Explosive IRS Deal Trips Up DOJ Nominee

Interior view of a government chamber with wooden paneling and seating — Photo: Shutterstock

In the fight over Todd Blanche’s attorney general nomination, Senator Thom Tillis has turned a routine confirmation into a high-stakes test of Republican commitments on justice, presidential power, and accountability for some of the most contentious episodes of the last decade.

At a Glance

Todd Blanche’s nomination as attorney general is stalled because GOP Senators Thom Tillis and John Cornyn are withholding crucial Judiciary Committee votes.
Tillis has tied his support to concrete written changes to a Trump IRS settlement and the demise of a controversial “anti-weaponization” fund.
He has added two substantive conditions: clear red lines on January 6 and direct engagement with Jeffrey Epstein survivors.
The episode illustrates how a single committee Republican can leverage narrow margins to reshape Justice Department policy and test party lines on Trump-era controversies.

Tillis’s Hold: What Is Actually Blocking Blanche’s Nomination

Blanche’s path to becoming a Senate-confirmed attorney general has been blocked not by Democrats, but by two Republicans on the Judiciary Committee: Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas. In a closely divided committee where Democrats are expected to oppose Blanche, a “no” from either senator is enough to prevent the nomination from advancing to the Senate floor. That leverage is the fulcrum Tillis is now using.

The core of Tillis’s opposition is not Blanche’s résumé, but a settlement Blanche helped negotiate as acting attorney general to resolve President Trump’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the IRS over leaks of his tax information. That settlement included two deeply controversial elements: a proposed $1.8–$1.776 billion Justice Department “anti-weaponization” fund and language shielding Trump, his family, and associates from future IRS audits tied to the case. Tillis and Cornyn have publicly said their votes depend on formal, written assurances that the fund is permanently dead and that the audit-immunity provisions are narrowed or removed.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund and IRS Settlement: Why They Matter

The “anti-weaponization” fund is not an obscure technical detail; it sits at the center of Tillis’s concerns about how a Blanche-led DOJ might be used in partisan battles. As conceived in the IRS settlement, the fund would use taxpayer money to compensate people who claim they were targeted by politicized investigations—effectively, “victims” of so-called government weaponization. Critics, including Tillis, worry that in practice this could funnel large payouts to Trump allies and even some January 6 participants, turning the Justice Department into a kind of financial reward mechanism for those aligned with the president.

During his confirmation hearing, Blanche testified that the fund was “dead” and that the immunity from future audits was limited in scope. Cornyn and Tillis have emphasized that verbal assurances are not enough; they want the Justice Department and the White House to codify those commitments in formal documents that match Blanche’s testimony. Punchbowl News quoted Tillis saying, in essence, that the documents must “conform to what [Blanche’s] testimony was at the hearing,” particularly on killing the fund and constraining audit immunity.

Those written changes have not materialized, and Republicans privately blame resistance inside the Trump White House. President Trump has responded by attacking Cornyn and Tillis and openly musing about withdrawing Blanche’s nomination and renominating him after both senators leave office in January. That posture reinforces Tillis’s suspicion that the administration wants to preserve the option of reviving the fund or broad audit protections later, even if Blanche promises not to use them now.

Conditions Beyond the Fund: January 6 and Epstein Survivors

The IRS settlement and weaponization fund are not Tillis’s only conditions. Over the past year, he has laid down two other clear lines: how any attorney general nominee approaches the January 6 Capitol riot, and how Blanche engages with survivors of Jeffrey Epstein.

On January 6, Tillis has said that any nominee who “said anything the least bit excusing the behavior” of rioters who assaulted police on January 6 is, in his words, “dead on arrival.” He has reiterated that he will not vote for an attorney general who has justified violence against officers or lent rhetorical support to the attack. That red line is narrowly drawn; Tillis has signaled it does not automatically disqualify someone who implements Trump’s sweeping pardons for Capitol rioters, but it does bar nominees who themselves defend the violence.

Separate from January 6, Tillis has insisted that Blanche personally meet with Epstein survivors and their lawyers before he will vote to advance the nomination out of committee. At a hearing, Tillis told Blanche he was “trying to get to yes” but that a meeting with victims was “a very important part of getting to yes.” Multiple outlets, including Reuters and PBS, have reported Tillis saying he expects the meeting to occur before he will support Blanche in committee.

Tillis’s focus on Epstein survivors is unusual for a Republican Judiciary Committee member in a fight over a Republican president’s nominee. It reflects two overlapping concerns: skepticism about how Blanche handled aspects of the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases at DOJ, and a broader insistence that the attorney general prioritize victim engagement in long-running abuse scandals. Survivors’ groups have been actively lobbying Senate offices with Epstein files, underscoring their dissatisfaction with Blanche’s previous engagement.

