Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Tuesday defended the Justice Department’s nearly $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” as lawmakers from both parties raised alarms about the program, which could ultimately compensate hundreds of Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot defendants and other allies of President Donald Trump.
During a contentious Senate appropriations hearing that was intended to focus on the DOJ’s proposed $40.8 billion fiscal 2027 budget request, a 13% increase from last year, Blanche repeatedly insisted the weaponization fund was not designed solely for Trump supporters and argued that Democrats criticizing it as a “slush fund” were effectively acknowledging Republicans had been disproportionately targeted during the Biden administration.
Acting AG Todd Blanche on new $1.8B “anti-weaponization” fund: “This is unusual. That is true. But it is not unprecedented, and it was done to address… years of weaponization…It’s not limited to the Biden weaponization. It’s not limited…to January 6th, or to Jack Smith.” pic.twitter.com/tyePql2U1o
— CSPAN (@cspan) May 19, 2026
“I think it’s telling that everybody on the Left and everybody in the media immediately says it’s a slush fund for President Trump’s friends,” Blanche said. “If anything else, that’s an outright admission that they know that the people that really had this Department of Justice weaponized against them were President Trump and his friends.”
Blanche noted that the fund is not limited to Republicans or victims of “the Biden weaponization … to Jan. 6” or targets of former special counsel Jack Smith’s “Arctic Frost” investigation.
“It’s limited only by the term ‘weaponization,’” he added.
‘Anybody can apply’ for weaponization compensation
While Blanche declined to rule out compensation for those convicted in connection with the Capitol riot, he stressed that a five-member commission outside of his purview would be handling requests through a publicly available application portal that would be established sometime in the next 30 days.
“Anybody can apply,” Blanche said in response to questioning from Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE).
“The commissioners will set rules, I’m sure,” Blanche added. “That’s not for me to set. That’s for the commissioners.”
In response, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) still alleged, “That is pure theft of public funds, and rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene.”
The inception of the fund stems from a settlement agreement announced Monday resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his confidential tax records.
Rather than receiving direct monetary damages, Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization agreed to dismiss the lawsuit in exchange for the DOJ establishing a compensation process for individuals claiming they were victims of “weaponization and lawfare.”
Blanche emphasized repeatedly that Trump and his family would not receive payouts from the fund.
Five-member board to handle ‘weaponization’ claims
Four of the five commissioners reviewing claimants for the fund will be appointed by the attorney general, while one will be selected in consultation with Senate leadership.
Blanche cited examples including subpoenas issued to Trump aides, Secret Service personnel, and administration associates swept into grand jury investigations as possible beneficiaries outside of the scope of Jan. 6 defendants.
While eligibility will be decided on a “case-by-case basis,” other beneficiaries may include anti-abortion advocates who faced prosecutions for violations of the FACE Act under the Biden administration, as well as any “individual who believes they were a victim of weaponization.”
Last year, Trump pardoned 23 people convicted under the FACE Act and pardoned 1,600 defendants from the riot at the Capitol in January 2021.
“Whether you’re Hunter Biden or whether you’re another individual who believes they were a victim of weaponization, they can all apply for this fund,” Blanche said, referencing the former president’s son, who was given an 11-year pardon by his father following his conviction and guilty plea on federal charges related to gun violations and failure to pay taxes on time, respectively.
Blanche says fund ‘unusual’ but rooted in Obama-era precedent
The acting attorney general also argued the structure had precedent, pointing to the Obama-era Keepseagle v. Vilsack settlement involving Native American farmers and ranchers who alleged discrimination by the Agriculture Department.
“This is unusual, that is true,” Blanche said. “But it is not unprecedented.”
However, some lawmakers have said there are obvious differences. The Keepseagle settlement was court-supervised and approved by a federal judge, whereas Trump voluntarily dismissed his IRS lawsuit before any judicial review of the settlement structure occurred.
“We have the claimant negotiating with the defense, and the claimant also happens to be the boss of the defense,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) told Politico. “It appears like conflict of interest and a partial process.”
GOP cautious as Democrats plan forced vote on fund
Meanwhile, other Republican skeptics, such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), questioned whether payouts and claims would be publicly disclosed after Blanche suggested the process would remain transparent.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) likewise distanced himself from the initiative when asked about it on Tuesday.
“I’m not a big fan,” Thune told reporters. “I don’t see a purpose for it.”
Coons, who seemed skeptical that many Republicans would be willing to voice support publicly for the effort, later told reporters he expects senators to force a vote targeting the fund during this week’s vote-a-rama process.
Blanche asked not to pay out bad actors
Van Hollen also raised issue with a case involving a Florida man who was pardoned by Trump for Jan. 6-related conduct and later accused of molesting two children. Van Hollen alleged that the man attempted to silence one of the victims by claiming he expected to receive money from the DOJ’s new compensation fund.
TREASURY LAWYER RESIGNS AFTER DOJ CREATES ‘ANTI-WEAPONIZATION’ FUND
“Can you commit to not making that person eligible for a payout?” Van Hollen asked.
“You’re obviously lying in your question,” Blanche shot back, prompting Van Hollen to respond that he was “reporting what he said.”