The short version
- Todd Blanche withdrew an order establishing a $1.8 billion fund for January 6 defendants to facilitate his confirmation as attorney general.
- Republican senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis agreed to support the nomination after receiving assurances that tax immunity provisions were limited in scope.
- Legal experts and Democratic lawmakers contend the withdrawal is reversible by the president and does not prevent future payouts through other legal mechanisms.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has withdrawn a controversial executive order that authorized the creation of an $1.8 billion compensation fund for individuals convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol attacks. The move, announced on Sunday evening, was part of a negotiated compromise designed to secure the backing of two Republican senators who had threatened to block his confirmation. Blanche also issued clarifications regarding tax immunity previously granted by the Justice Department, specifying that it applies retroactively only to President Donald Trump, his sons, and their associated businesses.
Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina stated they would support Blanche’s nomination during the upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee vote. They expressed satisfaction with the formal termination of the anti-weaponization fund order and the written acknowledgment that the audit settlement was limited to the specific plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit. This agreement addresses concerns raised by Republican colleagues about the broader implications of the tax immunity deal, which originated from a $10 billion damages suit filed by Trump against the government over the unauthorized release of his tax returns.
Despite the political resolution, legal analysts and Democratic officials have sharply criticized the durability of the arrangement. Experts note that Blanche’s documents merely rescind the prior Justice Department order without modifying the original settlement agreement that established the fund. Consequently, the president retains the theoretical ability to sue to enforce the original terms or resurrect the compensation mechanism under a different name. Brandon DeBot of NYU’s Tax Law Center described the assurances as lacking substantive weight, arguing they do not prevent ongoing efforts to grant unauthorized tax immunity or stop the revival of the fund.
Critics also point out that even if the specific fund is defunct, alternative pathways for payouts remain open. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows individuals to seek damages from the federal government through a separate claims and litigation process, which some January 6 defendants are already pursuing. Democratic lawmakers, including Jamie Raskin and Adam Schiff, argued that the deal fails to prevent future illicit payouts or protect against the administration using other funds for similar purposes. A federal judge had previously characterized the original lawsuit as bad-faith litigation designed to engineer a beneficial outcome for Trump, who has continued to praise the concept of the fund despite the recent developments.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗‘Completely hollow’: critics denounce Blanche deal to halt Trump slush fund
