Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche privately acknowledged that the Justice Department's $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund was "a mistake," Sen. Dick Durbin told reporters ahead of Blanche's Senate confirmation hearing to permanently lead the DOJ. The Illinois Democrat disclosed the exchange from a pre-hearing courtesy meeting, raising fresh questions about a fund that drew broad backlash, including from Republicans, and that a federal judge has already voided.
Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told The Hill that Blanche asked him during the private sit-down: "What more can I do? What more can I say? I made a mistake." The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment on Durbin's account of the conversation.
The fund grew out of a settlement tied to President Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leaking of his tax returns. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams struck down the arrangement, ruling that the DOJ and Trump had "colluded" in dismissing the case and crafting the fund. Williams wrote that the suit was "brought to manipulate the judicial process" and that "there was never a question as to who would prevail."
Blanche had already told lawmakers in a prior appearance that the Justice Department was "not moving forward with the fund. Period." But he resisted calls to put that position in writing, a point Durbin pressed him on during their meeting.
Durbin said Blanche went further in private, pledging to work with Congress to "codify" the fund's termination. That language suggests Blanche wants a legislative fix, not just an executive-branch promise that could be reversed. Senate Republicans have already moved to permanently end the fund through legislation of their own.
Whether Blanche's private assurances will satisfy skeptics on either side remains an open question. The fund attracted bipartisan criticism from the start. Its sheer size, nearly $1.8 billion, and the circumstances of its creation struck many lawmakers as a self-dealing arrangement dressed up in legal process.
Durbin offered a surprisingly warm personal assessment of the acting attorney general, even as he publicized what Blanche said behind closed doors. The senator described Blanche as "a good lawyer" who has "been at this a long time as a prosecutor and defense lawyer," adding that Blanche "has a way about him that is, it's not an 'aw shucks,' but it's pretty close to it."
That kind of praise from the committee's senior Democrat is notable. It suggests Blanche's demeanor in the meeting was conciliatory, a contrast with the combative exchanges that have marked other Trump nominees' interactions with Senate Democrats.
Blanche has not been shy about confrontation when the facts warrant it. In a previous Senate hearing, he challenged Sen. Chris Van Hollen directly, accusing the Maryland Democrat of misrepresenting facts, a moment that drew national attention.
Durbin also revealed that Blanche took issue with the federal judge who voided the fund. The senator said Blanche told him in the meeting that "he believes he was a victim of a hit job by this judge in Florida", a reference to Judge Kathleen Williams.
Williams's ruling was pointed. She found the lawsuit and subsequent settlement were coordinated between the DOJ and Trump, and that the legal merits of the underlying case were never in doubt. Her language, "brought to manipulate the judicial process", left little room for ambiguity about how she viewed the arrangement.
Blanche's alleged characterization of the ruling as a "hit job" sits uneasily alongside his admission that the fund itself was "a mistake." If the fund was a mistake, the judge who stopped it was doing her job. If the judge conducted a "hit job," the fund presumably had some legitimate basis worth defending. Both claims cannot comfortably coexist.
That tension may come up during Wednesday's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The anti-weaponization fund is not the only issue Democrats plan to raise. Committee Democrats invited victims of Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased convicted sex offender, to attend Blanche's confirmation hearing. The move echoes a tactic used during the tenure of Blanche's predecessor, Pam Bondi, who in a past hearing refused to turn around and acknowledge Epstein victims seated behind her. Photographs of that moment became what The Hill called "a defining moment of her tenure."
The Senate is racing to confirm multiple Trump nominees before the August recess, and Blanche's hearing is part of that push. Democrats appear intent on making the hearing as uncomfortable as possible, pressing on pardons and other sensitive topics alongside the fund.
Durbin referenced questions about pardons that Blanche allegedly sidestepped in their private meeting. The details of those questions were not disclosed.
Whatever happens at the hearing, Blanche has already compiled a substantial record as acting attorney general. He disclosed that the DOJ discovered a room full of Jack Smith investigation documents stored in burn bags, a revelation that raised serious questions about the handling of sensitive materials under the previous DOJ leadership.
He has also taken a hard line on threats against federal officers. Blanche pledged federal arrest of a protester who threatened to kill an ICE agent's family, signaling that the DOJ under his watch would not tolerate intimidation of law enforcement personnel.
Those actions paint a picture of an acting AG who has been willing to act decisively. The question for senators is whether his private acknowledgment that the anti-weaponization fund was "a mistake" reflects genuine accountability or a tactical concession designed to smooth his path to confirmation.
Several critical details remain unclear. The DOJ has not confirmed or denied Durbin's account of the private meeting. Blanche has not made a public statement responding to Durbin's disclosure. And the precise status of the $1.776 billion fund, whether it has been formally rescinded, frozen, or merely verbally disavowed, is not established in the public record.
Durbin's decision to go public with the contents of a private courtesy meeting is itself worth noting. These meetings are traditionally confidential, designed to let nominees and senators take each other's measure before the cameras roll. Disclosing the conversation serves Durbin's purposes: it locks Blanche into a position on the fund and creates a public record that can be used against him if he equivocates at the hearing.
It also gives Blanche a chance to confirm the account under oath, and to explain, on the record, how a $1.776 billion fund got created on his watch and what he plans to do about it going forward.
Calling something "a mistake" is easy in a private room. The confirmation hearing will test whether Blanche is willing to say it with the cameras on, and whether Congress is willing to make sure it never happens again.
