Congress

Trump’s $1.8 billion ‘lawfare’ fund is making Republicans nervous

Published

3 months ago

May 19, 2026

Senate Republicans are greeting the Justice Department’s announcement of a new “Anti-Weaponization Fund” with concern, confusion and questions — and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is offering up little clarity on how it will work.

At a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday morning, Blanche fielded queries from members of both parties about the logistics of the $1.8 billion account, who would have oversight and whether it could function as a “slush fund” for individuals who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Democrats are, predictably, enraged by the terms of the settlement for President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the government for the leak of his tax information, which resulted in the creation of this account to benefit targets of “weaponization and lawfare.”

“There is no level below which these folks will not go,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I) said in an interview. “It is just disgusting, having come off Law Enforcement Week, to have set up a slush fund to pay off people who attack police officers.”

But Republicans are also signaling deep discomfort with the arrangement, as well as frustration that they weren’t given the answers they were looking for.

“I’ve got more questions than I’ve heard answers for, and … I didn’t hear anything that gave me certainty in terms of how this all comes together,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), after attending the hearing with Blanche. “Can the president just say $1.87 billion? … I don’t know enough about it to feel comfortable.”

Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Jerry Moran of Kansas — the top Republicans on the full Appropriations committee and the panel that oversees DOJ funding, respectively — both pressed Blanche at the hearing to explain how payouts from the fund would be managed and who might receive them.

Blanche said repeatedly it would be up to the “commissioners” to determine who would get financial compensation for being victimized by the government. He repeatedly said anyone — even President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who was prosecuted and convicted on gun and tax charges before being pardoned by his father — could apply for compensation.

But he also wouldn’t rule out that Jan. 6 rioters convicted of assaulting police might qualify, a deeply sensitive issue for lawmakers who were at the Capitol that day.

Vice President JD Vance, at a news conference later Tuesday afternoon, further confused the matter by saying “we’re not trying to give money to anybody who attacked a police officer” but also that “we do have people who were accused of attacking law enforcement officers” and “we’re going to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters he was “not a big fan” of the fund and that he didn’t “see a purpose for that.”

“I think that there are, and will be continue to be, a lot of questions around that, that the administration is going to have to answer,” he said later at a news conference.

Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the White House’s staunchest allies who once championed a payout for lawmakers who had their phone data subpoenaed by the Biden administration, said Tuesday he believed senators needed more information.

“Conceptually I understand what he’s trying to do, but I don’t know,” he said. “I think we need to ask more questions.”

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It’s not yet clear how Republicans will reconcile their desire for answers with their waning appetite for going against Trump, who has yet again placed the GOP in an awkward situation: Endorse a policy that Democrats are casting as a self-enrichment scheme or get crosswise with the president, who is successfully going after his political enemies in midterm primary campaigns.

Appropriators could choose to put some guardrails on the massive settlement account by restricting funding from going towards its implementation or clearly defining who could benefit from it. Murkowski, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, said she would have “serious and significant problems” if the money was given to those convicted for their part in the Capitol attack.

But Moran concluded his probing questions of Blanche by saying the Appropriations Committee did not have jurisdiction “in a sense, because this is mandatory spending” — a sign he may not seek to be proactive in placing limits on how the fund might function.

In a further apparent effort to deflect the issue, Moran asked Blanche during the hearing whether he had spoken to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee about the account. Blanche replied that he had not “over the past 24 hours.”

Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters that the situation was akin to the $2 million settlement the DOJ reached with former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who sued the government after the Trump administration released their text messages in apparent violation of the federal Privacy Act.

“This has happened before in a Democrat administration, so I’m not sure you should be surprised that there’s justice for people that have had the government weaponized against them,” Grassley said.

Still, he added, “if there’s questions” about the new account, “we’re going to be able to discuss it directly when we have the attorney general before our committee for our usual oversight.”

The panel has not yet scheduled such a hearing with Blanche.

Congress

Jack Smith invited to testify before Senate next month

Published

3 hours ago

August 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Jack Smith, the former special counsel who brought criminal charges against President Donald Trump, has been invited to testify Sept. 22 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to an invitation from Chair Chuck Grassley reviewed by Blue Light News.

Smith previously testified before the House Judiciary Committee in January, but Grassley (R-Iowa) and his team have been probing Smith and his investigations for months.

Grassley recently revealed that Smith obtained text messages that 44 members of Congress sent to White House officials during the waning months of Trump’s first term leading up to and around the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

Grassley’s texts were among those accessed by Smith’s team, along with Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

“In the process of a deeply flawed, weaponized investigation, Jack Smith subpoenaed phone toll records from a dozen senators, scooped up text messages from over 40 members of Congress, and subpoenaed the private communications and financial records of hundreds of other Republican entities and individuals,” Grassley said in a statement.

