WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has scrapped plans to use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars to pay people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department — a proposal that halted work on legislation to fund immigration and deportation activities. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified Tuesday before a House committee the DOJ will no longer move forward with those plans shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said the administration had reversed course. 

That decision could clear the way for the Senate to debate a roughly $70 billion package meant to fund immigration and deportation for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term. 

“I think his statements are going to be very definitive, very clear and create the certainty that I hope all of our members, and House members need as well, in order for us to proceed on the reconciliation bill,” Thune said, referring to Blanche. “But I’m not guaranteeing that happens yet.” 

Blanche confirmed Thune’s statements when he testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee in the afternoon.

“We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said when pressed by the subcommittee’s top Democrat, Rep. Grace Meng of New York.

“You and Associate Attorney General Woodward signed earlier documents regarding the settlement and this fund, would both of you now sign and release documents reversing the DOJ position on the fund?” Meng asked.

“We’re not moving forward with the fund. I’m not sure what that means to sign documents reversing. There’s nothing to reverse,” Blanche replied.

The DOJ posted on social media this week that it plans to abide by a temporary court ruling that blocked distribution of the funds, but Republican lawmakers said that wasn’t enough to end the impasse it created.

The Justice Department announced the creation of the fund last month as part of a legal settlement between Trump and the IRS over leaked copies of his returns during Trump’s first term. The settlement included provisions that precluded future IRS investigations into Trump and his family.

Senate Republicans weigh in

Thune said GOP senators had a “quite robust conversation” during a closed-door lunch about the DOJ fund and whether to move forward with their immigration and deportation package. 

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said after that meeting it’s up to GOP leaders to determine whether there are enough votes to move forward with the immigration package. 

“I think the next step is for our whip team to find out where everybody’s at based on the administration’s indication that they’re not going to move forward with the fund,” Hoeven said. 

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said there is a “chance” that Republicans could begin a marathon amendment voting session on the immigration bill as soon as Wednesday, if Blanche’s testimony alleviates concerns created by the DOJ fund. 

Montana Sen. Steve Daines, however, said he believes it’s “unlikely” that process begins this week. 

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said earlier in the day, before the lunch, that he wouldn’t accept taxpayer dollars going toward people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

“To provide restitution to somebody who assaulted a police officer and pled guilty to it. I mean, man, I’ve seen some crazy stuff before, but that’s right up there with crazy,” he said. 

Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis said he needs to know “if it’s dead or nearly dead.” 

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said he wants clarification from the White House about the settlement fund in light of the court’s ruling. 

He added that Republicans are waiting to see if “the court case set aside both the settlement fund and the audits.”

“We need clarification for what it is and isn’t, because the White House already said ‘we agree, we don’t like it, but we agree with the courts,’” Lankford said. “What does that mean?”

Amendment to ban fund

Democrats have also criticized Trump and those in his administration over the fund, vowing to block it in law. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during an afternoon press conference that promises from Trump and administration officials are “worthless.” 

“Trump sued his own government, had his own Justice Department settle the case and is now trying to use taxpayer dollars to pay off his MAGA allies, billionaire buddies and cop-beating insurrectionists,” Schumer said. 

“And let’s be clear, Trump has not killed this slush fund,” he added. “He has not revoked the special tax immunity he gave himself and his family. He has not ended the corruption. He hit a temporary roadblock. That’s it.”

Schumer said the first amendment he would offer during debate on Republicans’ immigration and deportation bill would “ban Trump’s slush fund permanently and revoke his family’s free rein to commit tax fraud forever.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund appeared to be on shaky ground Monday as he continued to face opposition from his own party.

Trump had not yet made a public announcement by late afternoon, but several media outlets reported the president planned to possibly drop the fund to clear the way for Senate Republicans to advance a $72 billion immigration enforcement funding package. Politico reported White House officials communicated the decision Monday to Republicans on Capitol Hill, according to two unnamed sources.

Trump’s fund has sparked resistance from both parties as concerns mounted that Jan. 6, 2021, riot defendants who assaulted police officers could conceivably get reparations by claiming the law was “weaponized” against them for political purposes. 

A slew of lawsuits challenging what opponents called a “slush fund” followed, including from police officers who defended the Capitol that day.

Shortly after the reports circulated that Trump might shelve the idea, the Department of Justice defended the fund on social media but said it would comply with a court order issued Friday temporarily barring the government from any further action on the fund. The order did not address the merits of a suit filed against the fund.

“The Department of Justice disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund put forth by the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, wherein the Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people. This Fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise. The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling,” according to the department’s post on X.

The DOJ and the White House directed States Newsroom to the post when asked if the president would scrap the fund altogether.

