On Monday, the settlement between President Trump and the Justice Department regarding the president’s lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department was announced. This resulted in the formation of a $1.7+ billion ‘anti-weaponization fund,’ introduced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. He stated the fund’s purpose is to create a systematic process to address claims of individuals experiencing weaponization and lawfare.
The fund marks the latest fulfilment of Trump’s pledge to seek ‘retribution’ for his supporters, following his pardons of about 1,500 defendants involved in the Capitol insurrection, removing security clearances from perceived enemies, and urging investigations into them. Trump’s current administration has dismissed numerous Justice Department personnel involved in investigations targeting the president and his allies concerning classified records and election conduct issues. A ‘weaponization working group’ has also been established to scrutinize the law enforcement policies enacted by the previous administration.
This unprecedented fund grants the Justice Department control over a large sum of taxpayer money potentially available for those wrongly investigated or prosecuted. However, ethics experts raise questions regarding its operations, such as eligibility criteria and claim arbiters.
Understanding the Fund
A memorandum signed by Blanche indicates that within 60 days, the Treasury will transfer $1.776 billion to the ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund,’ solely used for its intended purpose. A commission of five appointed members will oversee the fund, and they can issue formal apologies and monetary compensation to claimants. Selection of one commission member involves consultation with congressional leadership. Should a member be dismissed, their replacement follows the same selection process. Claims processing will end on December 15, 2028, preceding the next presidential inauguration. Remaining fund money reverts to the government, which bears no liability for misuse by claimants.
Potential Fund Beneficiaries
Eligibility specifics remain vague, though partisan requirements are absent in filing claims, as noted by the Justice Department. Former Trump supporters and allies may indeed benefit. A compensation claim was submitted by Michael Caputo, former Trump administration official, seeking $2.7 million for damages from FBI investigations. In addition to individuals, former administration and campaign officials may apply for compensation related to their interactions or legal disputes with the Justice Department.
Jenny Cudd, linked to the Capitol riot, expressed anticipation of ‘J6ers’ applying for restitution from the fund. Meanwhile, individuals like former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Colorado elections official Tina Peters, recently commuted from prison, might seek compensation as well. Although Vice President JD Vance endorsed Peters’ compensation, reflecting perceived unfair treatment.
Oversight Concerns
Ethics experts warn of limited oversight, even if future lawsuits or legislation transpire. Blanche or future attorney generals can audit fund usage. A required quarterly report to the attorney general will detail relieved parties and relief types distributed. Richard Briffault, Columbia University law professor, labels the lawsuit leading to the settlement as collusive, questioning screening methodologies for claim eligibility and compensation.
Transparency deficiencies about commission operations led Briffault to describe the fund as an unrestricted slush fund met with taxpayer subsidies, without court validation of misjudgment claims.
Ethical Criticisms
An ethics debate already surrounds the fund’s establishment. Liz Oyer, former pardon attorney, sees it as ‘criminal conspiracy’ using taxpayer money, citing transparency and oversight issues with the fund’s allocation process.
CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, condemned the settlement, suggesting it misuses taxpayer dollars to aid Trump’s allies amid American economic challenges, potentially violating the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause. Concerns over potential financial compensation for violent insurrectionists remain strong.
Contributors: Julia Kimani Burnham, Gabe Kaminsky.