GOP senators kill Trump's anti-weaponization fund

Congress created the Judgment FundJudgment FundA permanent Treasury appropriation that pays court judgments and DOJ settlements against the U.S. without requiring a new congressional vote.Key ConceptJudgment FundA permanent Treasury appropriation that pays court judgments and DOJ settlements against the U.S. without requiring a new congressional vote.Open conceptBookmark in 1956 to solve a practical problem: before then, every court judgment against the federal government required a separate congressional appropriation to pay, a process that consumed enormous legislative time as the volume of federal litigation grew. The 1956 law (31 U.S.C. § 1304) created a permanent, standing Treasury appropriation that would automatically cover court-ordered damages without a new vote each time. In 1961, Congress expanded the fund to also cover compromise settlements of actual or imminent litigation. That 1961 expansion is the statutory hook the Trump administration used 65 years later.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund on May 18, 2026, as part of a settlement ending a $10 billion civil lawsuit Trump had filed against the IRS and Treasury over the 2022 leak of his tax returns. Trump and his co-plaintiffs — Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization — received a formal apology but no monetary payment; they dropped the IRS lawsuit with prejudice and withdrew two additional claims related to the Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia investigation.

Blanche framed the fund as a systematic process to hear and redress claims from anyone who alleged government weaponization — a term the administration used broadly to cover Biden-era prosecutions of Trump allies, January 6 defendants, and others. The DOJ press release was published May 18, 2026.

The fund drew its money from the Judgment Fund without any separate congressional vote. Critics immediately pointed out that this exploited a structural gap: the Judgment Fund is a congressional appropriation, but Congress created it to pay court-ordered damages, not to fund discretionary presidential compensation programs. The administration's use of the 1961 settlement authoritySettlement AuthorityThe legal power of the Attorney General to negotiate and approve compromise agreements resolving lawsuits against the federal government.Key ConceptSettlement AuthorityThe legal power of the Attorney General to negotiate and approve compromise agreements resolving lawsuits against the federal government.Open conceptBookmark was contested because the Anti-Weaponization Fund had no actual third-party litigation driving it — Trump had sued his own government and settled with himself, directing public money to a new program with five commissioners all appointed by or in consultation with his own attorney general, and no independent judicial oversight of individual payout decisions.

This wasn't the first time an administration tested Judgment Fund limits. The Obama administration used large bank settlements to channel money to third-party housing and community organizations — a practice conservative legal scholars challenged at the time. The Lawfare analysis documented this pattern across administrations. The Anti-Weaponization Fund differed in one critical way: unlike even the contested Obama-era precedents, DOJ's fund had no judicial oversight of individual payout decisions.

Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, appointed by President Clinton on October 18, 1993, blocked the fund on May 29, 2026, issuing a two-page order directing DOJ not to take any steps to create or disburse money while legal challenges were pending. She scheduled a June 12 hearing on a longer-term injunction. Her order stated the pause would 'ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed' while courts considered whether the fund violated the Appropriations ClauseAppropriations ClauseNo federal money can be spent without Congress passing an appropriations bill.Key ConceptAppropriations ClauseNo federal money can be spent without Congress passing an appropriations bill.Open conceptBookmark. Brinkema previously presided over the Zacarias Moussaoui terrorism trial.

The lawsuit before Brinkema was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of a coalition including former federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, Common Cause, the National Abortion Federation, and the City of New Haven, Connecticut. Mayor Justin Elicker announced New Haven's joinder on May 22, arguing the fund was an unconstitutional scheme benefiting only Trump administration allies. The plaintiffs argued the administration had engineered a collusive agreement — Trump suing his own government, then settling with himself — to bypass the Appropriations Clause.

Senate Republicans turned against the fund almost immediately after its announcement. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) called it a 'slush fund' made up 'whole-piece by the administration without any legal precedent.' Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called compensating January 6 rioters 'utterly stupid' and 'morally wrong.' Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) called the fund 'stupid on stilts' and 'a payout pot for punks.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told reporters that administration officials 'need to help with this issue, because we have a lot of members who are concerned, obviously, about the timing, but also about the substance.'

The fund's political problem for Republicans came down to one concrete risk: payouts to January 6 defendants, including people convicted of assaulting Capitol Police. When senators pressed Blanche in budget testimony on May 19, he would not rule out payments to Capitol rioters or Trump campaign donors. NBC News separately reported that a DOJ official had privately told a Republican ally that 'big payouts were coming' for January 6 defendants. Republican senators facing competitive 2026 races concluded they couldn't defend a vote for the $70 billion border security reconciliation package if the fund remained alive.

Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), launched a coordinated legislative campaign against the fund. Schumer pledged to force Republican senators to vote on the fund 'no matter what Republicans do,' using budget amendments, floor motions, and appropriations riders. He called the fund Trump's 'most brazen act of self-dealing.' Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) forced a Senate floor vote to block the fund legislatively; Republicans voted it down — including some who had publicly criticized the fund — but the procedural vote put each senator on record.

On June 1, 2026, DOJ announced it would comply with Judge Brinkema's order and fully drop the fund. Many Republican senators remained cautious: CNN reported they wanted a specific, unconditional promise the fund was permanently dead — not merely a temporary compliance with the court order that could be revived if the injunction were overturned on appeal. Complying with a court order and permanently abandoning a program are legally different postures. DOJ's June 1 statement used language about court compliance; the underlying settlement agreement was not formally rescinded by legislation.