Q&A on Anti-Weaponization Fund

Click HERE to watch and HERE to download.

Q&A on Violence Against Women Funding

Click HERE to watch and HERE to download.

Washington, D.C. - At a hearing to review the Department of Justice's (FY) 2027 budget request, U.S. Senator Susan Collins, Chair of the Appropriations Committee, questioned Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on the Administration's proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund. Sen. Collins asked whether there is precedent for DOJ's establishment of a fund overseen by an executive branch commission, how claims would be adjudicated by the commission, and whether information about the fund would be publicly reported.

Sen. Collins also stressed the need to maintain funding levels for the Violence Against Women Act programs, including the Rural Victims Program.

Q&A on Anti-Weaponization Fund

Sen. Collins: Mr. Attorney General, yesterday the Justice Department announced the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund to compensate individuals who were purportedly targeted by the Biden Administration, in exchange for which, President Trump dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for the completely inappropriate leak of the president and his organization's tax data. Amounts for this new fund will come from the Judgment Fund, a permanent law appropriation for paying claims and settlements brought against the United States government.

Amounts in the Judgment Fund have traditionally been used for the payment of specific claims against the government or amounts owed for the settlement of those claims, but not for future claims that have yet to be brought. So, I have some questions for you. First, has the DOJ ever used amounts in the Judgment Fund to pay claims that have yet to be brought against the United States government, based on the settlement of a completely unrelated case?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Thank you, Senator. So, the short answer is yes. I mean, we have done this in the past. This was done during the Obama Administration, something almost identical in structure to what we announced yesterday. In that case, there were allegations made by Native Americans that the Department of Agriculture had systematically treated them unfairly, and some had filed claims. There was a pending lawsuit, but many had not.

A fund, very similar to the one that was established yesterday, was set up. It was funded by, in today's dollars, a little over a billion dollars, and a single claims commissioner was appointed to review the claims and to distribute funds. In that case, at the end, there was around 300 million left over, and the Obama Administration had set it up so that that money from the Judgment Fund was distributed to nonprofits and other NGOs. So, what we've done with this fund, and by the way, it is true that this is unusual, that is true, but it is not unprecedented, and it was done to address something that had never happened again either. So, there is an unprecedented nature of what we did yesterday in response to years and years of weaponization. Just to correct a few things, Senator, it's not limited to Republicans.

Sen. Collins: I didn't say that it was.

Blanche: It's not limited to the Biden weaponization. It's not limited to, in any way, scope, or form, to January 6, or to Jack Smith. There's no limitation on the claims, so and the other thing we've done, just to finish up in comparison to what was done previously, is we intend to appoint five commissioners, and also at the end, the money goes back. Any leftover funds go back to the federal government, not to nonprofits.

Sen. Collins: So, how would the commission that you've just referenced that oversees the fund, determine whether future claims from the fund are eligible to be paid out of it, and how will they determine how much will be paid for each claim? What's the legal basis for those decisions?

Blanche: So, there's commissions that are established all the time where a commissioner is charged with determining the correct amount, if any, to repay a claimant who's asking for funds. So, in this case, what we expect is the commissioners will take in information. It's entirely voluntary if an individual wants to apply and assert that they were a victim of weaponization, and the commission can do anything according to what was set up yesterday, from issuing an apology to the claimant, to awarding compensation in monetary compensation. So, it depends on the claim, and there will be five commissioners who will review each claim, it won't be reviewed by me, it won't be reviewed by others in the Administration. It will be reviewed by the five commissioners.

Sen. Collins: Aren't those commissioners appointed by the President?

Blanche: No.

Sen. Collins: Who are they appointed by?

Blanche: Four of them are appointed by the Attorney General, and one of them is appointed by the Attorney General in consultation with the leadership of this body.

Sen. Collins: Will the information related to the claims be publicly reported?

Blanche: So, that's a good question. Look, there's privacy laws that exist, so I don't want to sit here today and say every scintilla of data collected will be released, but of course, I mean, of course, there's accountability that the commission has, a quarterly report that has to come to the Attorney General, which will certainly be public. There's a process that you all will get information, and there's a FOIA process. So, I very much anticipate that the claims that are awarded, the basis and the amount will, for sure, be made public along the way.

Q&A on Violence Against Women Funding

Sen. Collins: Let me switch to a different issue, which Chairman Moran brought up. Along with Chairman Moran and other members of this committee, I was one of the lead sponsors of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization of 2022. These programs are critical to reducing violence against women, ensuring that justice is served, and strengthening services to victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

In Maine, the Rural Victims Program is especially critical. Despite the importance and effectiveness of these programs, the Department's budget request proposes reducing funding by about 25 percent. Why is the Department proposing a reduction in funding to combat domestic violence and to support survivors?

Blanche: Well, first of all, I completely agree with you that these are extraordinarily important programs, and the funds are well used to support these programs. We have asked for $539 million, I believe, in money to support all these programs, and that I mean, look, there's a lot of money that goes, 190 million for grants to combat, you know, to stop the stop grants, which is extraordinarily important, and so it is a priority.

Obviously, there's, we have to make choices, and the President's budget has to make choices on where to spend that money, but it is extraordinarily important, and the $539 million that we've asked for will go to support all these programs. I mean, so yes, there's - we are asking for less money than the budget had last year, but it's not because we don't view it as extraordinarily important.

Sen. Collins: Well, I would suggest that cutting the budget for these important programs by 25% is a huge cut, and I hope that's something the subcommittee will take a close look at.

###