The $1.776 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund': settling with himself from the Treasury

Editor's note: a federal judge temporarily blocked the fund and reporting documents the challenge to its lawfulness, but the order was temporary and the case became moot.

To settle Trump's IRS suit, the DOJ announced it would create a $1.776 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' from the Treasury's Judgment Fund - the amount chosen as a reference to 1776 - to pay claimants alleging they were victims of government 'weaponization' and 'lawfare.' Per the DOJ's own release, the plaintiffs would receive a formal apology and no money, in exchange for dropping the suit and withdrawing the Mar-a-Lago and Russia-investigation administrative claims; legal observers noted the public terms did not actually bar Trump or his family from claiming from the fund.

The fund's five commissioners would be appointed by the Attorney General and removable at will, with no judicial oversight, no public reporting requirement beyond a confidential quarterly report, and irreversible decisions based on terms - 'weaponization,' 'lawfare' - defined in no statute. Testifying before Senate appropriators on May 19, Blanche refused to rule out payments to January 6 defendants who assaulted police; Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio called the fund 'a good direction,' and Trump adviser Michael Caputo filed the first claim.

The reaction crossed party lines. Mitch McConnell: 'So the nation's top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong - take your pick.' Senate Republicans stalled a DHS funding bill over it; Mike Pence called it 'deeply offensive.' Officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges sued; Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily blocked the fund on May 29; and on June 2 Blanche told House appropriators 'We are not moving forward with the fund, period' - while refusing to rescind it in writing.

Rep. Jamie Raskin's fact sheet catalogs ten constitutional and legal defects, from usurping Congress's appropriations power (Art. I) and the judiciary's case-deciding power (Art. III) to Section 4 of the 14th Amendment's bar on paying insurrectionist debts and the Domestic Emoluments Clause.

On July 13, 2026, in the reopened IRS case that produced this fund, Judge Williams ruled the underlying lawsuit had been filed for an improper purpose and ordered that the parties may not rely on the settlement in any future judicial, administrative, regulatory, or arbitral proceeding, removing any residual legal force the arrangement might have carried. Full detail is at PAY-30.