Blanche tells Senate DOJ won’t fight ban on ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

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 tradeoffs 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.

Senators, according to the report, also scrutinized how the department has handled records tied to Jeffrey Epstein. Blanche reportedly said he would consider any new information. That is a cautious formulation. It avoids prejudging facts while keeping the door open to review if credible material emerges through proper channels.

For Arizona, DOJ posture on discretionary funds matters because it shapes how federal partners finance task forces, grants, and litigation that intersect with state and local agencies. Predictable, line-item appropriations can improve planning. The tradeoff is less speed when new pressures arise, which state counterparts will notice if Congress proceeds with a ban.

What comes next is procedural. The committee will set the pace on Blanche’s nomination. In the interim, senators can solicit written answers, and DOJ can choose to refrain from drawing on any disputed funding pending congressional decision. We will watch for those concrete steps, which will reveal whether yesterday’s hearing assurances translate into policy.

See an error? Email corrections@saguarosignal.com. We append material corrections to the article.