A top Justice Department official deleted a social media post Wednesday that appeared to signal the Trump administration was exploring an alternative avenue to compensate people it believes were targeted by Biden administration-era “weaponization,” raising fresh questions about whether a controversial $1.8 billion reimbursement plan is truly dead.

The post by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward surfaced less than a day after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche assured lawmakers that the administration was abandoning plans for a proposed anti-weaponization fund that had sparked bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill.

“We’re on it,” Woodward wrote late Tuesday in response to a post from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggesting that victims of alleged political targeting could instead seek compensation through claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The post was deleted Wednesday morning, with no context about why it was deleted or if plans had changed yet again.

Woodward’s comment quickly drew attention because it appeared to endorse an alternative pathway for compensating individuals who claim they were unfairly investigated or prosecuted during former President Joe Biden’s administration.

The controversy centers on a proposed $1.776 billion fund negotiated as part of President Donald Trump’s settlement of a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. The agreement also resolved two civil claims tied to the Russia investigation and the FBI’s 2022 search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

The proposal would have created a five-member commission to review compensation claims from individuals who argued they had been subjected to political targeting by the federal government.

Critics immediately dubbed the proposal a “slush fund,” warning it could allow payments to some of the roughly 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants pardoned by Trump after returning to office.

Facing mounting resistance from both parties, the administration backed away from the proposal this week.

The controversy had begun spilling beyond the fund itself and into Trump’s broader legislative agenda. Senate Republicans warned that continued uncertainty over the proposal could jeopardize a roughly $72 billion budget reconciliation bill designed to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol operations through 2029.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) publicly urged the administration to abandon the fund, arguing lawmakers should instead return to a narrowly focused immigration bill. Other Republicans warned that keeping the proposal alive could complicate both the reconciliation legislation and annual government funding bills.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, vowed to force votes on outright bans of the fund. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) argued that the administration’s promises were insufficient and announced plans to offer amendments permanently prohibiting any future anti-weaponization fund.

During testimony Tuesday before the House Appropriations Committee, Blanche sought to reassure skeptical lawmakers that the plan would not move forward.

“We are not moving forward with the fund. Period,” Blanche told lawmakers.

When pressed by Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY) on whether the administration was “not moving forward ever” with the fund, Blanche responded, “Correct.”

Those assurances came after several Republican senators signaled they would not support a massive immigration and border security package unless the administration clearly abandoned the proposal.

Sens. Susan Collins (R-MN), John Curtis (R-UT), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) were among Republicans who publicly demanded stronger commitments from the DOJ, while Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) prepared legislation that would permanently prohibit the creation of such a fund.

The political fallout grew large enough that lawmakers warned it could jeopardize passage of broader $72 billion legislation funding immigration enforcement priorities.

Even after Blanche’s testimony, however, some lawmakers remained concerned that the administration could pursue other mechanisms for compensating alleged victims of government misconduct.

Woodward’s now-deleted post is likely to intensify those concerns.

Under existing law, the DOJ already has the authority to settle lawsuits and legal claims against the federal government through the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund and other settlement mechanisms. As a result, the demise of the dedicated anti-weaponization fund does not necessarily foreclose compensation claims by individuals who successfully establish legal liability against the government.

The problem remains politically sensitive because some Trump allies have argued that people prosecuted in connection with Jan. 6 or other politically charged investigations deserve compensation.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) defended the concept this week, arguing that some individuals were financially ruined by prosecutions he views as unjust. Meanwhile, some Republicans, including Reps. Andrew Clyde (GA) and Scott Perry (PA) lamented the DOJ’s abandonment of the fund.

Other Republicans have sharply disagreed.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion column published after the administration announced it would abandon the fund, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) urged Congress to permanently block any future effort to revive it.

Cornyn, who is fresh off of his primary election defeat to Trump-endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, argued that directing nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to compensate Trump allies would establish a troubling precedent and expose Republicans to political attacks. He called on lawmakers to enact legislation ensuring the proposal could not be revived later.

Meanwhile, Trump indicated Tuesday that he still supports the underlying concept of compensating people he believes were wrongfully targeted by the government.

Speaking on the New York Post‘s “Pod Force One” podcast, Trump said the administration was stepping back from the fund because “the court ruled against it,” but added that individuals he pardoned should be “reimbursed for a crooked government.”

TODD BLANCHE SAYS DOJ WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND

The legal fight over the proposal remains in flux. Last week, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, temporarily blocked the DOJ from implementing the fund and scheduled a hearing for June 12 while she considers a challenge brought by opponents of the plan.

Woodward’s deleted message is likely to fuel scrutiny from Democrats who argue the administration is still searching for ways to provide payments despite Blanche’s public assurances that the fund itself is no longer moving forward.