“He needs to answer directly to Congress for his actions,” Grassley added. “Smith has requested to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and our committee looks forward to hearing from him as part of Congress’ investigation into Arctic Frost and his time as Special Counsel. Smith must be honest and forthcoming in his answers, because the American people deserve nothing less than full transparency and accountability.”

Lawyers for Smith did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

During the January hearing, Republicans focused on technicalities of how Smith investigated the probe into Trump’s election interference, such as whether he properly signed his oath of office and whether he was sufficiently versed on the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause that protects members of Congress from criminal investigation for their lawmaking actions.

Congress

Chuck Edwards recommended for censure by House Ethics Committee

Published

3 hours ago

August 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Ethics Committee recommended Monday that lawmakers censure Rep. Chuck Edwards for engaging in “persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers” — cataloguing multiple episodes of sexual harassment by the married lawmaker.

Censure is the most severe punishment the panel can recommend short of expulsion, requiring targeted members to submit to a public shaming on the floor. The bipartisan panel said it plans to bring a privileged resolution to a vote once the House returns to session later this month.

A spokesperson for Edwards, 65, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a 15-page rebuttal, lawyers for Edwards said that the Ethics Committee “failed to demonstrate that either of the two staffers expressed discomfort to Representative Edwards regarding his conduct with them.” They also rejected the need for censure, noting that it has been used “sparingly in this context and directed only at matters of severe sexual misconduct.”

The panel itself released a trove of evidence including emails, text messages and photographs showing how Edwards had insinuated himself into intimate aspects of their lives.

Edwards, the committee found, made comments on the appearance of two young female staffers in his congressional office, telling them they looked “pretty” or “breathtaking” and made a comment on one staffer’s weight. He also lavished the young women with gifts, including purses valued at more than $1,000, as well as guns, shoes, flowers and one-on-one dinners.

Text messages from one of the women showed Edwards at one point sent her more than 20 containers of ice cream because, he said, she needed “a lot of cheering up!”

Sexual harassment is prohibited by House rules and federal law, and the committee found that Edwards violated “the spirit of the House’s prohibitions on sexual harassment and unwanted advances, as well as the requirement to act in a manner that reflects credibly upon the House.”

The report found Edwards brought one of the staffers to a holiday event at the White House, gave her flowers and texted her how he was “so excited about tonight” and that he pressured her to continue the night with him after the event. Edwards told the committee he accompanied that staffer to her home in Virginia because he “felt uncomfortable dumping a young lady on the street.”

Edwards also talked to that staffer and others about going to strip clubs in Washington, the report says.

The panel concluded that Edwards did not engage in sexual activity with either of the women, nor did he explicitly proposition them or other staff members for sex. Edwards, who is facing a competitive race for reelection in his western North Carolina district, cooperated with the probe, the committee said.

In one instance, the panel found, Edwards skipped House votes one night to decorate the second staffer’s Christmas tree. He also went out drinking and gambling with her. On another occasion, he recited a poem at her going-away party in his office and cried during that incident, making his staff noticeably uncomfortable.

When the second staffer left his office, Edwards helped her move back to North Carolina and sent her a handwritten letter in which he described her as “the most amazing woman” and that she had “written a complex chapter in my heart that I will never stop reading.”

Edwards told the committee that letter was not romantic.

“It was only to imply that we had a relationship on so many different levels — on a congressional level, on a professional level, on a friendship level, on a helping-one-another-out-with-our-chores-and-responsibility level,” he said.

Congress

Cornyn, Tillis confirm they will vote for Blanche

Published

7 hours ago

August 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has a clear path to the Senate Judiciary Committee advancing his nomination to the permanent job after two GOP holdouts confirmed Monday they would vote for him.

The statement from Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) comes after the late-night announcement Sunday of a Justice Department agreement to clarify a controversial May settlement agreement between President Donald Trump and the IRS.

A successful Judiciary vote Tuesday would set Blanche up for confirmation on the Senate floor later this week, before the chamber breaks for August recess.

“We want to express our gratitude to Mr. Blanche and his staff for working with us on this, and we look forward to voting to advance his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon,” Cornyn and Tillis said in a joint statement.

The senators suggested their agreement with Blanche also satisfies the concerns of several other Republican senators off the Judiciary Committee who have raised concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” created in the original settlement, as well as provisions immunizing Trump and his family from some tax audits.

“We are pleased that the Department of Justice has issued a formal order terminating the anti-weaponization fund. Additionally, the Department has acknowledged in a binding written order that the audit settlement is limited to the plaintiffs and the scope does not extend beyond the defendants in the lawsuit, the IRS and the Treasury, addressing concerns that multiple of our Republican colleagues share,” Cornyn and Tillis said.

Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, John Curtis of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are among the other Republicans who have expressed concerns about the payout fund. Blanche recently visited Alaska and announced a flurry of settlements benefiting Alaska as he courts Murkowski’s vote.