President Donald Trump threatened to advance a compensation fund for his allies unless two Republican senators support his choice for attorney general. The upcoming Senate confirmation vote now faces uncertainty. Trump’s push highlights his interest in securing payouts for supporters who feel persecuted.
Trump used Truth Social to state he would retain Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and proceed with the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” if Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina oppose the former federal prosecutor. Cornyn and Tillis have protested due to a lawsuit settlement that generated a $1.8 billion fund. This fund aimed to aid individuals mistreated by the criminal justice system and granted Trump and his family tax audit immunity. Trump recently declared the fund “dead,” seemingly showing progress in negotiations.
The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, rescheduled a previously postponed vote for Blanche, eyeing Blanche’s confirmation before the August recess. This move allows more time for the White House to secure necessary votes.
However, by Saturday, Trump’s announcement put the fund back on the table, blaming the senators set to leave Capitol Hill in January. Trump insists the fund helps those mistreated during Democratic administrations. Tillis, approaching retirement, critiqued Trump’s reversal, asserting it harms Blanche’s confirmation chances. Tillis expressed hope for resolution.
Blanche previously stated the fund would not progress after a GOP revolt held up immigration funding. Yet Tillis and Cornyn, both losing their positions, want assurance against a White House reversal with Trump defending the fund’s necessity. The Department of Justice provided senators with documentation nullifying Blanche’s fund order.
Cornyn and Tillis seek clarifications regarding a part of the settlement granting tax immunity to Trump and his family. Cornyn highlighted confusion over audit details, wanting confirmation in writing. Blanche emphasized that the order was retrospective, not prospective, saying it only affected litigation parties.