DOJ creates $1.776 billion fund tied to Trump IRS deal

A Justice Department plan announced Monday would create a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” funded through the Judgment Fund after Donald Trump drops a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Critics say the terms leave eligibility and payouts largely in t

By the time the Justice Department put its agreement on paper Tuesday. the basic structure of the new “Anti-Weaponization Fund” had already been set: $1.776 billion aimed at compensating Trump allies for “lawfare and weaponization. ” in exchange for Trump dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.

A former Justice Department official described the concept in two blunt words. “Patently unlawful,” the official said. “What the memo is contemplating is patently unlawful.”

The department first announced the fund on Monday—through a press release and a memo—while offering little detail about how claims would be handled. Even after the Justice Department released a new settlement agreement on Tuesday, key questions remained. The agreement says that within 30 days the Anti-Weaponization Fund will “establish funding and any other relevant requirements. rules. conditions. terms and waivers” for claims. It still leaves applicants with an open-ended set of requirements and a process most outside observers say is difficult to scrutinize before money starts moving.

What is clear is the dollar figure and the leverage behind it. The Justice Department created the fund as part of the settlement reached in connection with Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. with Trump dropping the suit. The department has not explained how it arrived at the $1.776 billion figure. In its initial press release and memo. it suggested the money would be used to pay people who were allegedly wrongly targeted for their political beliefs.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers Tuesday that “anybody could apply” for payouts, which would be decided by “commissioners” appointed to oversee the fund. Blanche also said he would help select those commissioners.

The agreement adds another layer: when reviewing claims, the fund will consider time “spent in prison or federal custody as a result of lawfare and weaponization from ‘any source’.” Many expect at least part of the money to go to Jan. 6 rioters who file claims.

Trump, meanwhile, has pardoned over 1,500 rioters, including people who violently assaulted police or were convicted of seditious conspiracy. But when asked on Monday whether people who assaulted police should be paid under the settlement terms, Trump dodged the question.

Andrew Warren, senior counsel at Democracy Defenders and a former federal prosecutor, criticized the settlement’s framing. “A hallmark of this administration is to say things that are completely divorced from reality to conceal its own misconduct. ” Warren said. “The president has shown time and time again that he is willing to do whatever he wants to line his own pockets and that of his friends and family at the expense of American taxpayers.”.

The settlement agreement includes a clause that the IRS is “forever barred and precluded” from investigating Trump or his “related or affiliated individuals” and other businesses and trusts. The Justice Department also remains vague about eligibility. stating only that a person must “assert at least one legal claim stating that the claimant was a victim of lawfare and/or weaponization.”.

Who decides whether that legal claim is valid—and on what basis—appears to rest primarily with the fund itself. Under the agreement. the Anti-Weaponization Fund has the final say. and it will use whatever it considers “the supporting evidence” or “the claimant’s actions. actual damages incurred. attorneys’ fees…[and] other factors the anti-weaponization fund deems just and appropriate.”.

The settlement also describes a “nondescript ‘third-party contractor’” that can audit the claims. It warns that the Justice Department. or “any other government agency may. to the full extent permitted by law. make referrals for investigation or prosecution or prosecute or take other enforcement action to address any evidence of fraud.” What counts as fraud. or how fraud determinations will be made. is not described.

For Warren and other critics, the central issue isn’t only who might receive money—it’s the balance of power. “I’m deeply curious what the rationalization was of the administration to the Treasury to explain this,” the former DOJ official said, asking to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation.

The agreement is also explicit about recourse. Because filing claims is voluntary, “there shall be no appeal, arbitration or judicial review of claims, offers or other determinations made by the Anti-Weaponization Fund,” the settlement agreement states.

The money itself would come from the Judgment Fund. a taxpayer-backed account used to pay court judgments and settlements for lawsuits against the government. In most settlement cases, courts typically oversee how funds are drawn and how auditing occurs. For the Anti-Weaponization Fund. however. the agreement implies that oversight and auditing will be handled within the Justice Department’s control and by the handpicked commission.

The commission will have five people. One member will be chosen “in consultation with congressional leadership,” the memo states. The memo also allows Trump to remove any member of the fund’s commission and replace them “the same way as the replaced member was selected.”

“He’s doing it so he can put his thumb on the scale on deciding who gets the money and then have the spigot shut off as soon as he leaves office.” Warren said the quote describing the move.

The Treasury Department’s role has its own unresolved friction. The source material says it is unclear if Treasury agreed to the terms the Justice Department laid out. The top lawyer at the Treasury Department resigned after the fund was announced Monday.

When the Justice Department first unveiled the plan, it pointed to a 2011 settlement agreement known as Keepseagle v. Vilsack as precedent for a fund like this. Joe Sellers, lead counsel in the Keepseagle case, rejected the comparison. “It’s a totally inapt analogy,” Sellers said.

In Keepseagle. the federal government agreed to pay $760 million to a group of Native American farmers and ranchers who sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture for racial discrimination. Sellers said the Keepseagle settlement grew out of a class action that started in 1999 and required claims to be vetted. court approval. and determinations made about whether funds were being dispersed to people who truly belonged to the class. Sellers described the process as “sophisticated. ” with oversight conducted by courts “and in conjunction with Native American farmers. ranchers and businesspeople. ” emphasizing: “It was the court that had total control. Not some panel of people who were appointed by somebody to do this.”.

Administration language about eligibility also raised concerns among legal experts. The administration claimed “there are no partisan requirements to file a claim” and seek compensation from the Anti-Weaponization Fund. a line that Sellers said “raised the eyebrows” of people familiar with the matter. Sellers said. “It’s like they protest too much. ” adding that saying there is no partisan requirement “is to create the inference that otherwise people might think there was.”.

Warren argued that the timing of the fund’s expiration—and its end date—makes the argument harder to dismiss. The fund is set to expire in December 2028. Warren said. “[Trump] doesn’t want to make these funds available to another administration to control.” He said the expiration date is consistent with Trump’s interest in being able to direct the money during his term and then end it when he leaves office. “So he’s doing it so he can put his thumb on the scale on deciding who gets the money and then have the spigot shut off as soon as he leaves office.”.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund arrives amid broader criticism that the federal government has been used aggressively in political conflict. The source material links the creation to “the capture of the Justice Department. ” and cites a “nonstop deluge of corruption since Day 1. ” arguing that neither the judiciary nor the legislative branches have been able to curb what the former DOJ official called “this corruption.” The former official pointed to the department’s splashy attempts to investigate and/or criminally charge political foes or vocal critics of the administration. including former FBI director James Comey. New York Attorney General Letitia James. Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.). Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. former national security adviser John Bolton. chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell. and others listed by Protect Democracy.

The new settlement keeps the process oriented toward one conclusion: the Anti-Weaponization Fund will drive the decisions on claims. the taxpayer-backed Judgment Fund will provide the payouts. and the settlement bars judicial review of the fund’s determinations. For critics, the stakes are not abstract. They see a system where accountability ends at the same moment money begins to flow.

Anti-Weaponization Fund Department of Justice Judgment Fund Trump IRS lawsuit Todd Blanche Jan. 6 rioters Keepseagle v. Vilsack settlement agreement lawfare weaponization