After months of mounting pressure, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche formally rescinded the so-called anti-weaponization fund and clarified the scope of the deal that grants immunity from existing IRS audits to President Donald Trump, the president’s two eldest sons and the Trump Organization. But on their face, the documents appear limited in their effect, and questions remain as to whether the moves will end the effort to use federal funds to pay Trump supporters or to limit who the president’s legal settlement can insulate from tax audits.

The significant reversal marks a clear move to secure support from key Republican senators who have been resisting Blanche’s confirmation to become attorney general. Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina had maintained that they needed a formal, written termination of the nearly $1.8 billion taxpayer fund. Cornyn also advocated for a narrowed scope of the immunity agreement. 

Blanche posted two documents online late Sunday night that purported to make both concessions, and it seemed to work. In a joint statement Monday morning, Cornyn and Tillis wrote, “We are pleased that the Department of Justice has issued a formal order terminating the anti-weaponization fund,” adding, “We look forward to voting to advance his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon.”

But questions remain about whether these documents will actually quell public opposition to the provisions of Trump’s IRS lawsuit settlement agreement. 

The so-called anti-weaponization fund

Following months of pushback, Blanche finally rescinded the so-called anti-weaponization fund in writing. In the first document posted Sunday, Blanche killed the fund in a single sentence, writing, “The Attorney General’s May 18, 2026 Order establishing the Anti-Weaponization Fund is rescinded and shall have no force or effect.” 

Blanche wrote that the order is consistent with his previous statements — both before Congress and in court filings — that the fund is dead.

“No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” he wrote. “This order establishes, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is no Fund.”

What the statement does not do is notable. Blanche did not write that no such fund would be created in the future. No part of this termination order indicates that the DOJ could not revive this or a comparable fund in some way, shape or form in the future. He simply has rescinded the fund, for now. 

The fund remains the subject of multiple legal challenges. In June, a federal judge in Virginia indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from taking steps to create the fund. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema signaled she would dismiss the suit should Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent submit a sworn declaration under the penalty of perjury that the fund had been terminated. 

They declined to do so, and the case has continued. It is not immediately clear whether Blanche’s cancellation order will prompt Brinkema to revisit the possibility of dismissal. The Department of Justice asked her to dismiss the case last month, arguing the fund is dead. She is set to hear arguments on the dismissal later this month.  

Settlement agreement remains in effect

None of Blanche’s new documents rescinded the original settlement agreement, which was reached after Trump moved to dismiss his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and a federal judge agreed to that dismissal. That settlement yielded the so-called anti-weaponization fund to redress individuals who claim they were harmed by “weaponization” of the justice system. 

The agreement gives the attorney general the power to establish the fund and all relevant rules that govern it. Blanche did establish the fund, but he has maintained the department has not taken any steps to formally operate it. 

Last month U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who presided over and dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS, ripped the settlement agreement. In a scathing ruling, Williams concluded that Trump sued the IRS for an “improper purpose — to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a ‘settlement’ that has no viable basis in law or fact.”