames Minnesota, not Iran, for cyberattack on water systems
