Blanche: DOJ will ‘not move forward’ with $1.776B ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ 54%
By OAN Staff Brooke Mallory0%
6/2/2026, 11:33:53 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Negativity Bias, and Status Quo Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 20% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 843 faulty-reasoning hits from 476 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.4% and a BS Rank of 54% (10,111 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.80% of the article peer group.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on Tuesday during a House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing that the Department of Justice will not move forward with the proposed $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund.
The fund, which had been envisioned as a sweeping financial and administrative mechanism to investigate and dismantle political bias within federal law enforcement and under the prior Biden administration, has faced months of scrutiny from Democrats and those on the left.
In an internal memorandum circulated to department leadership and subsequently confirmed to reporters, Blanche indicated that after an exhaustive legal and operational review, the DOJ determined that the fund was neither sustainable under current federal appropriations frameworks nor aligned with the core mission of restoring institutional neutrality.
Toward the end of the hearing, Blanche was also pressed to make the commitment in writing.
“You established it in writing, so it just makes sense to rescind it in writing,” Rep.
Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) said.
“I’m just concerned because you’re not under oath, and I want to trust you, and I want to believe you.
We all do, but putting it in writing would settle that issue.”
“I’m not committing to doing anything in writing,” Blanche responded, adding “I mean, I’ll take it under advisement ...
The extent there was a fund, and remember, the fund wasn’t set up yet.
There were no commissioners named.
There was no claimants brought anything in front of that.
There was no claims made yet.
So, yes, we’re not moving forward with the fund,” Blanche reiterated.
“There’s litigation in D.C., there’s litigation in the Southern District of Florida, but notwithstanding what we do in those litigations, and then defending our rights and making sure our rights are protected, we’re not moving forward with the fund,” he added.
Legal experts and congressional appropriators had already claimed that setting aside such a massive sum outside of standard agency operational budgets would face immediate constitutional challenges under the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from spending or obligating funds that Congress has not appropriated for those exact purposes.
Blanche’s directive acknowledges these steep legal hurdles, noting that the logistical complexity of standing up a massive, parallel oversight apparatus threatened to bottleneck ordinary federal prosecutions and drain critical resources from high-priority counterterrorism and cybercrime divisions.
While the formal dissolution of the $1.776 billion fund represents a major concession to institutional norms, DOJ officials emphasized that the underlying objective of addressing perceived partisan overreach will instead be absorbed into existing, traditional oversight channels.
Rather than deploying a standalone, heavily funded entity, the department reportedly plans to expand the jurisdiction and investigative resources of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General.
Stay informed!
Receive breaking news alerts directly to your inbox for free.
Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Speakers
3speakers73%attributed speech130writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageDepartment of Justice
66 attributed words19% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.