The $1.776 billion payout scheme was supposed to be dead. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told a House subcommittee on June 2 that the Justice Department was “not moving forward with the fund, period”. But saying something before Congress and putting it in writing turned out to be two very different things. Blanche testified before a House subcommittee hearing that the Justice Department will not pursue the $1.776 billion fund for victims of government “weaponization”. He refused, however, to formalize that promise in any document, and the weeks since have revealed a gap between the administration’s public posture and its private assurances to allies.
The story of this fund begins with a lawsuit that critics say was never a real dispute at all. The fund was established as part of a settlement agreement between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service to end a civil lawsuit he and his sons filed over the leak of his tax returns. On May 18, the Justice Department announced the creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.776 billion pool drawn from the federal Judgment Fund. The fund aimed to provide “a systematic process to hear and redress claims” from those who said they suffered from weaponization and lawfare. A five-member commission, appointed by Blanche with members removable by the president, would decide who qualified and how much they received.
The Constitutional Problem
The backlash was swift and bipartisan. The Society for the Rule of Law pointed out that the Constitution is clear: “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law”. Congress had not approved a penny for this fund. Two Capitol Police officers who defended the building on January 6 sued to block the payouts entirely. A Florida judge who oversaw Trump’s original IRS lawsuit questioned whether the case was legitimate because the president was on both sides of the dispute, asking whether the court was itself “the victim of a fraud.”
Republican opposition posed an even more immediate threat. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina was vehemently opposed, going so far as to offer an amendment to divert the money to the nation’s anti-fraud fund. He openly derided potential payments to rioters who attacked police officers. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said it was “hard to say” whether Blanche could win confirmation as attorney general, and Senator John Cornyn told reporters he remained undecided about whether he would vote for the nominee.
The Quiet Pivot
With the confirmation fight looming and a federal judge having blocked the fund’s operation, the administration appeared to retreat. But the retreat looks increasingly tactical. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who signed off on the original settlement, responded approvingly to a suggestion from Senator Lindsey Graham that victims could still be compensated through claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Woodward posted “We’re on it” before deleting the message the next morning.
According to Trump allies and legal experts, the most viable path now involves compensating loyalists under the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act, which lets people file administrative claims and subsequent lawsuits against the government for alleged wrongdoing that can then be settled out of court. The strategy is elegant in its simplicity: individuals file suits, and the Justice Department settles them, drawing from existing funds without needing to stand up a formal commission that invites scrutiny. Woodward himself told Reuters: “At my level, the fund is dead. If somebody wants to submit a claim against the government and sue us, they can still do that.”
This formula allows the administration to claim the formal fund has been abandoned while keeping the pipeline of taxpayer money to allies open through a different mechanism. Trump himself has done nothing to discourage that reading. When NBC News asked whether he was looking for a way to revive the effort, he did not deny it. The president has repeatedly expressed support for federal payouts to supporters whom he portrays as being targeted by a “weaponized” government.
Legal Roadblocks and Political Stakes
The courts are not letting the matter rest. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that the Anti-Weaponization Fund will remain blocked until further notice, stating that the government’s “mootness argument doesn’t go anywhere”. She ordered the administration to provide a sworn declaration about the fund’s status within one week. Democracy Forward, the legal nonprofit representing plaintiffs, called the ruling “a significant victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and people in America”.
The confirmation battle will test whether Blanche’s verbal assurances carry any weight. He was confirmed as deputy attorney general last year in a party-line vote of 52 to 46, with every Senate Democrat opposed. This time, he cannot afford to lose even one Republican on the Judiciary Committee. For Tillis, Blanche’s comments about January 6 rioters remain his main “circuit breaker,” and the senator has warned that they “better not have said for one minute that the people who beat up police officers were righteous people.”
What emerges from this episode is a pattern familiar to observers of this administration: bold action, public retreat under pressure, and quiet continuation through alternative channels. The formal fund may sit frozen by a federal court order, but the underlying promise to compensate allies persists through tort claims, back-channel conversations, and a president who keeps telling supporters the money is coming. Whether Congress and the judiciary can close every loophole will determine whether nearly $2 billion in taxpayer dollars eventually flows to January 6 defendants, pardon recipients, and those in the president’s inner circle.
Original analysis inspired by Sarah Fitzpatrick from The Atlantic. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
By ThinkTanksMonitor
