Body
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche faced sharp questions from lawmakers after the Trump administration announced a new $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” intended to compensate people who say they were mistreated by prior Justice Department actions. In his first appearance before Congress since taking over the Justice Department last month, Blanche said he would not rule out considering people associated with violence during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Blanche’s comments came during a hearing after the fund was announced Monday, when lawmakers pressed him over whether applicants who assaulted police officers would be eligible. Asked about the possibility of payouts for those who carried out violence, Blanche did not rule it out, and he instead emphasized a standard focused on whether applicants believe they were victims of “weaponization.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, pressed Blanche on what limits would apply to the commission that would decide who receives money. Blanche said he would not commit to excluding people convicted of violence, but he told Merkley that he would encourage the commission responsible for payout decisions to “take everything into account,” while also stating that “My feelings don’t matter” when asked about who should receive compensation.
The fund’s structure also became a focus of the questioning. Blanche told lawmakers that the decisions on payouts would be made by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general, and he said he would set guidelines to ensure commissioners “are effectively doing their jobs,” including guidance “as you’re describing,” according to the transcript coverage of the exchange.
Blanche also defended the scope of the program as being not limited to any political party or to people investigated or prosecuted under President Joe Biden. He said the fund would not be limited to Republicans or Democrats and would not be limited to Jan. 6 defendants, while tying the eligibility criteria to the meaning of “weaponization,” which the administration has not defined publicly in the announcement.
At one point in the hearing, Blanche said that Hunter Biden—who was the subject of gun and tax prosecutions during the prior administration—could also apply, drawing attention to how broadly lawmakers believed the administration might interpret the terms of compensation.
The hearing also quickly expanded beyond the fund’s rules to concerns about the Justice Department’s independence from the White House, with Democrats describing the initiative as part of a broader effort to reward supporters. Democrats argued that the fund’s design amounts to an illegal use of taxpayer money to benefit Trump allies, with Sen. Chris Van Hollen calling it a “pure theft of public funds” and saying, “Rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene,” while also asserting that the scheme was “illegal” and “corrupt.”
Blanche defended the fund as aimed at what he said was “weaponization,” and he responded to Merkley’s suggestion that Trump was using the Justice Department to target political enemies by describing such conduct as “disgusting” when attributed to the Biden administration. Merkley, in turn, said there was “no comparison” between what he characterized as the previous administration’s “absolute fair minded pursuit of justice” and the current administration’s “pursuit of an enemies list.”
Lawmakers also questioned what “weaponization” means in practice and what evidence or outcomes would be considered in the compensation process. The money, officials said, would come from the federal judgment fund that pays for court judgments and settlements of lawsuits against the government, and Blanche told lawmakers the department is committed to “full transparency” in providing public information about beneficiaries.
Even some Republicans expressed discomfort. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was “not a big fan,” adding that he was unsure of the administration’s intent but did not “see a purpose for that,” and Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy called the fund a “slush fund,” saying “You can’t just make up things,” as he criticized the concept.
Across the hearing and surrounding remarks, the central dispute remained whether the Justice Department’s compensation mechanism would be constrained for people linked to violence at Jan. 6 and, more broadly, whether “weaponization” will be defined and applied in a way that preserves the department’s traditional separation from partisan objectives.