Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed a one-page addendum on May 19 that purported to permanently bar the entire federal government from prosecuting, investigating, or collecting taxes or fines from Donald Trump, his family, and their businesses – for any violation of federal law, criminal, civil, or administrative, whether presently known or unknown. The word FOREVER appeared twice, in all capitals. Two federal judges moved to temporarily halt a broader $1.8 billion IRS settlement the addendum accompanied. YourDailyAnalysis spotlights the Blanche addendum as the more consequential issue: permanent immunity built by a former personal defense attorney for his former client.
The constitutional analysis is not subtle. The pardon power belongs to the president personally and covers only federal criminal offenses. It does not reach civil liability, taxes, or future unknown offenses, and it cannot be exercised by an attorney general. Blanche carefully avoided the word pardon, which legal scholars noted is revealing. The framing he chose claims a new executive power with no roots in constitutional text. As commentary noted: the government cannot bind its future self, a principle the Supreme Court has affirmed repeatedly.
The conflict of interest is on the face of the document. Blanche served as Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney through the 2024 federal proceedings. Trump’s confirmed Attorney General, Pam Bondi, was fired in early April after reporting that the president was frustrated she was not pursuing his political opponents. Blanche then signed an order releasing his former client from federal liability. The reporters at YourDailyAnalysis walk through this sequence as a textbook illustration of the problem DOJ independence is meant to prevent.
The separate $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund was confirmed dead on June 2 at a House Appropriations hearing. Blanche publicly abandoned it while defending the immunity addendum. Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, described the addendum as snuck in overnight after the fund was publicly announced, calling it the sweetest-of-all-sweetheart deals. Two district judges have moved to block the broader settlement. The immunity addendum is a separate document not yet before any court.
There is a serious argument that the addendum is a legal nullity regardless of courts. If the government cannot bind its future self – a principle stretching back to William Blackstone – then no attorney general order can permanently foreclose enforcement by a future administration. The document leaves things exactly where they were the day before: the Trump government was never going to investigate Trump, and a future administration retains the same enforcement powers it always had. The analysts at YourDailyAnalysis size up the addendum as theater with political consequences: legally ineffective but designed to create the appearance of permanent protection.
The broader significance is the precedent. Legal scholars described the addendum as claiming a new executive power with no limiting principle. An outgoing president could immunize everyone who violated any law he found inconvenient. A successor could foreclose enforcement of immigration statutes. The absence of a constitutional anchor is the substance of the problem, not a technical footnote.
The House Appropriations hearing on June 2 covered, alongside the immunity addendum, a proposed Binance founder pardon that Rep. Glenn Ivey called a blatant pay-to-pardon scheme, the condition of Epstein case files, the firing of FBI counterintelligence agents, and proposals to eliminate federal hate crime prevention programs. The editors at Your Daily Analysis interpret the hearing as a map of the DOJ’s transformation under the current acting AG.
The judicial timeline is the key variable. If courts reach the addendum on the merits, the ruling will turn on whether an attorney general order releasing a former client constitutes a cognizable legal instrument or a nullity. Given two judges who already moved against the related settlement, judicial deference to this DOJ appears limited.
The uncomfortable bottom line: whether the addendum holds legally is almost beside the point for the near term. Practical immunity exists regardless. The legal fight is about what comes after. YourDailyAnalysis leaves the question open: if a future administration investigates, will the addendum slow it down, or will courts void it on first review and leave the DOJ with the same enforcement powers it would have had anyway.
