2026-08-03T16:06:03.032Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/03/politics/blanche-anti-weaponization-fund-senators
代理司法部长托德·布兰奇似乎已经满足了参议员约翰·科恩和汤姆·蒂利斯的要求，至少足够推动他获得正式司法部长提名。
布兰奇周日晚发布了一份书面文件，声称将废除唐纳德·特朗普总统极具争议的“反武器化”基金，并限制特朗普政府在同一和解协议中为他提供的税收豁免权。
但这些保证并非绝对牢靠。
即便经历了这场僵局，特朗普仍能从这项存法律争议的和解协议中获得巨额个人经济利益——而科恩和蒂利斯显然并未对此提出反对。
首先来看相关消息：周日晚些时候，布兰奇发布了两份文件，旨在解决科恩和蒂利斯的担忧。（鉴于共和党在参议院司法委员会仅占一席优势，两位参议员均可通过投反对票阻挠他的提名。）
科恩和蒂利斯周一上午回应称，他们“期待尽快投票推动布兰奇的提名在参议院司法委员会获得通过”。委员会投票预计将于周二举行。
其中一份文件显示，布兰奇5月18日设立“反武器化”基金的行政命令已“废除，不再具有任何效力”。拜登政府曾表示，该基金可用于支付1月6日国会山袭击事件中被定罪的被告。
另一份文件旨在澄清布兰奇关于特朗普税务问题豁免权的行政命令，称其仅适用于过往税务问题，且仅适用于“诉讼中的指名方”——即特朗普、他的儿子们以及特朗普集团。科恩此前曾表示，希望缩小和解协议中该部分内容的适用范围。
但这两项看似让步的安排都存在明显漏洞。
布兰奇废除“反武器化”基金行政命令的问题在于，这似乎未必能彻底终结该基金。
正如《国家评论》的安德鲁·麦卡锡所解释的那样，和解协议条款（详见我们的标注）规定，其“仅可经各方书面协议进行修改”，这其中也包括特朗普。
因此，尽管布兰奇废除了自己根据和解协议条款单独发布的设立该基金的行政命令，但和解协议本身仍然有效——且似乎仍可被强制执行。
事实上，在他们同意放行布兰奇的提名之前，科恩和布兰奇在7月中旬的布兰奇确认听证会上的一次交流中就已经解释了这一切。
科恩向布兰奇施压时，首先询问和解协议是否已由包括特朗普在内的各方修改。（布兰奇表示并未修改）。在科恩的追问下，布兰奇承认，即便他口头承诺彻底废除该基金，和解协议仍是一份“可强制执行的文件”，特朗普可以提起诉讼，要求执行其条款。
“无法保证他或其他原告方不会在未来通过诉讼——也就是违约诉讼——提出这一问题，”科恩说道。
布兰奇辩称，由于该基金本就会被终止，“此类诉讼的结果无论如何都不会恢复该基金”。随后科恩便不再追究这一问题。
但麦卡锡写道，这并非全部实情。
“然而，若无此类修改协议，‘反武器化’基金仍将有效，随时可能恢复，尽管布兰奇对此予以否认，”麦卡锡说道。
甚至一些支持“反武器化”基金的人士也认为，布兰奇的文件可能毫无意义。
“周二之后就能推翻，”申请担任“反武器化”基金董事会成员的共和党律师迈克·豪厄尔周日晚在X平台上写道，“‘反武器化’基金是件好事。”
布兰奇及其盟友可能会辩称，新文件将使得恢复该基金在政治上不可能——因为这会显得非常糟糕，可能会促使议员们通过立法将其废除。但这并无保障。
尽管布兰奇写道，美国国税局的豁免协议仅限于诉讼当事人——即特朗普、他的儿子们以及特朗普集团，但这一点的合法性也尚不明确。
第二份文件称，布兰奇“重申，司法部的解释是，该行政命令仅对诉讼当事人具有效力”。换言之，他们将此描述为一项澄清，而非修改。
但原行政命令的适用范围似乎比布兰奇所说的仅限于特朗普、他的儿子们以及特朗普集团要更广。
原命令称，联邦政府将“永远被禁止和排除起诉或追究任何及所有索赔……这些索赔……已经或可能由被告针对任何原告或相关关联个人（包括但不限于家庭成员或其他联合申报者），或包括信托机构、母公司、姊妹公司、关联公司和子公司在内的主体提出……”
这与布兰奇所称的豁免权实际适用范围很难协调一致。而且，与涉及“反武器化”基金的文件不同，这份文件并未由布兰奇签署。因此，从法律层面来看，布兰奇的新文件是否真的改变了任何状况，仍是一个问题。
科恩和蒂利斯在周一上午的声明中称，布兰奇的新文件是一份“具有约束力的书面命令”。
但即便缩小适用范围的条款能够生效，更新后的条款仍将让特朗普获得重大潜在经济利益。
《纽约时报》曾报道称，给予特朗普过往税务问题的个人豁免权，可能为他免去高达1亿美元的税务罚款。
更重要的是，他获得这项豁免的方式极具争议性。这项豁免源自一场诉讼和和解协议，一名法官曾称该协议是为了“操纵司法程序”。这是因为特朗普通过起诉他本人掌控的联邦政府获得了和解协议。
换言之，即便“反武器化”基金彻底被废除，且美国国税局的豁免权确实从法律层面被缩小了范围，特朗普仍将从这一切中获得重大个人胜利。
这仍可能面临推翻特朗普豁免权的法庭诉讼。但科恩、蒂利斯以及将投票确认布兰奇的共和党人显然已经放行这笔可能给特朗普带来的巨额经济收益——而这位早已从总统职位中获得巨额经济回报的人，此举可谓毫无廉耻。
所以，没错，布兰奇最终还是做出了一些让步。整件事无疑至少在政治层面上，让恢复“反武器化”基金变得更加困难。
但这并非共和党参议员对特朗普持强硬立场，并获得让他一无所获的绝对让步的案例。远非如此。
“这不算什么大要求，”科恩上周在谈到他的要求时说道。
的确如此。
The major holes in Todd Blanche’s concessions to Cornyn and Tillis
2026-08-03T16:06:03.032Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/03/politics/blanche-anti-weaponization-fund-senators
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appears to have satisfied the demands of Sens. John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, at least enough to advance his nomination as full attorney general.