Several Republicans vehemently opposed the fund, including retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who called the fund “stupid on stilts.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., abandoned plans for a floor vote on the immigration bill ahead of the Memorial Day recess as members threatened to defect unless the budget reconciliation package also included language to apply guardrails on the massive “anti-weaponization” pot of money.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday that even if Trump says he will drop the fund, “a promise from Trump is worthless.”

“If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law,” Schumer said on the floor. “This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump’s word is nowhere near enough.”

The Department of Justice announced the $1.776 billion fund on May 18 as a condition for Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. A day later, the DOJ issued another order declaring Trump and his family would be forever immune from government inquiries, including tax audits, as part of Trump’s voluntary dismissal of the suit.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund has attracted scrutiny for its corruption potential, even splitting congressional Republicans who rarely confront President Donald Trump’s decisions and policies. 

Among the top concerns: Could pardoned Jan. 6, 2021, riot defendants who assaulted police officers claim a slice of the pie and essentially be rewarded for committing political violence? 

Advocates are also legally challenging the fund’s structure that will conceal details from the public, including claimants’ names and amounts paid out.

Nikhel Sus, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, otherwise known as CREW, which has filed suit against the fund, told States Newsroom the administration’s order is a “flagrant power grab of congressional authority.”

The fund, established by the Department of Justice to settle Trump’s multibillion dollar lawsuit against the IRS, has also complicated Senate Republicans’ plans to pass a simple majority immigration enforcement funding package. Some GOP senators are withholding votes unless guardrails for the fund are included in the legislation.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Republican senators on Capitol Hill on May 21 to defend the fund, but many GOP lawmakers left unconvinced and with multiple questions remaining.

Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters the fund is “stupid on stilts” and resembles “tyranny.”

Others were sweating out questions at town halls during the congressional recess. 

“I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6 insurrectionist that was in the Capitol on January 6, 2021 … I want to be very clear … I clearly think Congress needs to have an oversight role in this before I can sign off or support this,” U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., said at a town hall in Norfolk, Nebraska, on May 26.

The fund hit a road bump on May 29 when it was temporarily blocked in the courts. Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia, in a suit in which plaintiffs are represented by the advocacy groups Democracy Forward and Common Cause, issued a brief order halting the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department and other high-ranking administration officials from taking any additional actions to create the fund or make payments from it.

Brinkema, who made no decisions on the merits of the case, set a June 12 hearing.

What is the “anti-weaponization” fund?

In exchange for Trump and his family dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for the 2019 leak of tax returns, the DOJ ordered the establishment of a settlement fund in the amount of $1.776 billion — a nod to the country’s founding. 

As part of the arrangement, Trump also agreed to drop an administrative claim for damages related to what Blanche described as an “unlawful” FBI raid of the president’s Mar-a-Lago residence, part of the Biden administration’s case against Trump for allegedly hoarding classified documents after leaving office. 

Trump also agreed to drop a claim for damages related to the DOJ’s 2019 inquiry into Russian meddling in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. 

Blanche introduced the fund on May 18 as a path to restitution for “victims of lawfare.”

“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Blanche said in a press release. 

The fund will be led by five commissioners chosen by the attorney general, one of them in consultation with Congress. The president has the power to remove any member, according to the DOJ.

The department maintains the fund is nonpartisan. In addition to money, the DOJ will also issue formal apologies to eligible claimants, according to officials. 

Who is trying to limit or shut down the fund?

House Democrats tried to intervene in the president’s IRS case settlement, but U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams dismissed the case on Trump’s terms. Williams was appointed to the bench in the Southern District of Florida in 2010 by President Barack Obama.

On May 27, nearly three dozen former federal judges urged Williams to reopen the case, arguing the Trump administration “deceived” the court by not sharing with the judge details of the “anti-weaponization” fund. 

Further, the judges argued, the DOJ also claims the settlement forever absolves Trump and his family from tax audits and any other claims by a federal agency.  

“The parties to this case are using this lawsuit as the legal justification for these actions,” the judges argued.

Legislative proposals have also popped up in the House and Senate.

A bipartisan bill from Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., both up for re-election in swing districts, proposes to ban the use of federal money to pay claims submitted to the “anti-weaponization” fund.

“The Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act ensures federal funds cannot be used for this fund without the transparency, oversight, and legal safeguards the American people deserve. Taxpayer dollars will not become a discretionary payout fund. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable,” Fitzpatrick said in a press release.

Suozzi characterized the arrangement as a “slush fund to pay off January 6th criminals and other maladjusted minions!”

When pressed during a May 19 Senate hearing on whether Jan. 6 defendants who were convicted of assaulting police officers would be eligible for the fund, Blanche said “anybody in this country can apply” and final decisions will be made by the fund’s commissioners.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., announced plans to introduce painful amendments when and if the Senate GOP brings its immigration enforcement funding bill to the floor.

