President Trump has secured a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded program to compensate people claiming political targeting by the government, following a settlement with his own administration over a 2019 tax return leak.
The so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund operates through an unusual legal mechanism that keeps decisions about who receives money off-limits from judicial challenge. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former criminal defense lawyer, structured the program using the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, a congressionally created account traditionally reserved for paying court judgments and settlements.
Under the arrangement, Blanche will personally appoint a five-member commission to determine eligibility and award amounts. Applicants cannot appeal rejections or contest decisions in court. The settlement explicitly shields payout information from public disclosure requirements.
The fund carries no apparent ceiling on administrative costs. Staff, travel, and facility expenses can be deducted from the $1.776 billion pool, though the Justice Department and White House have not clarified whether any spending limits exist.
Blanche told a Senate subcommittee this week that nearly anyone alleging "weaponization" or "lawfare" can apply. Vice President Vance suggested the eligibility net could extend to figures like Tina Peters, the former Colorado county clerk convicted of state crimes, and even Hunter Biden, the son of former President Biden.
When pressed on whether people convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers would be excluded, Blanche demurred, saying he does not set the commission's rules.
The Trump settlement itself yielded no direct payment to the president but included a formal government apology and a permanent bar on IRS audits of his past tax returns. The case originated when Trump sued the IRS and Treasury in January seeking $10 billion over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax information.
The settlement was finalized just before the Justice Department faced a court deadline to respond to questions about whether the president's lawsuit against agencies he controls constituted a genuine legal dispute.
Congress established the Judgment Fund in 1956 to streamline government payments for settlements and court losses without requiring separate legislative votes for each obligation. Initial payouts were capped at $100,000 until that restriction was removed in 1978. The structure has drawn criticism from watchdogs as a potential avenue for administrations to disperse large sums with minimal oversight.
Paul Figley, a former Justice Department official with three decades of experience managing Judgment Fund matters, told outlets that this application falls far outside Congress's original intent. "It's bad policy, but it's Congress's fault" for leaving such a substantial loophole, Figley said, predicting future administrations will replicate the model until lawmakers intervene.
Legal battles are already underway. Two Capitol defenders from January 6 filed suit Wednesday to dissolve the fund, labeling it "the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century." Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges argue the program will subsidize Proud Boys members and rioters who have threatened their safety. Their complaint invokes the 14th Amendment's prohibition on federal expenditures tied to insurrection support.
The Justice Department points to the Obama administration's $760 million Keepseagle settlement for Native American farmers alleging Agriculture Department discrimination as precedent for using the Judgment Fund. That settlement, however, received approval from a federal judge following years of litigation.
Author James Rodriguez: "This fund transforms a personal presidential grudge into a sprawling government payout scheme with zero judicial guardrails, and the breadth of eligibility Blanche sketched out guarantees years of courtroom warfare."
Comments