Sen. Dick Durbin says acting Attorney General Todd Blanche privately admitted the Department of Justice's $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund was "a mistake", and offered to work with Congress to end it, during a courtesy meeting ahead of Blanche's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.
The Illinois Democrat, the committee's ranking member, told The Hill that Blanche went further than his previous public statements disavowing the fund, which grew out of President Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leaking of his tax returns. Durbin's account, if accurate, marks a notable shift in tone from the acting attorney general, though the DOJ did not respond to a request for comment, and Blanche has not publicly confirmed or denied the exchange.
The fund has drawn broad backlash, including from Republicans. A federal judge recently voided the arrangement, finding that the DOJ and Trump had colluded in dismissing the underlying case and crafting the payout. Now, as Blanche faces senators for his confirmation hearing, Democrats appear eager to use his own reported words against the administration's legal maneuvering.
Durbin described Blanche as contrite during their private sit-down. He quoted the acting attorney general as saying:
"What more can I do? What more can I say? I made a mistake."
Blanche had already told lawmakers publicly that the Justice Department was "not moving forward with the fund. Period." But Durbin said he pressed Blanche to put that position in writing, and Blanche resisted, instead saying he would work with Congress to "codify" the fund's ending.
The distinction matters. A verbal commitment from a nominee carries far less weight than a written pledge on the record. Durbin's account suggests Blanche wanted to signal distance from the fund without boxing himself in on paper.
Durbin also offered a surprisingly generous personal assessment of Blanche's style, even as he challenged Blanche's stance on the fund and other issues. He called Blanche "a good lawyer" who has "been at this a long time as a prosecutor and defense lawyer," adding that Blanche "has a way about him that is, it's not an 'aw shucks,' but it's pretty close to it."
The fund traces back to Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, which alleged the agency improperly leaked his tax returns. Trump originally sought $10 billion. The case ended in a settlement that created the $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund, a figure whose patriotic symbolism did not go unnoticed.
The arrangement drew fire from both parties. A recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found that the DOJ and Trump had colluded in dismissing the case and engineering the fund. Williams wrote that "there was never a question as to who would prevail" and that the suit was "brought to manipulate the judicial process."
Those are severe findings. The judge's language left little room for interpretation: in her view, the lawsuit was not a genuine legal dispute but a vehicle for a predetermined outcome. That kind of judicial rebuke puts any nominee who touched the matter in a difficult spot, and Blanche, as acting AG, inherited the fallout.
The previous Senate clashes over the DOJ fund have already been heated. Blanche at one point accused Sen. Van Hollen of "obviously lying" during an exchange about the fund's status, a moment that previewed the kind of confrontation his confirmation hearing is likely to produce.
Durbin revealed another detail from the private meeting that may surface during the hearing. He said Blanche "blasted" Judge Williams, characterizing her ruling as a personal attack rather than a legitimate legal finding.
Durbin relayed Blanche's view this way:
"He believes he was a victim of a hit job by this judge in Florida."
That framing, a sitting federal judge conducting a "hit job", is the kind of language that will draw scrutiny from both sides of the aisle. Nominees to lead the Justice Department are expected to respect the independence of the judiciary, even when they disagree with specific rulings. Privately dismissing a federal judge's findings as a political attack is a different posture than publicly disagreeing with the legal reasoning.
Whether Blanche repeats that characterization under oath remains to be seen. But Durbin has now put it on the record, giving committee Democrats a clear line of questioning.
Blanche's hearing arrives during a packed confirmation schedule as the Senate races to process Trump nominees before the August recess. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have signaled they intend to make the hearing combative, not just on the anti-weaponization fund, but on the Jeffrey Epstein files as well.
Committee Democrats invited victims of Epstein, the deceased convicted sex offender, to attend Blanche's hearing. The move echoes a past hearing involving Blanche's predecessor, Pam Bondi, who refused to turn around and acknowledge Epstein victims present in the room. Photographs of that moment became what The Hill described as "a defining moment of her tenure."
The Bondi transcript revealing she handed Epstein files oversight to Blanche adds another layer. Democrats clearly intend to press Blanche on what he has done with that responsibility, and whether the DOJ under his leadership has been forthcoming with Congress.
Democrats also attempted to question Blanche about pardons, though the specific questions and his responses were not detailed.
There is a real question about how much weight to give Durbin's account. This was a private meeting. No transcript exists. The DOJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment, and Blanche has not publicly confirmed or denied saying the fund was "a mistake."
Durbin is a skilled political operator. He chose to disclose this exchange on the eve of Blanche's confirmation hearing, timing that serves an obvious purpose. His characterization of Blanche as affable and sincere could be read as genuine respect or as a setup: praising the man's manner while using his own reported words to undercut the administration's legal strategy.
That said, Blanche's public statements already pointed in the same direction. He told lawmakers the DOJ was "not moving forward with the fund. Period." The private remarks Durbin describes are consistent with that position, if more candid in tone. The gap is not between what Blanche said publicly and what he allegedly said privately, it is between what he is willing to say and what he is willing to put in writing.
That gap is worth watching. The broader pattern of partisan conflict in the Senate over Trump-era legal matters means every exchange between administration nominees and committee Democrats carries strategic freight on both sides.
Blanche faces several pressure points when he sits before the committee. Democrats will push him on whether the fund was lawful, whether he will commit in writing to ending it, and what he makes of Judge Williams's finding that the DOJ and Trump colluded to manufacture the settlement. They will press him on the Epstein files. And they will likely try to get him on the record about pardons.
Republicans, for their part, have their own concerns about the fund's optics. The backlash was bipartisan. If Blanche genuinely regards the fund as a mistake, saying so clearly and on the record would serve both his confirmation prospects and the administration's credibility on DOJ independence.
The scrutiny facing other top Trump appointees at law enforcement agencies only raises the stakes. Every confirmation hearing this cycle becomes a proxy fight over whether the administration's legal apparatus is operating within proper bounds.
If Blanche truly called the anti-weaponization fund a mistake, the simplest move is to say so under oath, and put it in writing. Verbal assurances in private meetings are worth exactly as much as the paper they are not printed on.