Trump anti-weaponization fund questioned

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told senators on May 19 that the Justice Department’s new Anti-Weaponization Fund would be run transparently, but he would not categorically bar payments to January 6 defendants or Trump political donors. The nearly $1.8 billion fund was created through the settlement of President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns, according to Reuters, Politico and Forbes. Senate Republicans as well as Democrats have begun to question the arrangement, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was “not a big fan” of it. Reports on Tuesday also added scrutiny to how the settlement was reached, including accounts that IRS lawyers wanted the government to fight the case rather than settle. ### How did this fund get created in the first place? President Donald Trump dropped a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS on May 18 in exchange for a settlement that established the Anti-Weaponization Fund, according to Politico and Forbes. The suit stemmed from the disclosure of Trump’s tax return information after former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn leaked tax records to news outlets; Littlejohn was sentenced in 2024. The new fund totals about $1.776 billion, which has widely been rounded to nearly $1.8 billion in public accounts. (forbes.com) A federal judge had been examining whether Trump and the government were sufficiently adverse parties in the case. Forbes reported that U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden — citing prior reporting on the case posture — had required briefs by May 20 and scheduled a hearing for May 27 before the settlement overtook that timeline. (politico.com) ### What did Blanche actually say under oath? Todd Blanche told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Related Agencies on May 19 that the fund was not a “slush fund,” according to Forbes. Under questioning, Blanche said President Trump did not set up the fund, while also saying he was “confident” Trump’s lawyers conveyed the president’s wishes during settlement negotiations. Politico separately reported that Blanche did not rule out payments to people convicted in the January 6 Capitol attack, saying decisions would depend on individual circumstances. (forbes.com) Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, pressed Blanche on whether Trump or his family could benefit. A New Republic account of the hearing said Blanche answered that Trump and his family would not receive proceeds from the fund. Reuters, cited in the source briefings for this story, also reported that Blanche defended the program while declining to foreclose payouts to January 6 rioters or Trump donors. (forbes.com) ### Why are Republicans questioning it too? John Thune told reporters on May 19 that he was “not a big fan” of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, Politico reported. That comment made him the most senior Republican to publicly distance himself from the arrangement as Democrats attacked it as a taxpayer-backed patronage vehicle. Politico also reported bipartisan criticism at Blanche’s hearing over who could qualify for payments. (newrepublic.com) Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico reported that abortion clinic protesters could also be eligible, depending on how the fund’s standards are applied. Other reporting cited in the story briefings said Vice President JD Vance suggested claims would be reviewed case by case, adding to questions about the range of possible recipients. (politico.com) ### What new questions emerged about the settlement itself? The New York Times reported, as summarized by Forbes, that IRS attorneys had prepared arguments urging the government to seek dismissal of Trump’s lawsuit rather than settle. Those arguments were never filed before the case was resolved, according to the Forbes account. Blanche’s testimony came before senators only hours after that reporting added a new line of inquiry about whether career lawyers’ advice was overridden. (politico.com) Brian Morrissey, the Treasury Department’s top lawyer, resigned shortly after the fund was approved, according to The New Republic, which cited the New York Times. Morrissey had served as Treasury general counsel for about seven months, the report said. Neither the resignation report nor the other coverage reviewed publicly set out a detailed official explanation for his departure. (forbes.com) ### What happens next? May 20 was the date briefs had been due in the now-settled IRS case, and May 27 had been the next scheduled court hearing before the deal was announced, according to Forbes. Congress is likely to keep pressing Blanche and the Justice Department on eligibility rules, administration of the fund and whether any written guardrails will exclude categories such as January 6 defendants, donors or other political allies. (newrepublic.com) (forbes.com)