Wire flash
PoliticsActing AG Todd Blanche reverses pledge, Trump's $1.8B slush fund may not be dead
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Source reporting is collected, normalized, translated or condensed automatically when needed.
- Automatically published source-backed update
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has reversed his earlier pledge that Donald Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund was dead. In written answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Blanche refused to rule out using taxpayer funds as reparations for Trump's political allies, including those convicted of assaulting police during the January 6 Capitol attack. He declined to answer whether DOJ discussed payouts with convicted January 6 participants, whether granting Trump criminal immunity was appropriate, or whether the IRS was pressured into a settlement. A federal judge, Kathleen Williams, previously nullified the settlement underlying the fund, ruling it was an unlawful attempt to use the court to legitimize conferring immunity and earmarking billions in taxpayer money for undefined grievances.
Source report
Todd Blanche Reverses Position on Trump's $1.8 Billion Slush Fund
Within days of pledging that Donald Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund was dead, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has changed his position.
In written answers provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee following his congressional hearing, Trump's former personal attorney refused to rule out the possibility that taxpayer funds could, at some point, be redirected as reparations to Trump's aggrieved political allies.
Key exchanges from the Senate questionnaire:
- When asked whether he would issue a memorandum directing the DOJ not to settle with anyone convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers during the January 6 attack, Blanche responded: "Every claim submitted pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act is reviewed on the merits and addressed by the Torts Branch of the Civil Division. The compromise and/or settlement of any claim is made only in the best interest of the United States."
- Blanche refused to expound on whether Justice Department officials had discussed potential payouts with convicted January 6 participants.
- He declined to answer whether it was "appropriate" to grant Trump and his family criminal immunity.
- He similarly refused to say whether he or the Justice Department had pressured IRS officials to sign a settlement agreement with the president.
Judicial context: Blanche's opinion does not supersede that of a federal judge who found the enterprise wildly unlawful. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams nixed the settlement underlying Trump's slush fund, ruling that the settlement parties—Trump's IRS and Trump's attorneys—were never actually at odds when they opted to forgo the president's $10 billion lawsuit in favor of a taxpayer-funded honeypot.
"The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law," Williams wrote.
Read more: Federal Judge Nullifies Trump's Entire January 6 Slush Fund
Over 4.5 Million Americans Lose Food Assistance Under Trump's Budget
More than 4.5 million people across the country have lost access to federal food assistance since the passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
Key findings:
- The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was among the social safety net programs gutted by Trump's budget, which narrowed eligibility for food aid and shifted costs to states.
- CBPP estimates that 11 percent of SNAP participants—including 1.5 million children—were removed from food assistance between July 2025 and April 2026.
- The bill marked the most significant cuts in SNAP history, including:
- Expansion of work requirements for homeless people, veterans, and all able-bodied adults without children up to age 65 (previously exempt for those over 54)
- Elimination of eligibility for many people with lawful immigration status
- Requirements for states with high error rates to pay significantly more in benefit costs
Regional impact: Some parts of the country are being hit harder than others. Arizona, in particular, has seen a significant decline in SNAP participation.
Source
The New RepublicWestern
Part of this Story
Todd Blanche Reverses Pledge, Admits Trump Slush Fund May Not Be Dead