Congressional and Judicial Pushback Forces DOJ to Abandon Blanche's 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'

When Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the creation of a $1.8 billion 'anti-weaponization fund' in early 2026, critics warned it was a slush fund that could bypass congressional oversight and reward Trump allies, including January 6 defendants. During a May 19, 2026, hearing before the Senate Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Susan Collins, Blanche defended the fund as lawful. But Democrats and some Republicans demanded accountability—especially when the fund's opaque structure threatened the Inspector General Act of 1978, which requires nonpartisan, independent oversight of DOJ operations. Senator Collins formally asked for the fund's legal basis, and the Trump administration ultimately abandoned the plan after two federal judges temporarily blocked payments and lawsuits from Capitol Police officers challenged the fund's legality.

The administration's backpedal, however, came with a dangerous precedent: the fund was established without explicit congressional authorization, using settlement proceeds that are normally subject to appropriations oversight. This directly undermines Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (the power of the purse) and the spirit of the Pendleton Act's merit-based civil service—substituting political loyalty for neutral competence in enforcement decisions. The DOJ told courts the challenges are moot, but the Senate Appropriations Committee still seeks a full accounting. A democratically accountable alternative would require that any DOJ settlement fund be created only with statutory authorization from Congress, mandatory reporting to the House and Senate Judiciary and Appropriations Committees, and independent IG review to ensure payments are not used to reward illegal activity or shield political allies from liability. Congress should now codify protections that bar the Executive from creating such funds unilaterally, restoring the surveillance role of inspectors general and the constitutional separation of powers.