Abstract: E-sentences (entailment-sentences) are metalinguistic sentences like [A –> B, A /= B], [/= ¬(A & ¬A)], and [(A & ¬A) /= B]. This type of sentences is found at the heart of the epistemology of logic as their truth-values tell us what follows from what. Justification holism says that beliefs regarding E-sentences can only be justified in the context of a logical theory, e.g. classical, intuitionistic, paraconsistent etc. Thus, beliefs concerning E-sentences cannot be atomistically justified as isolated claims about logical consequence, independently of theory choice. At present there is a developing interest in and endorsement of justification holism due to the revival of a broadly abductivist approach to the epistemology of logic. This paper presents an argument against holism by proving the existence of a foundational E-sentence which is justified independently of theory choice, i.e. a justificational fixpoint of deductive entailment.