Blanche Document Claims Trump Family Gets Forever Immunity From Federal Probes
Updated
Updated · Slate · May 26
Blanche Document Claims Trump Family Gets Forever Immunity From Federal Probes
3 articles · Updated · Slate · May 26
A document revealed last week says acting Attorney General Todd Blanche sought to bar any federal investigation into the Trump family and its businesses on “any matters” permanently.
The order’s stated aim is to stop future probes, but the report argues it changes little immediately because the Trump administration was not expected to investigate the president anyway.
The sharper dispute is legal: the document is described as an attempt to bind future administrations, even though presidents and agencies generally cannot lock in successors absent constitutional authority.
That makes the claim broader than a pardon, which applies only to past federal criminal offenses and must be issued personally by the president, not by an attorney general.
The report warns that accepting such a power could let future presidents of either party shield allies or whole categories of conduct from civil enforcement indefinitely.
What constitutional guardrails prevent any president from permanently shielding individuals or corporations from the law?
How can the judiciary or Congress respond if an executive attempts to unilaterally 'switch off' laws for certain people?
The $1.776 Billion Trump-DOJ Settlement: Tax Immunity, Anti-Weaponization Fund, and the Erosion of Public Trust
Overview
In May 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice reached a landmark settlement that ended President Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS, after a government contractor leaked his tax documents. The deal granted Trump and his family immunity from existing IRS audits, sparking immediate controversy and criticism that the DOJ overstepped its authority. A central feature of the settlement was the creation of a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, designed to compensate those claiming government overreach. This fund, however, quickly faced legal challenges and bipartisan backlash, with concerns about its legality, potential for abuse, and impact on public trust in government accountability.