Todd Blanche appeared to have solved his confirmation crisis with a single late-night document.

Two Republican holdouts immediately announced they were satisfied. His nomination for attorney general seemed ready to move forward.

Then legal experts examined what Blanche had actually signed—and warned that the deal may be far weaker than advertised.

“It is not clear that any of this is actually binding,” former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams said Monday.

That warning strikes at the center of the agreement Blanche reached with Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

The senators had threatened to block Blanche unless the Justice Department formally terminated its $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” Critics feared the fund could distribute taxpayer money to January 6 defendants, Trump allies and others claiming they had been unfairly prosecuted.

Blanche issued an order Sunday declaring that the fund was rescinded and had no legal effect. He also released a memorandum describing the limits of a separate agreement shielding Donald Trump, his sons and their businesses from certain IRS audits involving past tax periods.

Cornyn and Tillis promptly declared victory.

They described the documents as binding and announced that they were prepared to support Blanche, potentially giving him the votes needed to advance from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But the underlying settlement that produced the fund may still exist.

Blanche rescinded the Justice Department order establishing its administrative structure. His new document does not necessarily erase every contractual obligation contained in the settlement between Trump and the federal government.

That distinction creates the first major vulnerability.

The second is even more politically explosive: A future attorney general—or Trump himself—could attempt to resurrect the fund through another order, alternative payment mechanism or legislation.

Trump has already said he did not approve Blanche’s decision.

He continues to argue that people who supported him were treated unfairly and deserve compensation. That makes Blanche’s promise particularly fragile because he is seeking confirmation to lead a department under a president who openly disagrees with the concession that secured his votes.

ABC News reported that Trump did not sign off on the rescission, even as Cornyn and Tillis accepted it as sufficient.

Williams identified an even deeper structural problem.

Trump originally sued the IRS and Treasury Department over the disclosure of his tax information. But as president, Trump controls the executive branch containing those agencies—and the Justice Department responsible for defending them.

In practical terms, the president occupied both sides of the dispute.

Trump, acting privately, demanded billions from agencies supervised by Trump, acting as president. His administration then negotiated a settlement benefiting Trump, his family and a fund intended to compensate people he considered victims of government “weaponization.”

That arrangement deprived the lawsuit of the ordinary adversarial conflict courts are designed to resolve.

A federal judge had already reached a similarly devastating conclusion.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams determined that the litigation had been improperly used to obtain judicial legitimacy for an agreement granting audit protection and earmarking public money for grievances not clearly defined by law. Axios reported the judge’s findings.

The judge’s criticism transforms Blanche’s confirmation deal from a routine political compromise into something far more precarious.

If the original settlement arose from collusive litigation, questions remain about which provisions are enforceable, who has the authority to modify them and whether Blanche can unilaterally extinguish the fund without agreement from every party.

The tax protections create another contradiction.

Blanche’s memorandum says they apply only retroactively and only to the named plaintiffs: Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization. It does not grant immunity from future audits.

But it still preserves protection involving past tax matters—the portion directly benefiting Trump and his family.

The Associated Press confirmed that the retroactive audit arrangement remains in place, despite Blanche’s termination of the fund.

Former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield argued that this creates a serious political vulnerability.

Voters may see a president using government power to protect himself while publicly demanding loyalty from the Justice Department. The issue reinforces existing criticism that Trump treats federal institutions as instruments for personal benefit.

Blanche’s defenders can argue that the practical result is what matters.

No commissioners were appointed, no claims system was created and no money was distributed. The Justice Department now says the fund is dead, and two skeptical Republican senators have accepted that assurance.

But political assurances are not permanent law.

Congress has not enacted a statutory prohibition preventing the fund—or something resembling it—from returning. Trump does not consider himself bound by the bargain, and the original settlement’s status remains contested.

That leaves Cornyn and Tillis relying on a promise from a nominee who will soon answer to a president rejecting the promise.

Blanche’s document may be strong enough to secure his confirmation.

Whether it is strong enough to restrain Trump is an entirely different question.