The Trump administration has abandoned plans for a controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” but individuals who claim they were targeted by politically motivated investigations can still seek compensation through existing legal channels.
The proposed fund had drawn bipartisan criticism because it could have provided payments to those alleging victimization by a “weaponized” justice system, including some January 6 defendants. Senate Republicans and Democrats alike questioned the use of taxpayer money for such a dedicated compensation program.
However, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement that the fund was terminated does not eliminate the possibility of payouts. Individuals who assert they were wrongfully investigated or prosecuted can continue pursuing settlements under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which permits claims against the federal government for compensation.
The Justice Department has already approved settlements for several Trump allies, including former campaign adviser Carter Page; former national security adviser Michael Flynn; and the family of Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter fatally shot by police during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
Hundreds of January 6 defendants have also filed claims under the law, though attorneys in those cases report many remain pending. Any settlements reached through these claims would be paid from the federal government’s Judgment Fund, an existing pool used to cover legal settlements and judgments involving federal agencies.
The proposed fund was part of a settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The now-scrapped $1.8 billion fund would have created a separate process overseen by a five-member commission appointed largely by the attorney general.
While that mechanism is no longer moving forward, the Justice Department retains authority to settle claims it deems valid through existing legal procedures.
Blanche’s testimony this week left some lawmakers unconvinced that the issue was settled. He declined requests from Democrats for written assurances that the administration would never revive the fund. Comments from senior Justice Department official Stanley Woodward added to the uncertainty.
After Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., proposed creating a congressional version of an anti-weaponization compensation fund, Woodward reposted the suggestion on social media and wrote, “We’re on it,” before later deleting the message.
“There are many victims of the weaponized Biden Justice Department throughout this country. … I am proposing that we create a weaponization fund that will be available to those who can prove their claim against the federal government through the Federal Tort Claims Act,” Graham stated in a post on X.
The Justice Department did not immediately explain Woodward’s remark.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., stated most Republicans appeared satisfied with Blanche’s pledge to abandon the original fund. However, lawmakers continue discussing whether Congress should restrict future payments to January 6 defendants or permanently prohibit a compensation program similar to the one the administration proposed.
Legal challenges to the settlement persist. At least five lawsuits have been filed seeking to block the anti-weaponization fund, and the plaintiffs have not indicated whether they plan to withdraw their cases.
Following Blanche’s testimony, Democracy Forward, one of the groups challenging the plan, demanded further clarification from the Justice Department.
“If you can say it on TV, you should say it in court,” Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman said in a statement.
Federal judges in Virginia and Washington have hearings scheduled this month to consider whether court orders related to the fund should remain in place, even as the administration insists the proposal is dead.
The settlement agreement’s other controversial provision remains intact. Blanche told lawmakers that the Justice Department still intends to honor language barring the government from pursuing certain tax claims against Trump, his family, and his businesses arising before the settlement was reached.
