Trump administration scraps $1.8bn ‘anti-weaponisation fund’

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is abandoning its nearly $1.8bn “anti-weaponisation” fund on the heels of a widespread political backlash and legal setbacks.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed the pivot on Tuesday, in an appearance before the appropriations committee in the House of Representatives.

“We are not moving forward with the fund,” Blanche told lawmakers after intense and rare backlash from Trump’s fellow Republicans. “Period.”

The blunt declaration marked an extraordinary turnabout for the Justice Department, which, just two weeks ago, had unveiled the fund as a settlement for a personal lawsuit Trump had filed against his own government.

As part of the settlement, the $1.8bn fund would distribute compensation to victims of government “lawfare” and “weaponisation”, terms Trump has used to denounce prosecutions under former President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration.

In addition, the agreement barred future audits into his or his family’s past tax records.

That part of the settlement will remain in place, Blanche told lawmakers on Tuesday. But the $1.8bn fund would be set aside, he said, confirming media reports a day earlier.

Blanche’s announcement came as furious senators faced an impasse with Trump over a $72bn bill to fund immigration enforcement operations.

Congressional leaders had questioned whether they could pass the bill if the Trump administration did not abandon the fund, which was politically unpopular.

A source familiar with the White House’s thinking told the Reuters news agency that Blanche’s future hinged on his ability to address those concerns.

Blanche angered lawmakers last month when he would not commit to preventing the fund from dispersing money to rioters who assaulted police officers during the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021.

The fund emerged from a legal settlement between Trump and the Justice Department to resolve an unprecedented $10bn lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the alleged mishandling of his tax records.

That lawsuit likewise raised concerns about conflicts of interest, since Trump, as president, holds sway over both the IRS and the Justice Department.

Already, the fund was paused by a judge last week, as court challenges continue over its legality.

Reuters reported that White House officials spent much of Monday calling lawmakers to assure them there would be no payouts, citing two sources familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Trump cites post praising fund

The White House referred questions on Blanche’s comments to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

On Monday, the department had said it would abide by a court order that temporarily paused the fund until June 12, but it did not say if the fund would be shuttered permanently.

Trump broke his public silence on the fund’s future on Tuesday afternoon, posting a link to a Substack, titled “The Truth the Media Won’t Tell You About the Anti-Weaponization Fund”.

The post praised Trump for giving money to those who say they have been abused by the government and criticised the media and Democrats for calling it a slush fund.

After a lunch ⁠meeting of Republican senators, Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters he spoke with Blanche earlier in the day and thought the acting attorney general would ease concerns at the House hearing.

Thune said he wants the bill to be narrowly focused on immigration enforcement and not on Trump’s other priorities.

That included jettisoning a $1bn proposal to secure an 8,000-square-metre (90,000-square-foot) ballroom on the White House grounds that Trump wants.

Such a provision would have prevented Senate Republicans from passing the immigration funding bill with a simple majority, according to the chamber’s budget reconciliation rules.

The “anti-weaponisation” fund, meanwhile, would have drawn money directly from the Justice Department’s judgement fund, bypassing congressional oversight, another sore point for lawmakers.

At the Tuesday House hearing, Democratic lawmakers pressed Blanche to commit to abandoning the fund in writing, which he declined to do.

Top Democrats like Senator Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, have pledged to bring legislation to Congress to prevent any such fund from being established in the future.