The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12 to 10 on Tuesday, August 4 to advance Todd Blanche’s nomination to be attorney general, sending it to the full Senate. The vote fell along party lines. Republican leaders hope to hold a final confirmation vote before the Senate leaves for its August recess.
The vote followed a weekslong standoff. On Sunday night, August 2, Blanche posted two signed orders. The first rescinded the $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” stating that the May 18, 2026 order establishing it “is rescinded and shall have no force or effect.” The second clarified that the tax audit immunity in the same settlement applies only retroactively to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not shield future tax filings.
Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who had withheld their votes, announced Monday they would support advancing the nomination. Tillis said Tuesday: “It’s done. It’s been rescinded, and I am satisfied.”
Background
The fund originated in the settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The settlement created a fund to compensate people who claimed they had been targeted by the federal government, a category that could include participants in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, and it shielded Trump, his two eldest sons, and the Trump Organization from tax audits.
Both Cornyn and Tillis are retiring. Cornyn lost his primary to Ken Paxton after Trump endorsed against him. Tillis announced he would not seek reelection after Trump threatened to back a primary challenger. Because a single Republican defection on the 12-to-10 committee would have blocked the nomination, two departing senators held decisive leverage.
The standoff produced conflicting signals from the White House. Trump floated withdrawing the nomination and keeping Blanche as acting attorney general until both senators leave in January. He then demanded immediate approval while defending the fund at a Cabinet meeting, saying it was dead but that he wished it were not. He threatened on Saturday to push hard to revive it. He confirmed Monday that he had not signed Blanche’s order.
The Justice Department had told courts the fund was abandoned, and Blanche had testified to that effect, but officials had declined for weeks to put it in writing. That written document was the entire demand.
What Different Sides Are Saying
Cornyn and Tillis say they got what they asked for. Their joint statement said they had been clear from the outset that they needed a written document addressing both the audit agreement and the fund, including limiting audit protection to the parties of the settlement and legally ending the fund. On its own terms this is accurate: the documents exist and say what they demanded.
Blanche says the order settles the question. His order states that no members were appointed, no funds transferred, no claims process established, and no claims paid, concluding that it establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no fund. The historical claims are checkable and appear accurate. The conclusion is about the past, not the future.
Critics say the order does not prevent revival, and the specific mechanisms are worth stating. This is the substantive dispute, and several distinct arguments have been made. Blanche’s order does not say no comparable fund could be created later. Trump did not sign it, and the settlement reportedly requires all parties to agree to modifications, so the underlying agreement may remain enforceable by the other parties. Rupa Bhattacharyya, a former Justice Department attorney now at Georgetown Law, told CBS News the rescission has no legal effect and that Blanche could withdraw it the day he takes office. Sen. Dick Durbin argued the statements are unsigned by the settlement parties and therefore unenforceable, and that the fund could be revived shortly after confirmation.
Cornyn raised these loopholes himself. During Blanche’s confirmation hearing, Cornyn had asked about the settlement’s requirement that all parties agree to modifications. He then accepted an order that does not carry the other parties’ signatures. Both facts are on the record and we are not resolving the tension between them.
Plaintiffs in related litigation say the courts, not the order, stopped the fund. Lawyers whose clients obtained a court order blocking the fund wrote to senior Justice Department officials arguing that if the department truly intended to end it, it would submit the sworn declaration the court requested and amend the agreement that created it. They noted that Blanche’s statements do not repudiate Trump’s weekend comments about the fund being operational in the future.
A point both sides largely skip. Whatever happens to the fund, the settlement’s tax benefit to Trump personally remains. A judge has described the underlying lawsuit as an effort to manipulate the judicial process, since Trump sued a government he controls. The narrowing of the audit immunity to existing claims is real, and the immunity for those claims stands.
Note on Scope
Blanche has not been confirmed. The floor vote had not occurred as of this writing, and Blanche can lose up to three Republicans and still be confirmed by simple majority. Sen. John Curtis of Utah said last week he remained undecided, citing concerns about the same fund.
The fund’s amount appears as $1.8 billion, $1.78 billion, and $1.776 billion across sources. The precise settlement figure is $1.776 billion.
Whether the settlement in fact requires all parties’ consent to modification comes from reporting characterizing the agreement rather than from the document itself, which we have not reviewed.
Related Links
- Blanche rescinds $1.8B anti-weaponization fund in push for confirmation (NPR)
- Cornyn reaches deal to scrap DOJ fund, ending Blanche standoff (Texas Tribune)
- Blanche deal leaves loopholes on fund and Trump immunity (The Hill)
- Blanche issues order rescinding the fund (CBS News, with legal analysis)
- Blanche killed the fund, but loopholes abound (MS NOW)
- Blanche formally rescinds anti-weaponization fund (Epoch Times, which is favorable to the administration)
- Blanche formally dismantles the fund in a deal (Deseret News, on remaining Republican holdouts)
Discussion Questions
- Is a written order worth more than sworn testimony saying the same thing?
- Why might two retiring senators act differently from those seeking reelection?
- Should a president be able to sue his own government and keep the settlement?
- What would make a commitment like this genuinely binding?
- Cornyn raised the loophole himself and then accepted the order. How do you read that?
- Should compensation be available to people who believe the government wronged them?
- Does it matter that Trump did not sign the order?
- How much power should a single committee member have over a nomination?
- Is it a problem that this was resolved through negotiation rather than a public vote on the fund itself?
- Imagine you are an undecided senator this week. What would you need to see?
