Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche accused Sen. Chris Van Hollen of lying to his face during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday, triggering a tense exchange that laid bare the political fight over the Justice Department's new $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat and the committee's ranking member, had been pressing Blanche about whether a pardoned Jan. 6 defendant, later convicted of sexually abusing children, could receive money from the fund. Blanche cut him off. The senator pointed at Blanche and warned him never to do it again.
The confrontation came just one day after the Justice Department announced the creation of the fund, which is earmarked for people who allege they were victims of federal government "lawfare." Democrats have wasted no time framing it as a payout vehicle for allies of President Donald Trump. The hearing, ostensibly about the DOJ's fiscal year 2027 budget, became a proxy battle over the pardons Trump issued to more than 1,500 people charged or convicted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots.
Van Hollen zeroed in on the case of Andrew Paul Johnson, a Jan. 6 pardonee who was sentenced to life in prison in March 2026 for the sexual abuse of two minors. Florida authorities reported that Johnson had promised his victims he would share money he expected to receive as restitution after his pardon.
Van Hollen told Blanche, as Fox News reported:
"That person actually tried to buy the silence of these children by saying that he would pay them some of the funds that he was hoping to get from your slush fund."
He then asked whether Blanche could commit to writing the fund's rules so Johnson would be ineligible for a payout.
Blanche did not mince words:
"Well, you're obviously lying in your question, because there's no way that this person committed to that. The slush fund, as you call it... didn't exist."
Blanche's point was direct. The Anti-Weaponization Fund had only been announced the day before. Johnson could not have promised victims money from a fund that did not yet exist at the time of his alleged statements.
Van Hollen fired back, pointing at the acting attorney general:
"Don't ever do that again. I am reporting what he said."
He continued: "He said on the expectation that he hoped to get some of the funds from a payout."
Later in the hearing, Van Hollen read from an affidavit tied to the Johnson case. The document described a Discord message Johnson allegedly sent to one of his victims, claiming "he was being awarded $10,000,000 as a result of being a 'jan 6'er'" and that he would put the victim "in his 'will' to take any money he had left over."
The affidavit was attributed to Florida authorities, though the specific issuing court or agency was not identified during the hearing. No independent verification of the Discord message itself appeared in the exchange.
Van Hollen used the affidavit to press his broader argument:
"This is the fund that the president and all of you have been telegraphing all along that you are going to use to help the president's friends."
It is worth noting what Blanche actually objected to. Van Hollen's initial framing, that Johnson "tried to buy the silence of these children" using money from "your slush fund", implied a direct connection between the DOJ's newly announced fund and Johnson's alleged grooming. Blanche called that characterization dishonest. The fund did not exist when Johnson allegedly made those promises. Johnson may have anticipated some future payout, but that is a different claim than the one Van Hollen led with.
The Anti-Weaponization Fund sits at the center of a growing partisan fight. The Justice Department created it for individuals who say the federal government targeted them through politically motivated prosecution, what the administration calls "lawfare." The $1.776 billion figure is symbolic, echoing the founding year.
Democratic senators argue the DOJ has taken steps to make restitution for Jan. 6 defendants possible, and they see the fund as a reward for people who participated in the Capitol breach. Ed Martin, the Justice Department's pardon attorney, is described as the only known Trump administration official who has explicitly called for Jan. 6 defendants to receive restitution for the "lawfare" they faced. Martin spoke at a press conference in Washington, D.C., on May 13, 2025.
The specific eligibility criteria for the fund remain unclear. No public rules have been released governing who qualifies, what offenses are covered, or whether individuals convicted of separate violent crimes, like Johnson, would be excluded. Van Hollen's question about whether Blanche could commit to barring Johnson from the fund went unanswered in substance.
That gap matters. If the fund's architects cannot or will not define its boundaries in public, they hand their opponents an open lane to fill the silence with the worst possible examples.
Andrew Paul Johnson's case is genuinely disturbing on its own terms. He received a pardon related to Jan. 6 charges, then was sentenced to life in prison in March 2026 for sexually abusing two minors. Florida authorities reported he used the prospect of future restitution money to manipulate his victims.
No one, left or right, defends Johnson. But the way his case entered this hearing deserves scrutiny. Van Hollen presented it as evidence that the Anti-Weaponization Fund would funnel taxpayer dollars to predators. Blanche pushed back on the timeline, noting the fund did not exist when Johnson allegedly made those claims to his victims. Both men had a point, and both men overstated it.
Van Hollen's framing collapsed the distinction between a convicted criminal's fantasy about a future payout and an actual government disbursement. Blanche's accusation of lying, while pointed, addressed the rhetorical sleight of hand rather than the underlying concern: what happens when someone like Johnson applies?
That question still has no answer.
The broader Democratic strategy is clear enough. By tying the Anti-Weaponization Fund to the most repellent Jan. 6 pardonee they can find, senators like Van Hollen aim to discredit the entire concept of restitution for people who say the federal government abused its prosecutorial power.
Trump pardoned or commuted sentences for more than 1,500 people connected to the Capitol riots. The overwhelming majority of those cases involved nonviolent charges. Democrats have little interest in distinguishing between a grandmother who walked through the Capitol and a man now serving life for child sexual abuse. Lumping them together serves the political objective.
But the tactic works only if the administration leaves the fund's rules vague. Every day without published eligibility standards is another day opponents get to define the program by its worst hypothetical beneficiary.
Blanche appeared before the committee to discuss the DOJ's fiscal year 2027 budget. He got a political ambush instead. His willingness to call out misleading framing in real time was notable. Acting attorneys general do not typically accuse sitting senators of lying on camera.
But directness alone does not resolve the policy question. The administration built this fund. The administration named its price tag. The administration now owns the obligation to explain, in public and in writing, who gets the money and who does not.
If the answer to Van Hollen's question is obvious, that a man serving life for child sexual abuse will never see a dime, then say so on the record. Put it in the rules. Remove the ambiguity that lets opponents turn a budget hearing into a circus.
When you leave the door open, don't be surprised when your critics walk through it with the worst guest they can find.