Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

(183,616 posts)
Thu Jun 11, 2026, 02:15 PM Jun 11

Trump Isn't Giving Up on His Slush Fund (gift article)

Despite insisting that a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund has been scrapped, the administration is quietly assuring allies that payout plans remain on track.



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/06/trump-anti-weaponization-fund/687500/?gift=j8n6Bjgg-nhjktK6K-3q9oM1S92nQDQ4oKEbivg0Hzs&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

When Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared before Congress last Tuesday, senior administration officials hoped that his testimony would be enough to quell the uproar over a $1.776 billion payout scheme for Trump loyalists, including January 6 rioters. “We’re not moving forward with the fund,” he told a House appropriations subcommittee....

It turns out that it’s not that simple. Behind the scenes, Justice Department and other Trump-administration officials have quietly assured allies that plans for some form of payout remain on track. I spoke with eight people familiar with the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund—including current and former Justice Department officials, current and former members of Congress, a defense attorney, and political operatives close to the administration. All said that Justice Department officials and people close to the White House have indicated that the payout idea has not actually been scrapped. Rather, they say, officials are exploring whether elements of the fund can be reactivated while also examining alternative arrangements to make sure loyalists get compensated. Across the administration, and even within the Justice Department, officials have differing perspectives on whether the fund itself will ultimately be restored. But either way, officials see a path forward for the government to pay those who say they are victims of supposed government “weaponization.”

A White House official told me in response to a list of emailed questions that “any speculation about potential future actions is just that—speculation. President Trump remains committed to addressing Biden-era weaponization.” A senior DOJ official who was familiar with the department’s plans said there have been no discussions at the highest levels about reviving the fund since Blanche testified, though the official acknowledged DOJ was a large institution and there may have been conversations at lower levels.

Those familiar with the internal conversations—all of whom spoke with me on the condition of anonymity because they feared possible retaliation—told me that the work is being kept quiet while the Trump administration waits for opposition to the fund to blow over. Crucially, the administration is also trying to avoid a fight over the payout plan, which has been deemed a political slush fund by critics, while the Senate considers Blanche’s nomination for attorney general.....

Right now, you have to be an insider to know who to talk to,” one attorney who had advised multiple individuals seeking compensation told me. One Republican former member of Congress told me that he and others had been assured that the administration’s public statements about the weaponization fund being abandoned were “all part of the plan; nothing has changed.” One Justice Department official and two Republican political advisers told me that public backing for the fund was dropped to clear the way for Blanche’s confirmation, but that they had been promised that payments would eventually be made to January 6 defendants, pardon recipients, and those close to the president. “Trump didn’t want to fight this out in public,” the official told me.....

Blanche may have denied before Congress that the weaponization fund was moving ahead, but others have been less categorical, dropping hints that payouts remain in play. Last week, Stanley Woodward Jr., a former Trump White House official who now serves as associate attorney general and who signed the settlement agreement, appeared to telegraph that the financial-restitution effort was still in progress. He responded “we’re on it” to a post by Senator Lindsey Graham on X that suggested that victims of so-called weaponization during the Biden era could still be compensated through claims under the Federal Torts Claims Act. That law enables individuals to pursue claims in federal court for personal injuries, wrongful death, or property loss caused by the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees. Woodward later deleted the post.

In multiple interviews over the past week, Trump has declined to confirm that the payout effort has been abandoned. When asked by NBC News if he was “looking for a way to revive it,” Trump did not dispute that: “Well, look. If it was up to me, I’d pay them the kind of money that they deserve,” he said. He added, “I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans.” Although officials say the fund was intended to be available to any victims of government weaponization, regardless of party, the president has focused his comments exclusively on allies who he feels were wrongfully targeted.....

Blanche’s nomination hearing is expected to be scheduled after he submits the required documentation, which includes financial disclosures and an FBI background check. Democrats and Republicans told me it is unclear whether Blanche will be able to win confirmation. Rejection of Blanche, who was Trump’s personal attorney before he returned to office, would mark another setback for a president who is not used to taking no for an answer. Trump has privately told associates that he was drawn to the idea of the Anti-Weaponization Fund because he believes he is “owed” for the “witchhunt” investigations he’s endured, a senior aide and an outside adviser told my colleague Jonathan Lemire. He has raged against the Russia probe that he felt consumed his first term and the criminal investigations he faced while out of office. Now he is seething about acts of defiance from members of his own party on Capitol Hill, including their opposition to the fund. “Republicans wouldn’t have balked,” the outside Trump adviser said, “if his poll numbers were better.” But the historically unpopular president now seems powerless to bring them back into line.

trump is NOT giving up on this slush fund. trump's feelings were hurt by the various investigations and he wants this slush fund as compensation for his hurt feelings.
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump Isn't Giving Up on His Slush Fund (gift article) (Original Post) LetMyPeopleVote Jun 11 OP
But I just heard on NPR that a judge refused to grant wnylib Jun 11 #1
There are two lawsuits pending LetMyPeopleVote Jun 11 #2
Thank you. Glad to see that efforts to stop the grift are still ongoing. wnylib Jun 11 #4
The evil never stops with these rats Blues Heron Jun 11 #3
trump is going to fight to keep his slush fund LetMyPeopleVote Jun 11 #5
"Who's a lying fuckwad?" struggle4progress Jun 11 #6
Federal judge indefinitely blocks Trump's $1.8 billion payout fund LetMyPeopleVote Jun 12 #7
Trump lawyers: No collusion with Trump administration to create 'Anti-Weaponization' fund LetMyPeopleVote Saturday #8

wnylib

(26,759 posts)
1. But I just heard on NPR that a judge refused to grant
Thu Jun 11, 2026, 02:23 PM
Jun 11

temporary restraining order because the judge said that it is moot since the administration has publicly announced that it is no longer pursuing the slush fund.

