Trump’s ‘anti-weaponization’ fund gets cold reception from GOP on Capitol Hill
Republicans on Capitol Hill are reacting skeptically to the Trump management’s newly announced $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. senate GOP lawmakers are considering adding guardrails through the party-line budget bill, while House centrists and Republicans raised concerns about both the fund’s creation and how it will be funded.
Members such as Rep. Kevin Kiley called the arrangement unusual because it could allow private taxpayer payouts without a clear public benefit, arguing it sidelines Congress and the judiciary. rep. Don Bacon likewise said Congress should be able to review it, framing the deal as the president negotiating with himself over taxpayer money. Others, including Sen. Bill Cassidy,said any settlement should be brought to Congress for a decision.
The fund was announced by the Department of Justice as part of a settlement agreement related to Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS, with compensation planned to come from the DOJ’s judgment fund-claims ending in December 2028. The White House said neither Trump nor his family would seek payouts.
legal challenges are also underway: officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 filed a lawsuit seeking to halt the plan, arguing it would compensate those involved in the riot.
The Trump administration’s $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded “anti-weaponization” fund is getting a frosty reception from Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Senate Republicans are exploring ways to impose guardrails on the fund, including inserting language into the GOP’s party-line budget bill, a source familiar confirmed. Meanwhile, in the House, centrist members expressed concerns about the fund’s creation and how it is being paid for.
Recommended Stories
Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), who caucuses with Republicans, told the Washington Examiner he did not want to see the fund move forward, and Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) said the fund was “not right.”
“It’s incredibly strange, very unusual, probably unprecedented,” Kiley said. “It is, you know, setting up a system for unilaterally making private payouts of taxpayer dollars with no discernible public benefit.”
Kiley, a member of the Judiciary Committee, voted with all Democrats during a committee vote to subpoena several Trump officials who helped set up the account, including acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. The vote failed 18-17.
Bacon told the Washington Examiner that while he did not know the legal or legislative recourse regarding the fund, he would welcome the option for Congress to look into it.
“It’s the president negotiating with himself over taxpayer money because he’s in charge of the defendants,” Bacon said. “But he’s the plaintiff, so he needs an arbitrator or something, or a neutral judge or something that looks impartial.”
The fund was announced by the Department of Justice on Monday as part of a settlement agreement with President Donald Trump over his lawsuit against the IRS. In exchange for dropping the suit, the DOJ agreed to establish the fund to compensate victims of federal “weaponization and lawfare.”
Compensation will be paid out by the DOJ’s judgment fund, which is appropriated by Congress to settle cases. Claims will not be processed after December 2028, one month before the end of Trump’s second administration.
The White House said neither Trump nor members of his family would seek payouts from the program.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who lost his primary race over the weekend to his Trump-backed opponent, said in a statement on X that if there needs to be a settlement, the Trump administration “should bring it to Congress to decide.”
“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the President and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” Cassidy posted. “This is adding to our national debt.”
Kiley also criticized the move from the Trump administration as taking both the judicial and legislative branches out of the equation entirely by creating the fund without consulting either.
“It’s another example of how you know Congress needs to protect its constitutional authority,” Kiley said.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) sent a letter to Blanche Wednesday requesting more information about the fund by June 1, including whether those guilty of violent crimes are eligible and examples of prior administrations establishing similar funds.
Fitzpatrick told reporters that he wanted to identify where the funds are coming from in order to see what options and jurisdiction Congress has over the account. The Pennsylvania Republican told media outlet MeidasTouch earlier on Wednesday that he was going to try to “kill” the fund, calling it “bad news.”
Law enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to halt the plan, arguing the fund would be used to compensate the individuals who organized and participated in the riot.
GOP WEIGHS DITCHING WHITE HOUSE SECURITY FUNDING OVER BALLROOM
The lawsuit, filed by former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges, advocates the dissolution of the fund, saying it would “directly finance the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters who threatened Plaintiffs’ lives that day, and continue to do so.”
Dunn is running for the Democratic nomination to represent Maryland’s 5th Congressional District.
Lauren Green and Naomi Lim contributed to this report.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
