Blanche, the acting attorney general, faced sharp questions from lawmakers about a nearly $1.8 billion Justice Department compensation plan as he defended the new “Anti-Weaponization Fund” before Congress on Tuesday.
The discussion centered on whether people involved in the Jan. 6 riot could qualify for payments. In questioning during a Congressional hearing, Blanche would not rule out the possibility that individuals who carried out violence at the U.S. Capitol could be considered for payouts, according to the account provided by the Associated Press.
When Sen. Jeff Merkley pressed him on eligibility, Blanche responded that people could apply if “they believe they were a victim of weaponization.” He also did not give an answer on whether he would direct the five-member commission he is tasked with appointing to limit payouts to people convicted of violence, instead describing only what he would do to ensure commissioners follow guidelines.
“What I will commit to is making sure that the commissioners are effectively doing their jobs, and that includes setting guidelines as you’re describing,” Blanche told Merkley, an Oregon Democrat. Blanche said the decisions on payouts will be made by that five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.
Blanche also said the fund was “unusual” but not unprecedented. He told lawmakers it would not be limited by party affiliation or by whether someone had been investigated or prosecuted during the Biden administration, and he indicated that people could apply based on their belief about being targeted. At one point, he said President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, who faced gun and tax prosecutions under Biden’s administration, could also apply.
The hearing, which was meant to address the Trump administration’s budget request for the Justice Department, quickly expanded into broader concerns about the agency’s independence. Blanche defended the creation of the fund without acknowledging, as Democrats argued, that the Trump administration has moved to investigate Trump’s political opponents, a backdrop that drew criticism that the Justice Department is being weaponized in the way those critics say it was under Biden.
Democrats characterized the fund as illegal and designed to benefit Trump supporters with taxpayer money. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations subcommittee holding the hearing, blasted the move as a “pure theft of public funds,” and said, “Rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene.”
Van Hollen’s critique built on a larger argument about what lawmakers call a pattern of rewriting the history of the Jan. 6 attack. The Associated Press report said the trend began with President Trump pardoning and commuting the sentences of some participants in the Capitol riot and continued as the Justice Department fired prosecutors who had put people behind bars.
In responding to Merkley, Blanche said commissioners would consider the relevant circumstances, but when asked whether those convicted of violence should receive compensation, Blanche said, “My feelings don’t matter.” Merkley also accused the administration of using the Justice Department to target political enemies, and Blanche responded that such an approach resembled the “disgusting” behavior of the Biden administration that the fund is meant to address.
Lawmakers also challenged the meaning of “weaponization” in the fund’s eligibility framing. In announcing the fund on Monday, the Trump administration did not name specific individuals who could benefit, and the money would come from the federal judgment fund, which pays court judgments and compromise settlements of lawsuits against the government. Blanche told lawmakers the department planned “full transparency” about public information related to beneficiaries, and said the fund was “limited only by the term weaponization,” while not defining how the administration would interpret the term.
Even some Republican lawmakers signaled discomfort. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters he is “not a big fan,” adding that he is not sure how the administration intends to use it, and he said he doesn’t “see a purpose for that.” Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost reelection in a GOP primary on Saturday, called the proposal a “slush fund,” and said, “We are a nation of laws,” adding, “You can’t just make up things.”