Blanche late Sunday issued a written document that purports to rescind President Donald Trump’s highly controversial “anti-weaponization” fund and limit the tax immunity that Trump’s own government gave him in the same settlement.
But the assurances aren’t exactly iron-clad.
And even after this standoff, Trump still maintains a massive personal financial benefit from the legally dubious settlement — one Cornyn and Tillis apparently haven’t objected to.
First, the news: Late Sunday, Blanche posted a pair of documents meant to satisfy Cornyn’s and Tillis’ concerns. (Either senator could have blocked his nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee by voting no, given Republicans have just a one-seat majority on the panel.)
Cornyn and Tillis responded Monday morning by issuing a joint statement saying they “look forward to voting to advance his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon.” The committee vote is expected Tuesday.
One document states that Blanche’s May 18 order creating the “anti-weaponization” fund, which the administration has said could be used to pay defendants convicted in the January 6 Capitol attack, is “rescinded and shall have no force or effect.”
The other purports to clarify Blanche’s order giving Trump immunity for tax issues, saying it applies only to past tax issues and only to the “named parties in the lawsuit” — i.e. Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization. Cornyn had said he wanted that portion of the settlement to be narrowed.
But both of these apparent concessions feature clear loopholes.
The problem with Blanche rescinding the “anti-weaponization” fund order is that it wouldn’t seem to necessarily fully kill off the fund.
As the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy has explained, the settlement’s terms (see our annotation here) state that it could be “modified only with the written agreement of the parties.” That would include Trump.
So while Blanche has rescinded a separate order he wrote that actually created the fund under the terms of the settlement, the settlement itself still exists — and could seemingly be enforced.
In fact, Cornyn and Blanche basically explained all of this during an exchange at Blanche’s confirmation hearing in mid-July, before they agreed to greenlight his nomination.
When he started pressing Blanche, Cornyn asked whether the settlement agreement had been modified by the parties, including Trump. (It hadn’t, Blanche said.) Under Cornyn’s questioning, Blanche admitted that even if he verbally promised to fully kill off the fund, the settlement remained an “enforceable document,” and Trump could file a lawsuit seeking to enforce its terms.
“There’s no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might [not] raise that issue by way of a lawsuit and — a breach of contract lawsuit in the future,” Cornyn said.
Blanche claimed that, because the fund would have been ended, “the results of such litigation, whatever it would be, wouldn’t be a revival of the fund.” And Cornyn dropped the issue.
But McCarthy wrote that that’s not the full story.
“Absent such a modification agreement, however, the Anti-Weaponization Fund is still viable and could be revived at any time, despite Blanche’s insistence to the contrary,” McCarthy said.
And even some supporters of the anti-weaponization fund suggested Blanche’s document could just be rendered moot.
“Can be undone after Tuesday,” Republican lawyer Mike Howell, who applied to serve on the “anti-weaponization” fund’s board, wrote on X late Sunday. “The Anti-Weaponization Fund is great.”
Blanche and his allies could argue that the new document would make it politically impossible to revive the fund — because it would look so bad and could draw lawmakers to pass legislation killing it off. But there are no guarantees.
While Blanche wrote that the IRS immunity deal was limited to the parties to the lawsuit — seemingly Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization — it’s not clear how solid that is, either.
The second document says that Blanche “restates that it is DOJ’s interpretation that the Order only has any effect” for the parties to the lawsuit. In other words, they’re casting this as a clarification rather than a modification.
But the original document sounds like it applies more broadly than just to Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization.
It says the federal government will be “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims … that … have been or could have been asserted by Defendants against any of the Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals (including, without limitation, family or others filing jointly), or parties including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries …”
It’s difficult to square that with how limited Blanche says the immunity deal actually is. And this document, unlike the one pertaining to the anti-weaponization fund, wasn’t signed by Blanche. So again, the issue is whether Blanche’s new document actually changes anything, legally speaking.
Cornyn and Tillis in their statement Monday morning claimed Blanche’s new document was a “binding written order.”
But even if the narrower scope is operable, the updated terms would still allow Trump a major potential financial benefit.
The New York Times has written that giving Trump personal immunity from past tax issues could spare him a $100 million tax penalty.
What’s more, he will have earned this benefit in a highly dubious manner. This immunity will have come from a lawsuit and settlement that a judge has said amounted to an effort to “manipulate the judicial process.” This is because Trump earned the settlement by suing a federal government that he personally exercises control over.
In other words, even if the “anti-weaponization” fund is fully dead and the IRS immunity has actually been narrowed, legally speaking, Trump still comes out of all of this with a major personal win.
It’s still subject to court battles that could invalidate Trump’s immunity. But Cornyn, Tillis and the Republicans who are going to vote to confirm Blanche have apparently greenlit a potential major financial windfall for Trump — a man who has already reaped huge financial rewards from the presidency, rather shamelessly.
So, yes, Blanche ultimately gave in somewhat. The whole thing surely makes it more difficult to revive the “anti-weaponization” fund, at least politically.
But it’s not a case of GOP senators holding a hard line against Trump and getting iron-clad concessions that leave him empty-handed. Far from it.
“It’s not a big ask,” Cornyn said last week of his demands.
Indeed.