Blanche Goes Before the Senate — And Gets Challenged on Everything

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Tuesday to defend the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, according to PBS News.

His argument: this isn't unprecedented. "This was done during the Obama administration, something almost identical in structure," Blanche testified.

Legal experts called that claim nonsense.

"I don't even think we have a word for how unprecedented this is," said Adam Zimmerman, a professor at USC Gould School of Law who has specifically studied past presidential settlements. "This is in a totally different solar system than any past government settlement on record."

Blanche's central defense — that Obama did something similar — is flatly disputed by an academic who wrote the book on this subject.

Capitol Officers File Suit. This Is Now in Federal Court.

Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday to block the fund entirely, according to PBS News.

Their complaint doesn't mince words: "In the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald J. Trump has created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name."

The suit involves live federal litigation from law enforcement officers — people conservatives claim to support — directly challenging the fund's legality.

Separately, 93 House Democrats filed an amicus brief arguing the original lawsuit between Trump and the IRS was a collusive suit — constitutionally illegal because there was no real adversarial conflict. The brief was filed by Matt Platkin, former New Jersey attorney general, and his firm Platkin LLP, according to New York Magazine.

Platkin's argument is straightforward: you can't sue an agency you control, have that agency's lawyers (who also work for you) settle the case, and call it legitimate legal process. "That's a collusive suit, which is illegal under our Constitution," Platkin told New York Magazine.

He also noted that Trump moved to dismiss the case just days before a key jurisdictional deadline — a deadline where Trump's own legal team and DOJ would have had to prove the court even had standing to hear the case.

House Whip Emmer Breaks With Senate GOP's Hard No

A fracture is emerging inside the Republican Party.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) went on CNBC's Squawk Box Friday and pushed back — NOT on the fund itself, but on Senate Republicans who killed the reconciliation vote over it.

"I would like to hear from Todd Blanche," Emmer said. "Let's find out what it is before everybody crucifies it."

He took a direct shot at Senate Republicans: "Our Senate, 'we don't have the votes for this, and we're looking for a reason to say no yet again' — figure out how to get your job done."

Emmer stopped short of defending the fund. He's not saying it's good. He's saying slow down before you blow up the entire reconciliation bill over it.

Senate Republicans like Mitch McConnell called it a "slush fund" and helped kill a spending vote. House Republican leadership is telling Senate Republicans to stop using it as an excuse to obstruct.

National Review Frames It Differently Than Anyone Else

National Review — a conservative publication — ran a piece this week arguing the fund is an "abuse of political power" but NOT necessarily an illegal one.

Their framing: Trump is doing what Democrats have done, just more obviously. This differs from the Guardian's Moira Donegan, who flatly called it theft of taxpayer money and predicted none of the $1.8 billion will be left when Trump leaves office.

Both assessments share a core concern — unaccountable money flowing to politically connected recipients — but National Review's version gives Trump's defenders more room to maneuver. Left-leaning outlets are calling it outright corruption. Center-right outlets are calling it norm-breaking but legally gray.

The fund contains zero public reporting requirements. Required reports to the attorney general are confidential. Trump can fire the commissioners. And when he leaves office, leftover money goes back to the general fund — meaning a future president gets nothing comparable.

The Lutnick Donation Nobody Is Talking About

Complicating the broader picture: The Hill reported that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick donated $5 million to a House Republican super PAC ahead of his congressional testimony about his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

This is a separate story — but it lands in the same news cycle as an $1.8 billion fund with no transparency requirements and Trump-appointed commissioners.

Donors are giving millions to political allies. Settlements are resolving billion-dollar lawsuits in secret. Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the man whose allies will receive the money.

Coverage on the right has largely ignored the Lutnick story. Coverage on the left is treating it as confirmation of a broader corruption narrative. Neither framing serves the reader. The donation happened. It's a fact. People can draw their own conclusions.

The Bottom Line

$1.776 billion of taxpayer money is sitting in a fund with no public transparency, administered by Trump-appointed commissioners, with no confirmed list of eligible recipients — and the administration has NOT ruled out paying January 6 rioters.

Two cops who got beaten defending the Capitol are suing to stop it. Legal scholars are saying there's no precedent for it. Members of Trump's own party are calling it a slush fund.

And the House Whip is telling everyone to wait for more information. The courts will eventually decide. Until then, the money sits — and the clock is running.