A compromise reached between acting attorney general Todd Blanche and two Republican senators, aimed at clearing the path for Blanche’s confirmation, is being dismissed as inadequate by Democrats and legal analysts. Critics argue the agreement offers only temporary assurances that Donald Trump could easily reverse once in office.
On Sunday evening, Blanche released two documents confirming the withdrawal of an 18 May order that had authorized a $1.8bn weaponization fund. The documents also clarified that broad tax immunity granted by the justice department to Trump, his sons, and their businesses was intended to apply only retroactively. Despite these actions, legal experts remain unconvinced of the deal's permanence.
Brandon DeBot, policy director at the Tax Law Center at NYU, stated that the assurances are not worth the paper they are written on. DeBot noted that the documents fail to address ongoing attempts to provide the president and his affiliates with unauthorized immunity from tax audits and do nothing to prevent Trump from reviving the fund, a move the president-elect openly threatened to make over the weekend. Trump continued to praise the fund on Monday, stating that it could have provided solace to those treated poorly, while noting he had not seen the specific agreement Blanche signed.
Senator Thom Tillis, however, expressed satisfaction with the move, stating, "That’s enough for me." Conversely, Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee, labeled the announcement as hollow words designed to lull senators into a false sense of security while leaving a corrupt scheme intact. Raskin warned that the department could simply recreate the fund under a different name.
Concerns also persist regarding the underlying settlement agreement, which was reached following a lawsuit by Trump seeking damages for the unauthorized release of his tax returns. Virginia Canter, chief counsel at Democracy Defenders Action, described the deal as completely hollow because it does not modify the original settlement, which requires consent from all parties to change. Consequently, Blanche could theoretically reverse his decision at any time.
Democracy Forward, a watchdog group that previously secured a court order to halt the fund, sent a letter to the justice department on Monday requesting clarity on whether the agency intends to amend the settlement. Skye Perryman, president of the group, accused the department of attempting to preserve favor with the president while failing to provide court-backed commitments. Meanwhile, Republican senator Dick Durbin noted he would not be surprised if Blanche eventually reneged on his promises, citing the way Trump operates. Even some conservative allies, such as Mike Howell of the Oversight Project, suggested the documents could be undone after Tuesday, noting that the weaponization fund remains a popular concept among supporters.
Even if the department does not move ahead with the fund, there is another path for January 6 defendants to receive a payout from the federal government. A once-obscure process under the Federal Tort Claims Act allows anyone to seek damages from the federal government, first by filing a claim and then through a lawsuit.
The justice department has wide discretion over whether to settle those lawsuits and some January 6 defendants are already moving through the process with claims for millions of dollars.
