On the evening of August 3, the government's top lawyer — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche — posted two documents that took back a May 18 order. That order had created a $1.8 billion fund called the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" (The Guardian, 2026-08-03). The new documents say the May order "is rescinded and shall have no force or effect" (U.S. Department of Justice).

Blanche's documents also clarified something else: a broad tax protection the Justice Department had given to Donald Trump covers only things that happened in the past, not future actions. It applies to Trump, his sons, and his businesses. People had been questioning whether the protection also covered things Trump might do in the future.

The reason Blanche agreed to pull the fund was a deal with two Republican senators, John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. They had threatened to block Blanche from becoming the official attorney general. On August 3, both senators said they would now support him when his confirmation vote happens in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday (The Guardian, 2026-08-03).

Here is the important catch: Blanche's documents only cancel the order that created the fund. They do not touch the settlement agreement underneath it. Think of it like a house. The order was the front door — the visible way the fund entered the world. The settlement is the foundation and the walls. Blanche closed the front door, but the house is still standing.

That settlement came from a lawsuit Trump filed seeking billions of dollars in damages because his tax returns were released without permission. Under a law called the Federal Tort Claims Act, people can ask the government for money by filing a claim first, and then suing if the claim is denied or unresolved. The settlement gives the Anti-Weaponization Fund the power to issue formal apologies and pay money to people with valid legal claims (U.S. Department of Justice, 2026-05-18).

During his confirmation hearing, Blanche admitted that Trump or his sons could theoretically sue to enforce that settlement. This matters because the order and the settlement are two separate things. The order was how the government turned the fund on. The settlement is the legal contract that says what the fund can do. Turning off the switch does not erase the contract.

Critics have jumped on this gap. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Blanche's announcement "does nothing to prevent the Justice Department and Trump from creating the weaponization fund under a different name." Brandon DeBot, a policy director at NYU's Tax Law Center, said the assurances "are not worth the paper they are written on" (The Guardian, 2026-08-03).

Trump himself praised the fund again on August 3 and said he had not seen Blanche's agreement (The Guardian, 2026-08-03).

The broader picture is that Blanche gave up the most visible and politically risky piece — the order — to win the two Senate votes he needed. The settlement, which actually defines what the fund can do, was left alone. Whether the fund comes back through a new government action, a lawsuit to enforce the settlement, or a different name entirely is what both sides will be watching as the confirmation process continues.