Blanche Under Fire: DOJ Fund Sparks Bipartisan Backlash
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is facing intense scrutiny after refusing to rule out that individuals convicted of violence during the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot could receive payouts from a new $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” sparking bipartisan backlash and raising fresh concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department.
During his first congressional testimony on May 19, Blanche defended the fund as a lawful mechanism to compensate victims of political targeting by the government. But his refusal to exclude violent offenders from eligibility has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and skepticism from some Republicans, according to AP News.
What Is the Anti-Weaponization Fund?
The fund was announced on May 18 as part of a settlement to resolve President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The money, drawn from the federal judgment fund, is intended to compensate individuals who believe they were politically targeted by the government. A five-member commission appointed by Blanche will oversee claims through December 15, 2028, with the president retaining the power to remove any member, as AP News reported.
Blanche has argued the fund is “unusual” but not unprecedented, citing the Obama administration’s Keepseagle settlement with Native American plaintiffs as a comparable example, according to The Daily Signal.
The Jan. 6 Question
The most explosive moment of the hearing came when Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) pressed Blanche on whether individuals convicted of assaulting police officers during the Capitol riot could receive compensation. Blanche responded that “anybody in this country is eligible to apply, if they believe they are a victim of weaponization.” When asked directly whether he believes those convicted of violence should be entitled to compensation, Blanche replied: “My feelings don’t matter.”
More than 250 people were convicted of assault charges related to the Jan. 6 attack, with many attacks captured on surveillance and body camera footage. Trump had already pardoned or commuted the sentences of approximately 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants on his first day of his second term.
Bipartisan Skepticism
Notably, the fund has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told reporters he’s “not a big fan” of the fund, adding that he doesn’t “see a purpose for that.” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who lost reelection, called it a “slush fund,” saying: “We are a nation of laws. You can’t just make up things.”
Democratic opposition has been far more pointed. Nearly 100 Democratic members of Congress filed a brief teeing up a legal challenge. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) called the fund “a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) described it as “corruption on steroids,” while Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) labeled it “pure theft of public funds.”
Blanche’s Unusual Path to Power
Blanche’s position is uniquely conflicted. A former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, he served as Trump’s lead defense lawyer in three criminal cases before being confirmed as Deputy Attorney General in March 2025. When Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi in April 2026, Blanche became acting attorney general. According to Wikipedia, he was a registered Democrat before switching to the Republican Party in 2024.
Within two weeks of becoming Deputy AG, the Justice Department’s top ethics lawyer advised Blanche to recuse himself from cases involving Trump due to his prior representation. That ethics lawyer was fired less than four months later.
Implications for DOJ Independence
The controversy represents a broader erosion of the Justice Department’s traditional independence from the White House. Blanche has moved aggressively to advance Trump’s priorities — pushing cases against political opponents, cracking down on leaks, and now establishing a fund that critics say could reward Trump allies. The administration has not yet defined what constitutes “weaponization,” leaving the commission broad discretion over who qualifies for payouts.
What’s Next
The fund faces significant legal and political hurdles. A legal challenge backed by nearly 100 Democratic lawmakers is already taking shape, and bipartisan skepticism in the Senate could complicate any future efforts to appropriate additional funds. The question of whether violent Jan. 6 offenders will receive compensation remains unresolved, with Blanche deferring to the yet-to-be-appointed commission. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the controversy threatens to become a flashpoint in the broader debate over the Trump administration’s use of executive power.