Van Hollen said he will call for votes on an amendment to block payment to Jan. 6 defendants who have been convicted of violent crimes and sexual abuse of children.

The Maryland senator also said he will introduce an amendment that would prohibit members of Congress from receiving payouts.

“And as it currently stands, Members of Congress have the chance to benefit from this corrupt scheme. If Republicans won’t put an end to this fund entirely, they should at least join with us to bar Members of Congress from cashing in on it,” Van Hollen said May 21 in a written statement.

Who is suing?

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the fund.

U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Washington Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021,  argued in federal court that the pardoned rioters could use payout money to organize.

“In the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald J. Trump has created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name,” they argued in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Legal advocacy groups, including CREW, Democracy Forward and Common Cause have also challenged the fund in court.

Through the order, the administration has granted itself “final unreviewable authority to disperse nearly $1.8 billion in money that Congress did not appropriate for that purpose to people that they subjectively determine are victims of so-called lawfare or weaponization,” Sus, of CREW, said in an interview.

The fund’s structure also flouts transparency laws, Sus said, not least of which includes moving $1.776 billion from the government’s legal judgment fund in a single transaction to a separate, unaccountable pot of money.

As the law stands now, the Department of Treasury publicly updates a website at least once per month with judgment award amounts paid to claimants by the U.S. government.

By withdrawing one lump sum, “they are wholly circumventing disclosure law that Congress passed specifically for that purpose to require disclosure for each settlement,” said Sus, whose organization filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

CREW also argues DOJ’s order is arbitrary and capricious.

“I think arbitrarily picking 1776 as the number for their (fund) valuation is the definition of an arbitrary capricious action — like they just did it because they thought it was cool,” he said.

“And that’s not how the government’s supposed to operate. They’re supposed to actually consider the facts, they’re supposed to have a reasoned explanation for why they’re doing things.”

In the Virginia case, another group of plaintiffs is represented by Democracy Forward and Common Cause.

Among the plaintiffs are Andrew Floyd, a former federal Jan. 6 case prosecutor who was fired by the DOJ in June 2025, and Joseph Caravello, a California university professor who was charged with felony assault on a federal officer after protesting an immigration raid last summer. A jury acquitted Caravello in April.

The nine-count lawsuit alleges in part the fund violates the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights, and violates the authority of Congress.

The fund “does not offer benefits to victims of ideological targeting by Democrats and Republicans alike; instead, it offers benefits to those who have espoused views that were, or were perceived to be, oppositional to Democratic administrations, but not to those who have espoused views that were, or were perceived to be, oppositional to Republican administrations,” according to the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Juan Salinas II of the Nebraska Examiner contributed to this report.

 

  

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans approved a budget resolution early Thursday intended to speed the way for billions for immigration enforcement, sending the measure to the House, where GOP lawmakers in that chamber need to adopt it to unlock the reconciliation process. 

The 50-48 vote followed a marathon amendment voting session that Democrats used to highlight policy differences on cost-of-living issues and stalled federal emergency relief dollars for states. 

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul were the two Republicans to vote against approving the measure. Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mark Warner, D-Va., did not vote.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said just before the vote-a-rama began that Democrats would put Republicans on the record about the soaring cost of living and the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. 

“America will see even more clearly tonight where the Republicans are — not on the side of lowering costs, but on the side of masked agents occupying our streets,” he said. 

Republicans plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process, which avoids the need for Democratic support in the Senate, to provide between $70 billion and $140 billion in additional funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol.

The money is supposed to cover those agencies for the next three years, avoiding the need for Republicans to negotiate constraints on immigration activities with Democrats, who have been calling for guardrails since federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. 

When combined with the Senate-passed bill that funds the vast majority of the Department of Homeland Security for the current fiscal year, the two pieces of legislation are expected to end the ongoing shutdown at that department, which began in mid-February. 

One amendment adopted, 15 turned down

Senators ultimately debated 16 amendments, 12 offered by Democrats and four proposed by Republicans. The only one adopted was from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, which senators approved on a 98-0 vote. 

The proposal would create a reserve fund to bolster federal immigration agents’ ability to detain and deport adults who entered the country without proper documentation and were then convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor.

“Everybody in this body should be for this,” Graham said. “These people need to be caught, put in jail, or kicked out of our country.”

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said he supported the amendment because “under current law, undocumented immigrants who are convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor are subject to mandatory detention and deportation.” 

“What we object to is what is happening in the streets of Minneapolis and Chicago,” he added.

