Justice Department Payouts Pose a Continued Challenge to Blanche’s Attorney General Nomination

Two days before the Senate was set to vote on advancing Todd Blanche’s nomination as attorney general, a $1 million settlement was announced for anti‑abortion activist Paul Vaughn, whom Blanche has described as a victim of Biden administration weaponization.

The settlement paid to Paul Vaughn, convicted in 2024 by a Tennessee jury of conspiring to block access to an abortion clinic, illustrates how the $1.8 billion fund announced in May can persist even as Mr. Blanche has stepped back publicly. Existing mechanisms for distributing taxpayer funds may allow him to placate skeptical Republicans while fulfilling President Trump’s aim of compensating those he says were harmed by the Justice Department.

His lawyers said Mr. Vaughn will receive a seven‑figure settlement from the government, placing him among administration allies who have obtained payouts through other channels.

Since 1870, the Justice Department has processed civil compensation claims against the federal government, which may be pursued via public lawsuits or through private forms submitted directly to the department.

Mr. Vaughn, who was pardoned by the president last year, maintains his innocence and accuses the Biden administration of misusing a statute designed to guarantee women and health‑care professionals unobstructed access to reproductive services.

The settlement was negotiated by his lawyers at the Thomas More Society—an organization that frequently represents anti‑abortion activists—in April, and was first disclosed on Tuesday in a statement alleging that his prosecution was politically motivated and part of a broader government effort to weaponize the law against opponents of abortion rights.

The Justice Department’s continued capacity to make such payments, whether through a formal fund or not, remains a contentious issue between the Trump administration and Republican senators as they evaluate Mr. Blanche’s nomination, currently serving as acting attorney general.

A single “no” vote from a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee could stall or sink his nomination, and Thursday’s scheduled vote is now uncertain after key holdouts voiced skepticism.

In May, the Justice Department announced it would resolve Mr. Trump’s lawsuit seeking at least $10 billion from the IRS by creating a fund to compensate his supporters, raising concerns that taxpayer money might be directed to Jan. 6 rioters. A related provision also prohibited the IRS from auditing past tax returns of Mr. Trump and his relatives.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas voiced the strongest concerns on the committee, stating on Wednesday that he would not support Mr. Blanche’s nomination unless he provided written assurances that the fund and the tax provision would be terminated.

Mr. Blanche publicly defended the fund as essential for “victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.” Democrats labeled it a brazen slush fund intended to divert substantial taxpayer dollars to the president’s supporters.

Despite his public retreat, Mr. Blanche has resisted providing a written guarantee to courts or Congress that the fund will not reappear in any form.

He told lawmakers that the reasons for creating the fund “remain as important as they were before.”

The dispute over the fund represents the most consequential demonstration of Mr. Blanche’s distinctive management style since he assumed the No. 2 role at the Justice Department in March 2025. Unlike his predecessors, he has publicly directed key decisions in politically charged cases, drawing criticism that he acts more like Mr. Trump’s personal defense attorney than a senior law‑enforcement official duty to taxpayers, the rule of law, and the public.

Federal judges have repeatedly singled out Mr. Blanche by name, underscoring his direct involvement in numerous decisions they view as prosecutorial missteps. Nonetheless, his frequent assumption of responsibility in high‑profile cases—typically delegated to subordinates—has invited censure.

In May, a federal judge in Nashville centered his decision to dismiss a human‑smuggling case against Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia on a finding of “abuse of prosecutorial power,” concluding that Mr. Blanche had led a “tainted investigation” and pursued an indictment not because the facts and law required it, but to provide the department “cover” for returning Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States from his wrongful deportation to El Salvador.

The following month, a federal judge in Minnesota rebuked Mr. Blanche, asserting that his aggressive remarks about Governor Tim Walz and other Democratic leaders had facilitated the Justice Department’s issuance of numerous improper grand jury subpoenas in an investigation of alleged state interference with the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Judge Patrick J. Schiltz noted that Mr. Blanche had accused Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey of “encouraging violence against law enforcement” and vowed to halt their “terrorism by whatever means necessary.”

Judge Schiltz ultimately quashed the subpoenas, ruling that they constituted “a broader campaign to coerce” Minnesota officials into assisting Mr. Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda, and that they emerged while the administration used “criminal investigations to retaliate against and pressure the president’s political and personal adversaries.”

Source link