The Justice Department is permanently abandoning its plan to set up a $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress on Tuesday.
“We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” he said in a hearing with the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department’s funding.
Mr. Blanche’s testimony comes after the department announced Monday it would adhere to a temporary injunction blocking further action on the fund while a federal court case in the Eastern District of Virginia is pending.
A hearing in that case is scheduled for June 12, and the Justice Department has until Friday to file its opposing views.
Mr. Blanche suggested the department will continue to fight that lawsuit and similar complaints filed in other jurisdictions despite its decision not to launch the Anti-Weaponization Fund.
“Notwithstanding what we do in those litigations and defending our rights and making sure our rights are protected, we’re not moving forward with the fund,” he said.
Mr. Blanche’s announcement of the fund last month was part of a settlement the Justice Department reached with President Trump to end his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for leaking his tax returns.
The timing derailed Senate Republicans’ plans to pass an immigration and law enforcement funding package before Memorial Day as several GOP senators threatened to vote for Democratic amendments to kill the fund.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, South Dakota Republican, delayed consideration of the bill and asked the administration to kill the fund.
Mr. Thune said he hoped the acting attorney general’s testimony would allay Republicans’ concerns and ensure they have enough votes to defeat Democrats’ amendments and pass the funding package.
“I’m not guaranteeing that happens yet,” Mr. Thune said.
Some GOP senators said Mr. Blanche’s testimony alone would not be enough.
“He can always be overruled by his boss or anybody else,” said Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn, who lost his bid to compete for reelection in November to a Trump-backed primary challenger.
Sen. Thom Tillis, North Carolina Republican, said he plans to file an amendment to the funding package to prevent the administration from resurrecting the fund.
“It would seem to me if it’s dead and it’s not going to come back, that they would be supportive and endorse an amendment to actually make sure it never comes back,” he said. “They’ve already done it.”
During the House hearing, Democrats pressed Mr. Blanche on whether he would reverse his previous written order establishing the fund.
“There’s nothing to reverse,” he said, noting there were no commissioners named yet to oversee the fund or a process opened to receive claims.
Rep. Grace Meng of New York, the top Democrat on the subcommittee, said the Justice Department should still put their reversal in writing so the American people can be clear that it will not move forward with a similar fund.
“I’m not trying to be flippant with you, I’m telling you it’s not,” Mr. Blanche said, noting the transcript of the hearing documenting his testimony would be in writing.
Ms. Meng pressed the issue again during her second round of questioning, saying she wants to take Mr. Blanche at his word but he is not under oath.
“I’m not committing to doing anything in writing, no,” Mr. Blanche said. “I mean, I’ll take it under advisement.”
Mr. Blanche said the decision not to proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund does not otherwise affect the settlement agreement reached with President Trump.
The settlement ensures that Mr. Trump, his companies and his sons, who were all caught up in the tax-return leak and party to the lawsuit, cannot be prosecuted for any potential crimes related to their existing tax filings.
The IRS can still audit future returns.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democratic appropriator, questioned why the “blanket immunity” was not being rescinded as well.
Mr. Blanche said the order is “not blanket immunity.”
“There’s a settlement that the IRS entered into with President Trump and his family and his companies,” he said. “As part of that settlement, as is customary in IRS settlements, there is a separate AG order.”