SAVE America Act sidelined

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy tried but was ultimately unable to convince his colleagues to add a new set of instructions to the budget resolution that would have allowed the Rules & Administration Committee to write a voter identification law. 

Kennedy said he wanted that bill to have three provisions. 

“Require that in federal elections, you have to be an American citizen to vote and provide for the provisions to enforce that. Number two, it would require that in federal elections, you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote, and it would provide provisions to enforce that,” he said. “Number three, it further instructs the Rules Committee that we’re going to go back to having an Election Day and not an election month, and it instructs the Rules Committee to provide the provisions to enforce that.”

California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla, the ranking member of the rules panel, opposed the amendment during debate, saying he couldn’t believe lawmakers were once again experiencing a “partisan attempt to rush through what I refer to as a solution in search of a problem.”

“Despite the president’s claims, there is zero evidence of massive voter fraud across the country, which is the premise of these proposals,” he said. “So not only is it a solution in search of a problem, to paraphrase a wise man, this measure is all foam and no beer.”

Padilla added that a provision in Kennedy’s amendment would have required states to count ballots within 36 hours of an election, a new mandate he said could cause considerable problems for larger states with millions of voters. 

“It’s unfortunate elections administration has been turned into a partisan issue,” he said. “I actually ask our colleagues to protect the early voters, not just in my state but in yours. Protect vote-by-mail opportunities, not just in my state but in yours. Let’s protect women who are married and change their name and their right to vote, not just in my state but in yours.”

Senators did not agree to waive a point of order against Kennedy’s amendment on a 48-50 vote. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Murkowski and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted with Democrats. 

Ban on Planned Parenthood funding via Medicaid

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley tried unsuccessfully to create a pathway to extend the one-year prohibition on Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood that the GOP included in its “big, beautiful” law. That funding ban expires on July 4. 

Hawley didn’t speak about abortion access during debate but focused his criticism of the organization on gender-affirming health care services for transgender youth. 

“Under no circumstance should Medicaid money dedicated to the poor and the needy be used for transgender surgeries and treatments for minor children,” he said. “It is a moral outrage. This body has a duty to stand against it.”

Planned Parenthood’s website states the organization provides surgery referrals as well as hormone therapy, puberty blockers and “transition support.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden argued the amendment represented “Republicans’ latest attempt to strip women of the health care they need and depend on so that they can go score some political points.” 

Senators didn’t agree to waive a point of order against the amendment, which would have allowed it to move forward, by a vote of 50-48. Collins and Murkowski voted with Democrats. 

Private equity and home ownership

Senators rejected an amendment from Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley that would have addressed the rising cost of housing after he invoked comments President Donald Trump made during his State of the Union address. 

“We have an opportunity tonight to send a message that we agree with the president, that we have a challenge in home ownership, because home ownership is dying,” Merkley said. “And one of the factors is private equity buying up the homes.” 

Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno spoke out against adopting the amendment, saying lawmakers have already addressed it in a bipartisan way. 

“I obviously urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, because we’ve already passed it,” he said. We’ve already solved this problem. In fact, congratulations to all of us. 89 to 10. We banned institutional ownership of single-family homes. I think that’s fantastic.”

The Senate voted in March to approve a bill designed to increase the country’s housing supply, according to reporting from NPR. But since the House has approved a bill of its own, the two chambers will need to work out their differences before any housing bill becomes law. 

Senators did not agree to adopt Merkley’s amendment following a 46-52 party-line vote. 

Disaster relief funds from FEMA

California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff proposed an amendment that would have addressed stalled funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which he said is “holding more than $3 billion in disaster relief funding for California.”

“But as we debate this budget resolution, I know our state of California is not alone,” he said. “North Carolina is waiting on millions in relief designated for Hurricane Helene in 2024. Kentucky saw landslides and flooding just weeks after Los Angeles County burned. Florida and the Gulf Coast have also been battered. Texas communities under siege from last year’s floods have still not seen the federal relief their communities need and deserve.”

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford opposed the amendment, saying that while he agrees FEMA funds need to get to communities, the best way to do that is for the House to pass the annual funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which the Senate already approved. 

House GOP leaders are holding on to that bill instead of putting it on the floor as they wait for the reconciliation process to play out. That Senate-passed DHS bill funds FEMA and all of the agencies that make up the department except ICE and Border Patrol. 

“Our challenge has been, we’ve been in a government shutdown on DHS now for two months,” Lankford said. “We’ve got to be able to get those funds released. That means we’ve got to get DHS funding completely done for all of DHS. We have FEMA employees that are being paid but they don’t have program dollars that they can actually release.”

The Senate rejected the amendment following a 49-49 vote. Collins, Florida Sen. Ashley Moody and Murkowski voted with Democrats.