Senate stalls 'anti-weaponization' fund

Senate Republicans and the White House are now fighting on two fronts over the administration’s “anti-weaponization” fund: in the appropriations process and in federal court. Republicans say they will not supply enough votes to pass a Homeland Security spending bill unless the administration agrees to narrow or scrap the $1.776 billion fund. At the same time, judges have halted parts of the related settlement and reopened questions about how the deal was reached. The dispute has tied a spending bill for Trump’s immigration agenda to a settlement that grew out of the president’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. ### Why is a Homeland Security spending bill tied to an IRS settlement? Senate Republicans said on June 1 that the Homeland Security spending bill would not pass without changes to the fund created through the Trump-IRS settlement. PBS reported that Republicans returning to Washington said they did not have the votes for the bill unless the White House worked with them to impose parameters on the fund or abandon it. (pbs.org) The $1.776 billion fund was set up as part of a settlement of Trump’s lawsuit over the disclosure of his tax information. CNN’s annotated review of the agreement said the deal arose from a lawsuit brought by Trump, one of his adult sons and the Trump Organization against the IRS, and that the federal government also agreed not to bring certain past tax claims against Trump, his family or businesses. (pbs.org) ### What are Republicans objecting to specifically? Mike Pence said on May 31 that the fund should be eliminated. In an interview cited by Politico, Pence called it a “bad idea” and said it was “deeply offensive” that a fund could potentially compensate people who assaulted police officers or vandalized the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (cnn.com) Republican criticism has extended beyond Pence. PBS reported that Senate Republicans want limits placed on who can receive money, while other reports described a widening group of Republican critics as lawmakers returned to confront the stalled spending bill. ### What have judges actually done so far? (politico.com) U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami reopened Trump’s $10 billion IRS case on May 29 for further scrutiny. The Hill reported that Williams sided with intervenors who argued the settlement creating the fund may have tainted the case. Politico separately reported that Williams ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond to requests that she examine the deal more closely. (pbs.org) A separate judicial order has temporarily blocked money from flowing to the fund. Reason reported on June 1 that one court order temporarily blocked payments tied to the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” while another proceeding asked whether the agreement was a fraudulent “product of collusion.” Reason’s characterization is its own, but the underlying development it described was that judges had blocked or reopened parts of the matter rather than reached a final finding on wrongdoing. (thehill.com) ### Did a court find the settlement improper? No court has made a final finding, based on the public reporting now available, that the settlement was corrupt or collusive. Politico reported that Judge Williams launched an inquiry and sought responses from Trump’s lawyers, and The Hill reported that the case was reopened for additional scrutiny. Those actions put the agreement back under examination, but they do not amount to a final ruling on legality. (reason.com) Reason said judges raised questions about whether the agreement was the product of collusion, but that is different from a judicial determination that collusion occurred. The distinction matters because the political backlash in Congress is unfolding before the courts have finished reviewing the settlement. ### What happens next in Congress and in court? (politico.com) Republican senators returning to Washington on June 1 said the Homeland Security spending bill still lacked the votes to advance unless the White House changed course on the fund. PBS reported that the standoff remained unresolved after senators left town without passing legislation to fund Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies. (reason.com) Judge Williams’ next steps will shape the legal track. Politico reported that she asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to calls for deeper examination of the settlement, and further court filings in Miami are expected to determine whether the agreement survives intact, is narrowed, or faces additional delay. (politico.com) (pbs.org)