LetMyPeopleVote

(183,616 posts)
2. There are two lawsuits pending
Thu Jun 11, 2026, 02:27 PM
Jun 11

There is also a case in Florida on the "fraud on the court" theory where there will be briefs being filed soon


LetMyPeopleVote

(183,616 posts)
7. Federal judge indefinitely blocks Trump's $1.8 billion payout fund
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 12:09 PM
Jun 12

U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema said the government has not provided “absolute certainty” it won’t try to resurrect the fund in the future.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/06/12/federal-judge-indefinitely-blocks-trumps-18-billion-payout-fund

A federal judge on Friday indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.8 billion payout fund, which is still being challenged in court despite Justice Department officials claiming the effort is dead.

At a hearing in Virginia federal court, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction blocking the fund, which the administration sought to create for those who claim they were improperly investigated by the government. She forcefully rejected the government’s arguments that the case was moot, citing Trump’s praising of the idea and acting attorney general Todd Blanche’s unwillingness to say under the penalty of perjury that the administration will not try to stand it up in the future.

A federal judge on Friday indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.8 billion payout fund, which is still being challenged in court despite Justice Department officials claiming the effort is dead.

At a hearing in Virginia federal court, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction blocking the fund, which the administration sought to create for those who claim they were improperly investigated by the government. She forcefully rejected the government’s arguments that the case was moot, citing Trump’s praising of the idea and acting attorney general Todd Blanche’s unwillingness to say under the penalty of perjury that the administration will not try to stand it up in the future.....

Separately, Blanche told members of Congress that the administration had scrapped plans for the fund after intense and bipartisan political backlash. But he has resisted calls to put that pledge in writing or to publicly amend the agreement that created the fund, an out-of-court deal the president’s personal lawyers struck with the Justice Department to resolve three legal claims Trump had filed against the government.

This order is necessary because no one believes trump or Blanche. trump really wants this weaponization fund and the DOJ is attempting to find a way to create this fund

LetMyPeopleVote

(183,616 posts)
8. Trump lawyers: No collusion with Trump administration to create 'Anti-Weaponization' fund
Sat Jun 13, 2026, 09:39 AM
Saturday

I admit that I am a geek. I found and read trump's filing late last night. I was NOT impressed. Basically, there was no collusion and there was a real "case or controversy" (this is required for the court to have jurisdiction) because they say so. I was NOT impressed

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/12/trump-lawyers-no-collusion-trump-administration-anti-weaponization-fund-00961288

Attorneys for President Donald Trump are rejecting allegations that they defrauded a federal court in Florida by bringing a lawsuit against the IRS — only to settle with the Trump-led Justice Department in a deal crafted to establish a so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

The Friday night filing with a federal judge in Miami was the first public defense of the settlement by Trump’s private attorneys since it came under intense attack by lawmakers, prompting the administration to retreat from the planned $1.8 billion fund for victims of allegedly politicized investigations and indictments.

Trump sued the agency for $10 billion in January over the 2020 leak of his tax returns by an IRS contractor who subsequently pleaded guilty to the breach. The lawsuit raised immediate questions about a conflict raised by the sitting president suing an agency he oversees. But Trump quickly abandoned the suit as details about the settlement began to emerge.

Trump’s lawyers invoked a federal court rule that allows plaintiffs in a case to drop it early in the litigation without explanation or substantive involvement by the judge....

Attorneys for President Donald Trump are rejecting allegations that they defrauded a federal court in Florida by bringing a lawsuit against the IRS — only to settle with the Trump-led Justice Department in a deal crafted to establish a so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

The Friday night filing with a federal judge in Miami was the first public defense of the settlement by Trump’s private attorneys since it came under intense attack by lawmakers, prompting the administration to retreat from the planned $1.8 billion fund for victims of allegedly politicized investigations and indictments.

Trump sued the agency for $10 billion in January over the 2020 leak of his tax returns by an IRS contractor who subsequently pleaded guilty to the breach. The lawsuit raised immediate questions about a conflict raised by the sitting president suing an agency he oversees. But Trump quickly abandoned the suit as details about the settlement began to emerge.

Trump’s lawyers invoked a federal court rule that allows plaintiffs in a case to drop it early in the litigation without explanation or substantive involvement by the judge.

Again, for a federal court to have jurisdiction, there must be a "case or controversy". trump was on both sides of this litigation and this brief wants to ignore reality.

This will be fun to watch.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump Isn't Giving Up on ...