Jordan Dodges Whether Trump’s $1.8B ‘Weaponization’ Fund Is Dead After Acting AG’s Testimony

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan, offered evasive answers Sunday about whether former President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.776 billion “weaponization” or anti-weaponization fund remains under consideration, even after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified to Congress that the proposal was "dead." The exchange took place on CNN’s State of the Union, where Jordan was pressed to reconcile the apparent contradiction between Blanche’s testimony and Trump’s recent comments on Truth Social.

Jim Jordan argued in favor of the weaponization fund on Sunday (CNN - State of the Union)

Trump posted on Saturday that he would "push hard" for Congress to approve a $1.776 billion account intended to award payouts to people prosecuted by the Department of Justice during the Biden administration. Blanche, who spoke to lawmakers under oath, said the fund was no longer being pursued. Jordan responded by saying Trump’s remarks were conditional — tied to a hypothetical in which Blanche is not confirmed as permanent attorney general.

Two Senate Republicans, John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, pictured, say they'll vote against confirming Todd Blanche as attorney general unless the DOJ kills the anti-weaponization fund (Getty)

"You're the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. So is it dead, or is it not?" asked CNN's Dana Bash.

"Well, Todd Blanche under oath said it was dead. Todd Blanche needs to be confirmed," Jordan replied, adding that Blanche is an "outstanding" nominee.

Pressed further, Jordan suggested Trump’s post referred to what he might do "if they're not going to confirm Todd Blanche," including pulling back the proposal temporarily and potentially renominating Blanche after the election. When asked whether he personally thought the fund was a good idea, Jordan described how it could be used to compensate conservative activists he said were mistreated by the Biden Justice Department and compared the proposal to a more-than-$1 million settlement paid to Peter Strzok, a former member of Robert Mueller’s team.

Todd Blanche's confirmation is in jeopardy over the president's demand for a $1.776 billion anti-'weaponization' fund (Getty)

Political Stakes And Senate Opposition

Jordan’s openness to the idea puts him at odds with a significant segment of the Senate Republican conference, which has criticized the proposal as a corrupt "slush fund" intended to reward political allies — and, in some critics' view, even convicted January 6 participants. Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis have publicly said they will withhold support for Blanche’s confirmation unless the Department of Justice puts in writing that the anti-weaponization fund will not be created.

Those objections have left Blanche’s confirmation in jeopardy. Senate opposition to any bill that would finance the account is widespread: as currently structured, such legislation would likely fail in the Senate.

Sen. John Kennedy told NBC’s Meet the Press that he would not provide a "blank check" for Trump’s proposed fund and explicitly rejected any funding that would benefit January 6 defendants. "If somebody thinks they were abused by the federal government... they have the right to file a Federal Tort Claims Act [claim], and a federal judge will decide," Kennedy said.

As the White House seeks to shore up support for Blanche, the dispute over the fund highlights a broader intra-party fight among Republicans over how to handle allegations of political bias in federal law enforcement — and whether a large, targeted payout program would cross the line into partisan patronage. For now, Blanche’s testimony and the Senate opposition make the fund’s future uncertain.