You probably know that confirmation of acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has been held up by a handful of Republican senators, most notably Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), but also others.
And you’ve probably heard that this hold was simply a temper tantrum—a way of getting back at President Trump for ending their Senate careers. Well, that’s one narrative, and it’s probably sufficient if you’re an unquestioning defender of the president.
But let’s look at what has caused so much consternation.
The agreement between the Department of Justice and Trump settled several Trump-initiated lawsuits and claims.
-
Earlier in 2026, President Trump sued the IRS and the Treasury Dept. over the leaking of his tax records by an IRS contractor in 2019, for which Trump sought $10 billion.
-
Trump had also previously sued the federal government for $230 million over the 2022 Mar-a-Lago search for classified documents, and over the Russia collusion investigation from his first term.
The settlement involved Trump dismissing these lawsuits and claims in exchange for:
-
A formal apology;
-
Sweeping immunity from tax examinations and audits involving Trump, his family, affiliated individuals, trusts, and businesses; and
-
An “anti-weaponization fund” of $1.776 billion, to provide relief for those claiming to have been targeted by federal “lawfare” or “weaponization” by the Department of Justice. Trump’s attorney general would administer the fund, and claims would be considered by a five-person panel he appointed, though the president could remove any or all members of the panel without cause.
Reasonable people can disagree over whether President Trump is owed an apology for the Mar-a-Lago document raid (probably no) and the Russia collusion investigation (probably yes). The potential for the anti-weaponization fund to be used as a slush fund to reward Trump loyalists should be obvious. But given the many dicey business ventures and investments made by Trump and his circle since his re-election, it should be easy to understand why immunity from IRS scrutiny should be unacceptable.
But there’s a bigger problem. How can it possibly be ethical for a president to sue an agency he completely controls, and negotiate a settlement with an attorney general he appointed? That’s not a negotiation between adversarial parties—that’s a sweetheart deal—especially since Trump was not going to win any of those lawsuits or claims on their merits.
What stops Trump from suing his own administration again, anytime he feels the need for another couple $billion? And then settling with his appointed attorney general, who he can fire if there is any lack of fealty?
As of this writing, a deal has supposedly been worked out that will allow the holdout senators to confirm Blanche as AG. But in this administration, things change on a dime. If the anti-weaponization fund has been killed, that’s great, but giving Trump and everyone he knows immunity from IRS audits and penalties remains an area of legitimate concern.
Hence the concerns about Blanche. If he would sign off on such a one-sided, sweetheart deal for the president before confirmation, what will he agree to after confirmation?