MS NOW97%
Blanche and Trump pitch wildly different messages on the fate of the ‘slush fund’ 34%
By Steve Benen99%
8/3/2026, 5:00:52 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Recency Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26.3% saturation with 242 hits. Analysis detected 1,231 faulty-reasoning hits from 920 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36% and a BS Rank of 34% (18,373 of 27,768 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.20% of the article peer group.
As last week neared its end, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley rescheduled a planned vote on Todd Blanche’s attorney general nomination, announcing that the panel would take up the matter on Tuesday.
At the time, the move was largely aspirational: There was no agreement to advance Blanche, but the Iowa Republican hoped a deal might take shape.
Roughly 48 hours later, The Associated Press reported :
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a formal order late Sunday terminating President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” to compensate his political allies, a move that follows weeks of negotiations with two Republican senators who were blocking his nomination to become attorney general.
A spokeswoman for Texas Sen.
John Cornyn, one of the senators holding up Blanche’s nomination, confirmed the deal, which comes ahead of a Tuesday confirmation vote for Blanche’s nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In a statement accompanying the order, the Justice Department said that “although the Acting Attorney General has repeatedly advised Congress through testimony, including under oath, as well as in written responses, that the Fund is not moving forward, and the Department has repeatedly represented to district courts that the Fund is not moving forward, today’s Order officially rescinds the May 18, 2026 Order.”
As became obvious last week, at least two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee — Cornyn and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — have focused their concerns on a rather specific point.
As MS NOW has reported , both GOP senators, who are poised to exit Capitol Hill at the end of the year, “say the Trump administration has yet to satisfy their demands on Trump’s IRS settlement.
The pair is asking Blanche to formally kill the so-called anti-weaponization fund and narrow the scope of the IRS audit immunity afforded to Trump, his family, his businesses and others under the agreement.”
The process proved complex and serpentine, but late Sunday night, the nominee appeared to check a box: His Republican skeptics wanted documentary evidence that the compensation fund, widely criticized by both parties as a slush fund, and Blanche finally produced such a document .
This marked an important development, but instead of resolving the broader controversy, it generated a new set of questions.
Cornyn appears satisfied, but what about his GOP colleagues?
The Texas Republican helped take the lead on the intraparty pushback, but other GOP senators also expressed serious reservations, and they haven’t yet said publicly whether they’re prepared to support the nominee’s confirmation.
Is Blanche’s new document binding?
It’s an open question as to whether Blanche — or more to the point, Donald Trump — could simply issue a new order rescinding the document the nominee produced on Sunday night.
Will senators believe the nominee or his boss?
Blanche’s new order tries to add a degree of formality to what he’s been telling senators for weeks: The fund is dead.
The president who appointed him, however, has spent the past several days pushing the opposite line, insisting that he still wants and expects to have a taxpayer-financed fund to reward his political allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.
As recently as Saturday morning, Trump published an item to his social media platform stating that he’s prepared to “push hard to get the Anti-Weaponization Bill … PASSED.”
Pointing to legislation that does not exist, the Republican added, “It will immediately be back on the table, and I will get it done.”
On Sunday night, during a brief Q&A with reporters on Air Force One, the president again said he wanted a fund to serve as “a reimbursement for the pain” his allies suffered.
He added , referring to himself in third person, “A lot of people like it.
A lot of big supporters of Trump like it.”
(Of course they like it; they’re hoping for generous payouts.)
In other words, even as Blanche scrambles to convince the relevant players that the fund is no more, his boss clearly has contradictory ambitions, which should raise all kinds of red flags for senators who are concerned about the underlying issue.
What about the IRS immunity shield?
In a separate document, the attorney general nominee sought to bring new clarity to the other concern raised by Cornyn and Tillis.
This second, unsigned statement says that the audit immunity deal only shields the president, his company and his family members from audits.
Except that’s not much of a concession.
As The New York Times reported , “Still, even in its new form, Mr.
Blanche’s order for the I.R.S. to abandon any audits of Mr.
Trump’s previous tax returns is an unprecedented and potentially illegal benefit to a sitting president, worth potentially tens of millions of dollars in lower taxes and avoided penalties.”
What about the administration’s other financial spigots?
While the fate of Trump’s $1.776 billion compensation fund continues to generate worthy attention, let’s not forget that the White House continues to arrange for generous payouts, financed entirely by American taxpayers, to the president’s political allies through dubious settlement agreements .
If members of Congress such as Cornyn and Tillis have a problem with the idea, this should be of interest to them too.
As the week gets underway, Blanche’s odds are better than when last week came to an end, but the process isn’t over yet.
Watch this space.
The post Blanche and Trump pitch wildly different messages on the fate of the ‘slush fund’ appeared first on MS NOW .
Speakers
7speakers40%attributed speech555writer words
Selected voice
79%flagged-word coverageThe New York Times
53 attributed words15% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.