The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 along party lines to advance Todd Blanche's nomination for U.S. attorney general, but only after two Republican senators forced him to abandon a nearly $1.8 billion fund critics called a taxpayer-funded reward for Trump allies.
Blanche cleared the committee Tuesday after providing written assurances to Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas, the two Republican holdouts whose votes he needed. Without their support, the nomination would have stalled. Both senators demanded, and received, commitments on two issues that had drawn bipartisan criticism: the Justice Department's so-called anti-weaponization fund and the scope of tax audit immunity granted to President Trump.
The concessions were enough to move Blanche's nomination to the full Senate floor, but they did not settle the broader fight. Several Republican senators remain uncommitted, and Democrats argue the written promises amount to little more than paper.
Tillis did not hold back about the anti-weaponization fund, a roughly $1.8 billion pot established by DOJ order on May 18 and intended to compensate individuals the Trump administration characterized as victims of government overreach. Critics on both sides of the aisle saw it differently.
As KCRA reported, Tillis laid out his objections bluntly before the vote:
"The first one I called 'the payout pot for punks.' I've never liked this 1776 fund. It made no sense to me and I thought it was an insult to the police officers and the people that defended us on January the 6th."
That line landed hard. A Republican senator, in a Republican-controlled committee, publicly labeling a Trump administration initiative as an insult to the officers who defended the Capitol on January 6 is not a routine procedural complaint. It is a direct challenge to the policy's legitimacy from inside the president's own party.
Blanche responded by posting written confirmation on his X account, pledging that the DOJ would not move forward with the fund. The Justice Department followed through, or appeared to. A DOJ statement said the acting attorney general signed an order on August 2 rescinding the May 18 order that created the fund.
But the DOJ's own language left room for questions. The statement also referenced a separate May 19 order, saying the acting attorney general "restated and incorporated testimony he gave under oath that the May 19th Order has effect only on plaintiffs and defendants, and that the release is retroactive only." What exactly the May 19 order covers, and whether it creates a parallel mechanism for payouts, remains unclear from the available record.
The second concession involved tax audit immunity. Blanche confirmed in writing that any immunity would apply only to President Trump's past tax returns, not future filings. That distinction matters. A memo signed the day after the fund's creation still grants Trump broad immunity for past conduct and could help him avoid a tax liability as high as $100 million, according to Just The News.
Tillis signaled satisfaction with the arrangement. "I believe that we have addressed the concerns that I have," he told the committee. Cornyn, the other critical Republican vote, did not make public comments about his reasoning, at least not in the available reporting.
Democrats were less convinced. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the committee's ranking member, dismissed the entire exercise.
"Instead of serving the American people and upholding the rule of law and the Constitution, Mr. Blanche has aided and abetted the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States."
Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, went further in his skepticism of the deal itself. As Fox News reported, Blumenthal argued the concessions were hollow: "Cornyn and Tillis seem to have gotten nothing meaningful, the tax immunity deal is still unlimited, in terms of past potential liability. And the slush fund is still alive and well, so far as Donald Trump is concerned."
Whether that characterization is accurate or political posturing is a fair question. The DOJ says the fund has been rescinded. Democrats say the underlying authority remains. The gap between those two positions will likely define the floor debate.
The anti-weaponization fund was not the only controversy shadowing Blanche's confirmation. A recorded call, posted online, captured Blanche speaking to Christian faith leaders about the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade. In that call, Blanche stated the Trump administration is working to make that ruling permanent in all 50 states and suggested policies could be enacted to stop shipments of abortion medications to states where they are banned.
The DOJ pushed back on the characterization, saying the comments "have been mischaracterized and need to be understood in their full context, which was with respect to mail order abortion drugs, not a broader expansion of federal control over states." The department added that the Office of Legal Counsel is conducting a review of abortion-related policies and procedures.
Julie Gonen, chief legal officer of the National Abortion Federation, drew a sharper line. Her organization is actively suing the DOJ over concerns that the anti-weaponization fund could be used to compensate individuals convicted of violent acts against abortion clinics and providers.
"It's very telling that when Todd Blanche talks about restricting abortion, he does it in a private, closed-door conversation, and says very different things in public."
Gonen's claim, that Blanche's private statements diverge from his public posture, is a single-source assertion from an advocacy group with active litigation against the DOJ. It is worth noting, but it is not independently verified. The DOJ's counter-explanation has not been confirmed or refuted by any third party in the available record.
Clearing the committee was the easier test. The full Senate presents a narrower path. Fox News reported that Blanche can afford to lose only two Republican votes on the floor. Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, John Curtis of Utah, and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana remain undecided.
Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, captured the uncertainty when asked whether the written assurances would hold. "I'm not saying he will or he won't, what's stopping the president from doing anything?" Kennedy said. "But it was important to Cornyn and important to Tillis."
That candor is revealing. Kennedy did not vouch for the durability of the deal. He acknowledged the limits of a written pledge from a nominee who serves at the pleasure of the president. If Trump wants the fund revived under a different name or mechanism, a letter from his attorney general nominee may not carry much weight.
The question facing undecided Republicans is straightforward: Are Blanche's written commitments binding constraints, or are they political cover for senators who needed a reason to vote yes? Tillis and Cornyn decided the commitments were sufficient. The four uncommitted senators have not.
Blanche's path to becoming the nation's top law enforcement officer now runs through a floor vote where every Republican defection counts double. The anti-weaponization fund, nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money that a Republican senator called an insult to Capitol Police, has been formally rescinded. The tax immunity has been formally narrowed to past filings. Both concessions exist on paper.
Democrats argue the paper is worthless. Some Republicans are not yet sure it is worth enough. The National Abortion Federation is suing over a separate dimension of the same fund. And the recorded call about abortion policy hangs in the background, with the DOJ and its critics offering flatly contradictory accounts of what Blanche meant.
When taxpayers are asked to trust that $1.8 billion in payouts has truly been killed, and that the man who agreed to kill it will actually run the Justice Department with independence, they deserve more than a letter posted on social media. The Senate floor vote will test whether enough Republicans agree.
