GOP Senator Grills Trump’s AG Nominee on $1.8 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Fund: ‘There’s So Much That’s Unusual About This’

A Republican Senator grilled attorney general nominee Todd Blanche about the controversial $1.8 billion fund — set up as part of a settlement between the IRS and President Donald Trump — to pay alleged victims of government weaponization.

At the outset of a tense 7-minute exchange during Blanche’s confirmation hearing Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) spelled out his problems with the fund.

“There’s so much that’s unusual about this,” Cornyn said. “First of all, the fact that the tax returns were leaked by an IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, who was appropriately convicted of a crime for doing that. President Trump and his family were definitely victims of a crime there. But it happened back in 2020, and the lawsuit wasn’t brought until 2026. So with the two-year statute of limitations…I know that was the subject of pleading in the complaint and attempt to avoid the two-year statute of limitation, but that struck me as unusual.”

Cornyn — who is finishing out his time in the Senate after losing his primary last month to Trump-backed opponent Ken Paxton — focused most of his questions on the fine print of the settlement agreement.

“I believe you have said that the weaponization fund is a moot issue. Is that your position?” Cornyn asked Blanche.

“It is a moot issue,” Blanche said. “Meaning there is no weaponization fund. The weaponization fund is dead. It’s not moving forward.”

“Well, I would refer you to the settlement agreement,” Cornyn said, following up. He added, “On page four, ‘this settlement agreement may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties.’ Has there been a written agreement of the party to modify the settlement fund?”

“No, the settlement fund is just not moving forward,” Blanche replied. “There’s no modification. It’s just never started.”

“Well, so the settlement agreement remains as it was originally, but I hear what you’re saying,” Cornyn said. “Is a settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?”

“Well, yes, it’s an enforceable document,” Blanche said.

“So I suppose if President Trump’s counsel sought to enforce it, that they potentially could include the weaponization fund?” Cornyn pressed.

“Well, they could try to enforce the contract,” Blanche said. “They can’t force the Department of Justice to move forward with the Weaponization Fund. They could potentially say that, I suppose, that we breached by not moving forward. They haven’t done that. And I’m not aware that they’re planning on doing that.”

Cornyn pressed — seeking a written assurance that Trump will not move forward with the fund.

“But just to be clear, the President of the United States, who is a plaintiff in this lawsuit, has not agreed in writing to delete the weaponization fund, and there’s no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might raise that issue by way of a lawsuit, a breach of contract lawsuit in the future?” Cornyn asked.

“Well, Senator, the plaintiffs have no power over the fund,” Blanche said. “The fund was administered solely by the five commissioners and through the Department of Justice. So no, they don’t have any power with respect to the fund at all. I suppose they could bring a lawsuit, and then we would litigate it, but even if we were litigating it, there’s no fund. So the results of such litigation, whatever it would be, wouldn’t be a revival of the fund.”

The senator — who is thought to be a key swing vote — then confronted Blanch about who would be covered by the proposed fund.

“This lawsuit was brought against the IRS and Treasury, yet this release purports to apply to defendants or other agencies or departments,” Cornyn said. “So does this release apply to, let’s say, an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission or some other federal agency?”

“No, that’s the standard language that we use when we enter into settlements between plaintiffs and the IRS,” Blanche said. “But no, it doesn’t bind it’s it’s issued by me because statutes require and authorize me to do that as opposed to other cabinet members and in this case it binds only the IRS and by extension the Treasury.”

“I hear what you’re saying,” Cornyn said. “But I certainly don’t read that in the agreement.”

Watch above, via CNN.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!