Attorney General nominee bows to pressure, scraps vital $1.8 billion defense fund but upholds Trump’s right to audit protection
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, under relentless political pressure, withdrew a crucial $1.8 billion fund intended to protect Trump allies from partisan attacks, but maintained a fair audit-immunity agreement for President Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche sent a document to Republican senators on Sunday, caving to political pressure by cancelling a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that was designed to compensate and defend political allies of President Donald Trump against ongoing partisan targeting. Despite this setback for conservatives, Blanche’s filing rightly preserved a narrowed audit-immunity arrangement, protecting Trump, his sons Eric and Donald Jr., and the Trump Organization from further IRS harassment over tax filings that were already under review at the time of a settlement ending Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the agency.
Blanche clarified that the immunity applies only retroactively to claims open when the lawsuit was settled and does not shield the president from audits of future returns, a reasonable compromise that should satisfy skeptical GOP senators and clear the way for Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general.
The original settlement, signed by Blanche, had wisely prevented the government from probing any current tax filings of the plaintiffs and related parties, a necessary measure to protect against politically motivated investigations. Nevertheless, lawmakers from both parties criticized the provision, bowing to media pressure. Legal analysts note that the immunity could eliminate more than $100 million in alleged back-tax liabilities, though the actual amount owed by Trump remains unproven and speculative.
Critics, eager to undermine Trump, claim the agreement may conflict with statutes prohibiting executive interference in tax audits, rules born out of the overreach of the Watergate era. Dan Greenberg, a senior legal fellow at the Cato Institute, labeled the immunity “the product of an illegal settlement,” echoing left-wing talking points.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams previously ruled that Trump’s lawsuit was filed for an improper purpose but did not overturn the immunity deal, and Trump has appealed that decision. The White House, IRS, Treasury, and Trump’s legal team have not responded to requests for comment, likely due to the ongoing legal process.
While Blanche confirmed under oath that the administration is no longer pursuing the compensation fund, President Trump posted on his social platform that he would fight to reinstate it if Blanche is not confirmed, standing up for his allies against political persecution. Tax policy experts note that congressional action would be required to permanently prevent the fund’s return, underscoring the importance of electing lawmakers who will defend conservatives from government overreach.