Backroom Deal Nukes $1.8B Slush Fund

The real action in Todd Blanche’s attorney general fight happened in a quiet deal that killed a $1.8 billion fund while leaving Trump’s tax audit shield untouched.

Story Snapshot

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination after a tense Republican standoff over a massive “anti-weaponization” fund.
Acting Attorney General Blanche agreed in writing to end the $1.8 billion fund that critics said rewarded political allies.
Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis flipped to support Blanche once they had proof the fund was dead and the deal’s scope was narrowed.
The 12-10 committee vote pushed Blanche past his biggest hurdle, even as President Trump’s tax audit protections from the Internal Revenue Service remain.

Committee Republicans force a high-stakes rewrite of Blanche’s IRS deal

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on Todd Blanche was supposed to be routine. Instead, it turned into a leverage game over a settlement that had already changed how the Internal Revenue Service treats President Trump’s taxes.

Acting as attorney general, Blanche earlier approved a deal that ended Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit over leaked tax returns, created a huge “anti-weaponization” fund, and set unusual audit protections for Trump and his circle. Republican senators saw the fund as a bridge too far.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina led the internal revolt. They refused to move Blanche’s nomination until they had proof the $1.8 billion fund was gone and its language could not be used to shield January 6 defendants or other political allies.

Cornyn warned that a Republican-led Department of Justice cannot look like it pays cash settlements to supporters to fix “weaponization” claims. Tillis pressed for narrow guidance so the settlement did not become a catchall immunity tool.

The $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund meets its end

Blanche responded with something you rarely see in a confirmation fight: he rewrote his own handiwork. He issued a formal order that “officially” rescinded the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund and posted the signed document for the public to see.

The order declared the fund terminated and said no money would be paid under that mechanism. Cornyn later told reporters the agreement “drove a stake through the heart” of the fund, a phrase that signaled he felt he had won a clear, final victory.

Todd Blanche's nomination for Attorney General officially advances to the Senate floor following a 12-10 committee vote after key GOP holdouts backed the nominee! pic.twitter.com/GK2QwKlfUK

— MEAWW News (@meawwcom) August 5, 2026

At the same time, Blanche did not blow up the entire settlement. The Internal Revenue Service deal still shields Trump, his family, and related businesses from future audits on past returns, and it sharply limits new audits going forward.

Reports say the immunity language covers tax years before May 2026 and restricts how the Internal Revenue Service can revisit older filings. This mix of tough oversight for the agency and strong protection for the president’s interests is what made the case a lightning rod and put Blanche on the hot seat.

Cornyn, Tillis, and the 12-10 vote that kept Blanche’s nomination alive

Once Blanche rescinded the fund and tightened the guidance, Cornyn and Tillis shifted from warning shots to support. Tillis said the written assurances convinced him the fund was truly gone and that the settlement would not hand out broad immunity to Trump’s allies beyond the tax issue.

Cornyn focused on two gains: ending the contested fund and confirming that audit protections would not grow into blanket legal shields. Their backing unlocked the committee and cleared the way for a vote that had been stuck for days.

The result was a 12-10 party-line vote to advance Blanche’s nomination to the full Senate. All Democrats opposed him. All Republicans supported him once the holdouts were satisfied.

That tally matters because the committee is the gatekeeper; a failed vote there would have stalled or sunk the nomination. Blanche now heads to a floor fight with real momentum, backed by President Trump and a White House push to “confirm Todd Blanche without delay.”

Law-and-order framing collides with concerns over favoritism

Senator Chuck Grassley and other Republicans tried to pull attention away from the controversy and back to Blanche’s resume.

Grassley called Blanche a law-and-order nominee and reminded colleagues that the Senate had already confirmed him as deputy attorney general by a 52-46 vote in 2025. Victims’ groups known as “Angel Families” supported Blanche, praising his focus on crime and border security.

That backing fits conservative priorities: strong enforcement, respect for police, and a Justice Department that treats violent crime as a central mission.

Critics, including some legal scholars and columnists, saw the Internal Revenue Service settlement differently. They argued that giving any president special audit protections breaks a basic rule of equal treatment under the law.

One judge said Trump’s original lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service was filed for an “improper purpose,” and commentary described the deal as “brazenly corrupt” in its scope.

Why the Blanche deal matters beyond one nomination

This clash over Blanche’s nomination shows how modern Washington uses process to fix political optics. First, a complex settlement appears. Then outsiders question whether it shows favoritism or politicized justice.

Next comes a partial rollback, in this case killing the fund, while leaving key protections in place. Finally, the White House and Senate allies reframe the nominee as a steady hand who corrected course once problems became clear, and they push to close ranks.

Conservatives who care about rule-of-law have reason to send mixed signals here. Ending the anti-weaponization fund addresses fears that taxpayer money would underwrite political payoffs. Keeping Trump’s audit shield raises questions about whether big names still get special lanes.

Blanche’s nomination cleared its biggest hurdle because Republicans decided the fix was good enough. Whether voters agree that “good enough” matches their idea of equal treatment is the next chapter in this story.