Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche terminates Trump $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” before nomination hearing

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche formally rescinded a Trump proposal that would have directed $1.8 billion, described as an “anti-weaponization fund,” ahead of a scheduled nomination hearing, according to a report published Monday by The Guardian. The move comes after weeks of negotiations involving two Republican senators who, the report said, had been blocking progress toward Blanche’s confirmation.

The report said Blanche’s order, issued late Sunday, terminated the measure and was intended to address objections raised during the period leading up to the hearing. The “anti-weaponization fund” had been framed by President Donald Trump’s allies as a mechanism to compensate political supporters who could face legal or administrative consequences tied to the use of federal power, while opponents derided it as a “slush fund,” a characterization the report said had spread widely.

According to the same account, the rescission follows negotiations with two Republican senators who had been holding up the nomination. The senators’ objections, as described by the report, centered on the structure and purpose of the proposed funding arrangement, including concerns that it could function as discretionary money aligned with political allies rather than as a neutral, government-wide program.

The hearing timing, as reported, has placed the rescission as a near-term procedural development. By terminating the measure before the nomination proceedings, Blanche’s office sought to reduce friction around the confirmation process and allow the Senate to consider the nomination without the fund-related dispute remaining at the center of the record.

The practical effect of the rescission, as described by the report, is that the $1.8 billion measure would no longer be operative. That change potentially affects any ongoing expectations about how federal resources would be allocated in connection with the asserted goal of addressing politicized enforcement, though the report did not provide additional documentation of the underlying legal authority for the fund beyond its stated size and purpose.

The development also underscores the Senate’s role in vetting both policy and process in high-level Department of Justice leadership. Because Blanche is acting while under confirmation consideration, the report characterizes the rescission as a step designed to respond to lawmakers’ concerns without requiring them to re-litigate the fund’s structure during the hearing.

No additional primary document, legislative text, or court filing was included in the report itself, leaving the full administrative mechanism and legal basis for the rescinded measure unconfirmed in the available record. As a result, questions about the precise shutdown timeline, whether any prior obligations were created, and how the Department would account for the terminated plan may remain subject to later disclosure during confirmation proceedings or through official DOJ records.