Trump Administration Scraps $1.776 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’
The fund, part of a settlement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax returns, faced bipartisan backlash, legal challenges, and a court-ordered freeze.
The Trump administration has abandoned plans for a proposed $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" intended to compensate individuals alleging political persecution by the federal government. While the fund has been scrapped, other provisions of the settlement—notably a permanent bar on tax investigations against Trump and his family—remain in effect.
Fund Creation and Rationale
Origin in IRS Lawsuit
The fund originated from a $10 billion lawsuit filed by President Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization against the IRS in January 2026. The lawsuit alleged that a former IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, leaked Trump’s confidential tax returns to media outlets between 2018 and 2020. Littlejohn pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison.
On May 20, 2026, the Justice Department announced a settlement. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche—who previously served as Trump’s personal defense lawyer—announced the creation of the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" totaling $1.776 billion. The settlement also included a formal apology to Trump and his family but provided them with no direct financial compensation.
Purpose of the Fund
According to the Justice Department, the fund was intended to provide "a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress." The stated goal was to compensate individuals who believed they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes by prior administrations, particularly the Biden administration. The fund was open to any individual who could demonstrate political or ideological targeting, with no stated partisan requirements.
Structure and Administration
Funding Source
The money for the fund was to be drawn from the Judgment Fund, an existing, uncapped Treasury account established by Congress in 1956 to pay court judgments and settlements against the government without requiring specific appropriations for each case.
Oversight Commission
The fund was to be administered by a five-member commission appointed by the Acting Attorney General. One member was to be chosen in consultation with congressional leaders. The President retained the power to remove any commission member at will, with replacements following the same selection process. The commission was responsible for setting rules and awarding compensation on a case-by-case basis.
Claim Process
Eligibility criteria were not clearly defined. The Justice Department stated that claims would be assessed based on the "totality of circumstances," including damages, attorney fees, and punishment already served. Recipients would be required to drop any related legal claims, and judicial review of payouts was prohibited. Claims must be filed by December 1, 2028.
Abandonment of the Fund
Political Opposition
The fund faced opposition from both Democrats and Republicans.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated he was not informed about the fund in advance. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) criticized it as a "slush fund to pay people who assault cops." Other Republican senators—including Roger Wicker (MS), Chuck Grassley (IA), Susan Collins (ME), and Thom Tillis (NC)—voiced opposition.
Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY) introduced legislation to block the fund. Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer (D-NY), introduced amendments to cancel the fund.
Official Abandonment
On June 2, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified before Congress that the fund would not proceed.
"We're not moving forward with the fund, period," Blanche stated.
He cited opposition from congressional Republicans who refused to vote on a bill funding ICE and Border Patrol unless the fund was dropped. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told Blanche that while the concept might have been noble, proceeding was "a difficult prospect right now" given Republican legislative priorities.
Conflicting Statements
President Trump’s position on the fund's status varied. In media interviews following the announcement, he stated he did not know whether the fund was "dead" or "on hold" and called it a "beautiful thing." He also said he "wouldn't be inclined" to rule out compensation for individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack "but I have to see it."
Legal Challenges
Court Order Freezing the Fund
On May 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema (Eastern District of Virginia) issued a temporary freeze on the fund, preventing any disbursement until a hearing scheduled for June 12, 2026.
Reopening of Underlying Lawsuit
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams (Southern District of Florida) ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond by June 12 to allegations that the settlement was "a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the court." A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges filed a motion arguing the lawsuit raised "profound questions about the parties' candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system."
Lawsuit by Capitol Police Officers
Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021—former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department Officer Daniel Hodges—filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the fund. They argued the fund could be used to compensate individuals who assaulted police during the riot, describing it as a "taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name."
Constitutional Arguments
Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) filed an amicus brief arguing the fund violated the Constitution’s Spending, Appropriations, and Appointments Clauses, undermining Congress’s authority over federal spending. Legal experts raised questions about whether the fund violated the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause and Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.
Dismissal of the Lawsuit
Despite the court actions, Judge Williams dismissed the underlying IRS lawsuit on June 1, 2026, noting that no agency had submitted settlement documents to ensure the settlement was appropriate.
Remaining Settlement Provisions
Tax Investigation Immunity
An addendum to the settlement, signed by Acting Attorney General Blanche, permanently bars the U.S. government from examining or prosecuting the tax filings of Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, the Trump Organization, and related entities. The Justice Department clarified the waiver applies only to existing audits, not future examinations.
Financial Implications
Forbes estimated Trump earned $1.4 billion in 2025 from cryptocurrency and licensing ventures. The publication estimated the tax immunity could save Trump more than half a billion dollars.
Tax experts, including former IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, described the immunity as "an unprecedented remedy" that gives Trump "a completely different set of rules than everyday taxpayers." Some former officials suggested the provision may violate the Constitution’s domestic emoluments clause.
Background on Related Events
January 6, 2021, Capitol Attack
On January 6, 2021, a crowd of supporters of then-President Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election results. Over 100 police officers were injured. Nearly 1,600 people were charged with crimes related to the riot. President Trump issued blanket pardons to nearly all participants on January 20, 2025.
Potential Claimants
Several individuals announced their intention to apply for compensation from the fund before it was abandoned. These included:
- Michael Caputo (former Trump HHS spokesperson), seeking $2.7 million
- Michael Cohen (former Trump attorney)
- Enrique Tarrio (former Proud Boys leader, convicted of seditious conspiracy)
- George Santos (former congressman)
- Roger Stone (political consultant)
- Mike Lindell (MyPillow CEO)
- Rod Blagojevich (former Illinois governor)
Statements from Officials
"This is a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars into a huge slush fund." — Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD)
"Corruption on steroids." — Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the fund as legal and cited precedent from an Obama-era settlement with Native American farmers.
Vice President JD Vance stated the fund was about compensating Americans for "lawfare" and that anyone, including Hunter Biden, could apply.