Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told senators he would not have the Justice Department oppose a congressional move to permanently ban a controversial “anti-weaponization” fund, according to an Arizona Mirror report on his confirmation hearing this week (https://azmirror.com/2026/07/15/repub/us-senators-grill-todd-blanche-over-slush-fund-deal-and-epstein-files-at-senate-confirmation-hearing/). Senators also pressed him on a deal critics labeled a “slush fund” and on “Epstein files,” the outlet reported.
Blanche further said he would consider any new information on the issues lawmakers raised, per the same report. That stance signals an openness to reassess matters drawing heightened oversight, without committing to specific investigative or policy steps at the hearing itself.
The practical consequence, if sustained after confirmation, is that DOJ would not serve as an institutional brake on Congress if lawmakers move to abolish the targeted fund. Congress controls appropriations. DOJ’s decision not to defend or preserve a discretionary pool would narrow executive latitude and reduce litigation friction should repeal legislation advance.
On authority, only Congress can create or terminate a federal fund. An Attorney General can decide whether to rely on, request, or defend such a mechanism in court or in interbranch negotiations. Blanche’s stated posture respects the appropriations power by deferring to a legislative remedy rather than mounting an executive defense of the status quo.
On remedy, a permanent statutory ban is categorical. It would foreclose future use of the account and force any comparable spending to run through regular, line-item appropriations. That may slow or discipline how money is moved inside the department, while also clarifying traceability and oversight for both parties in Congress. The hearing line of questioning, as described by the Arizona Mirror, suggests senators are testing Blanche’s willingness to constrain flexible funding vehicles some view as ripe for abuse.
On cost, ending a discretionary fund could require DOJ components to absorb delays or administrative burdens to reprogram resources through standard channels. Those are trade-offs Congress can lawfully impose to secure transparency. Blanche’s indication that he would not oppose a ban hints at a preference to work within tighter appropriations rather than spend political capital to preserve contested buckets of money.
On outcome, confirmations turn on credibility, clarity, and follow-through. Blanche’s commitments at hearing are preliminary. The Arizona Mirror report does not indicate a vote timeline or whether senators requested written follow-ups, which often lock in positions post-hearing. If confirmed, early guidance from Main Justice on any voluntary limits, pending congressional action, will be the first measurable test of this stance.