A Familiar Senate Pattern: Using a Single Vote to Extract Commitments

Viewed in isolation, Tillis’s stance might look idiosyncratic. In context, it is part of a well-established Senate pattern. When the Judiciary Committee is narrowly divided and party-line opposition is expected, a single majority-party member’s vote can determine whether a nominee ever gets to the floor. Savvy senators use that leverage to extract written assurances on policy rather than simply trading their vote for minor concessions.

That pattern has played out repeatedly in high-salience Justice Department nominations, where the battle is less about the nominee’s résumé than about DOJ independence, executive accountability, and hot-button controversies ranging from surveillance to civil rights enforcement. Blanche’s nomination has now become a proxy fight on three axes: whether DOJ will ever operate an anti-weaponization payout mechanism; how firmly an attorney general will reject the January 6 attack; and whether the department will give full, respectful process to Epstein survivors.

Tillis and Cornyn are both retiring, which paradoxically strengthens their hand. Without a reelection campaign ahead, they are freer to defy Trump’s wishes and do not need to calibrate their positions for primary voters. Their retirement also gives Trump a clear timeline: if he can keep Blanche on as acting attorney general until January, he might resubmit the nomination to a different Senate composition after they depart. Trump has explicitly floated that strategy, saying he has “no objection” to temporarily withdrawing Blanche’s name and trying again once Cornyn and Tillis are gone.

Trump’s Counterpressure and GOP Tensions

President Trump has responded to the blockade with a mix of public pressure and implicit threats. On social media and in interviews, he has criticized Cornyn and Tillis, refused to endorse them, and suggested they are denying him a “star” attorney general who could be “one of the greatest” ever. He has framed the dispute as personal obstruction rather than a substantive disagreement over the IRS settlement or DOJ policy.

Yet the details of what Tillis is demanding suggest a substantive, not merely personal, conflict. He is asking for written confirmation that the Justice Department will not operate an enormous fund that many conservatives themselves have called a “slush fund” and that the IRS will retain its ability to audit Trump and his associates on future tax issues tied to this settlement. That is a fight about institutional guardrails, not just about personalities.

Other Republican leaders have acknowledged the seriousness of the standoff. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said it is “hard to say” whether Blanche can win confirmation given these issues, and has warned that a contentious hearing over the fund and the IRS deal could sway additional Republican votes. Reports indicate broader unease among GOP senators about the optics of paying out claims of “weaponization” with taxpayer money while Trump insists DOJ has been biased against him.

What Tillis Is Trying to Achieve

Tillis’s conditions create a kind of checklist that any Trump-era attorney general must now satisfy to win his vote. First, they must accept hard limits on using Justice Department resources to redress perceived political wrongs through cash payouts. Second, they must take a clear stance against violence at the Capitol on January 6 and avoid any rhetoric that excuses attacks on law enforcement. Third, they must signal a genuine willingness to engage survivors in high-profile abuse cases and consider their perspectives in Justice Department decision-making.

In insisting on written assurances and survivor meetings, Tillis is not just trying to block Blanche; he is attempting to set durable expectations for how any attorney general under President Trump will approach politicized investigations and historic scandals. If he succeeds in extracting changes to the IRS settlement and killing the fund, those commitments will bind Blanche’s successors as well, unless a future administration revisits them.

For readers who track these battles over time, this episode marks an evolution in Republican oversight of Trump’s Justice Department. Earlier fights focused on nominees’ ideological credentials or their loyalty to Trump. This one centers on whether the department will be used to shield the president’s finances and reward his supporters in cash. Tillis’s answer, for now, is that his vote is not available until that door is shut firmly—and in writing.

Sen. John Thune has canceled the vote on Todd Blanche’s nomination for AG and Trump is threatening to pull his nomination until next year as outgoing senators John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy and others refuse to back down on their demand that he terminate, in writing,…

— Russell Shaw (@therussellshaw) July 31, 2026

Where the Nomination Stands and What Comes Next

As things stand, the Judiciary Committee has canceled or postponed scheduled votes on Blanche’s nomination while Tillis and Cornyn remain unsatisfied. Blanche continues to serve as acting attorney general, a status President Trump has cited as sufficient in the short term. But acting status lacks the political legitimacy and permanence of Senate confirmation, and every delay keeps the Justice Department in a kind of holding pattern.

If the White House ultimately provides the written assurances Tillis demands—formally disbanding the anti-weaponization fund and clarifying the limits of IRS audit immunity—Blanche’s prospects could improve. Tillis has repeatedly said he is “trying to get to yes,” suggesting that his conditions are pathways to support rather than excuses for permanent opposition. If those assurances never come, Trump may follow through on his threat to withdraw the nomination and gamble on a different Senate after Tillis and Cornyn leave office.

Either way, the episode has already achieved one lasting effect: it has put detailed settlement language and obscure DOJ funds under the bright lights of public scrutiny. For an attorney general nominee who once worked as Trump’s private lawyer, that may be the point. Tillis is forcing Blanche—and the White House—to confront the difference between serving one client and serving the law.