Skip to main content
Pop Culture

Trump's Nearly $2 Billion Weaponization Fund Blocked by Federal Courts

Local LawtonAuthor
Published
Reading time2 min
Share:

What started as a controversial $1.776 billion initiative has come to an abrupt halt. President Trump’s ambitious anti-weaponization fund—criticized from day one as a thinly veiled payment scheme for January 6 rioters—has been shelved after federal judges ruled the Department of Justice could not proceed with distributing the money.

The fund emerged from an unusual settlement. When President Trump sued the IRS over the leak of his tax returns, the resolution included a tradeoff: he’d drop the lawsuit, and in return, the DOJ would create this new fund to compensate anyone who believed they’d been unfairly targeted or persecuted by federal agencies. The sweetener for Trump personally was immunity from future IRS audits for himself and his businesses. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would have appointed a five-member panel to decide who qualified for payouts.

Here’s where the wheels fell off. When Trump announced the plan earlier this year, his critics immediately labeled it a“slush fund”—and they had a point. The timing was particularly sensitive given that Trump had already pardoned every January 6 rioter facing federal charges. Democrats weren’t shy about voicing objections, and even some high-profile Republicans expressed concern about what the move signaled. The optics were undeniable: use taxpayer money to compensate people convicted of storming the Capitol.

Federal judges agreed the fund was problematic. In their ruling, they blocked the DOJ from proceeding“under any circumstances,”and the department has now decided to abide by that decision. One source told Axios the fund is“dead for now”—language that leaves wiggle room for future attempts, but for the moment, the plan is off the table. The DOJ’s official statement insisted the fund“was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise,”but that framing failed to convince judges or the court of public opinion.

About the Author

Local Lawton

Local Lawton is a contributor to LocalBeat, covering local news and community stories.

Share:

Related Stories