Rep. Jamie Raskin alleges $1.8 billion Trump slush fund

Rep. Jamie Raskin’s allegation centers on a real government action and a disputed interpretation of what it could be used for. On May 18, the Justice Department announced a settlement tied to President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and said it was creating a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” as part of that deal. Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an X thread on May 21 that the fund amounts to a Trump “slush fund” and argued it could steer taxpayer money to political allies. The Justice Department said the fund is a lawful process for people who claim they were targeted by government “weaponization” to seek relief. ### Where does the $1.8 billion figure come from? The Justice Department said on May 18 that the fund will receive $1.776 billion from the federal judgment fund, a permanent appropriation used to pay certain settlements and judgments. The department said the money is being created as part of the settlement of Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, the case brought by Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization over leaked tax-return information. (justice.gov) CNBC, NBC News, CBS News and Politico all separately reported the same basic structure: Trump and the other plaintiffs dropped their $10 billion lawsuit, and the administration created the nearly $1.8 billion fund in exchange. The DOJ said Trump and the other plaintiffs will receive a formal apology but “no monetary payment or damages of any kind.” (justice.gov) ### Did Raskin’s “private militia” claim come from the settlement itself? Raskin’s “private militia” language is his characterization, not language used by the Justice Department in the settlement announcement. The DOJ release says the fund is for people who suffered “weaponization and lawfare” and says there are “no partisan requirements” to file a claim. It also says any money left over when the fund ends will return to the federal government. (politico.com) Raskin and other Democrats have argued the fund could benefit January 6 defendants and pro-Trump activists. In a May 20 press release announcing legislation to block the fund, Raskin said Trump was trying to “commandeer nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds to bankroll a slush fund for January 6 cop-beaters and aggrieved MAGA foot soldiers.” Media reports describing Raskin’s remarks say he extended that criticism by arguing Trump was effectively financing a “private militia.” (justice.gov) ### What about the claim that tax audits would be dropped and immunity granted? The Justice Department’s May 18 press release does not say tax audits of Trump family businesses would be dropped. In the release, DOJ said the plaintiffs agreed to drop the IRS lawsuit with prejudice and withdraw two administrative claims, including claims tied to the Mar-a-Lago search and what it called the “Russia-collusion hoax.” (democrats-judiciary.house.gov) The “blanket immunity” claim appears to come from legal criticism of the settlement rather than from the DOJ’s own summary. Lawfare wrote on May 20 that the settlement gave Trump and his family “blanket immunity from government suits,” but that description is Lawfare’s characterization in an analysis article, not language quoted from the DOJ release in the material reviewed here. Based on the sources available, the existence of the fund is verified; Raskin’s broader claims about audits and immunity are allegations or interpretations that go beyond the DOJ announcement itself. (justice.gov) ### What has Raskin done beyond the X thread? Raskin introduced the No Taxpayer-Funded Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2026 on May 20, according to House Judiciary Democrats. His office said the bill would bar federal funds from being used to create or finance the settlement fund and would impose new limits on settlement payments involving senior executive-branch officials, their families and entities they control. (lawfaremedia.org) Axios reported that some bipartisan opposition was emerging, including criticism from Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, who said he would “try to kill” the fund. The DOJ, for its part, said the fund will issue quarterly reports to the attorney general and can be audited at the attorney general’s direction. ### What happens next? December 1, 2028, is the deadline the Justice Department gave for the fund to stop processing claims. (democrats-judiciary.house.gov) Before then, the fund is supposed to review applications, issue relief where warranted and send quarterly reports to the attorney general. On Capitol Hill, the next concrete step is Raskin’s legislation. Whether Congress moves on that bill, and whether lawmakers seek the underlying settlement documents and claim-eligibility rules, will determine how much of Raskin’s warning becomes a legislative fight rather than just a social-media accusation. (axios.com) (democrats-judiciary.house.gov) (justice.gov)