Blanche's Written Commitment on the Anti-Weaponization Fund Is a Meaningless Concession
Source: Shirin Ali. "Todd Blanche’s latest promise is worse than useless.." August 6, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
Todd Blanche promised in writing to cancel a controversial fund that would benefit Trump's allies, and two Republican senators accepted this as good enough to approve his nomination for Attorney General. But the author argues this promise is essentially fake: Blanche can't legally cancel the deal without Trump's approval, and Trump has publicly said he still wants the fund created through other means. So the senators may have just given Blanche a win based on an empty promise.
Conclusion
Todd Blanche's written promise to rescind the settlement establishing Trump's 'anti-weaponization fund' is not a genuine or legally binding concession, and Republican senators who accepted it as a resolution to their concerns were deceived or willing to accept a hollow victory.
Premises
- Blanche himself admitted during his hearing that the DOJ cannot unilaterally force changes to the settlement without the plaintiff's (Trump's) agreement, since Trump's attorneys could sue to enforce the original contract.
- The settlement was a bilateral agreement between Trump and the DOJ, so rescinding it requires Trump's sign-off, which has not been given.
- Trump publicly declared, just 24 hours before Blanche's written statement, that he would push to establish the anti-weaponization fund via legislation instead, showing he has not abandoned the fund's goals.
- The underlying IRS lawsuit remains active and ongoing, meaning the legal mechanism for the fund still exists and could be revived.
- The IRS audit protections for Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization remain intact, preserving the most personally beneficial part of the original deal for Trump.
- Legal experts (Harry Litman) and lawmakers (Raskin, Meng) have publicly stated that Blanche's commitment does not actually extinguish the DOJ's obligations or resolve the underlying issue.
Assumptions
- A promise that is not legally binding and can be easily reversed is not a meaningful concession, even if politically useful.
- Cornyn and Tillis's public satisfaction with the deal reflects political convenience (needing a face-saving exit) rather than genuine belief the concession is substantive.
- Trump's stated intentions (via Truth Social) accurately reflect his continued desire to establish the fund, undermining any claim that Blanche's move represents an administration retreat.
- The distinction between a written commitment and a legally enforceable, bilaterally-agreed contract modification is legally and practically significant.