Pence joins GOP revolt against Trump’s anti-weaponization fund

anti-weaponization fund – Former Vice President Mike Pence became the latest prominent Republican to break with the Trump administration over its $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, calling it “deeply offensive” and urging it be dropped. His opposition adds to a fast-growing list o

Mike Pence didn’t mince words on Sunday. Speaking about President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, the former vice president said the idea is “a bad idea from the start” and urged the administration to “just…drop it.”

Pence’s pushback landed with extra weight because it comes from within a party that has largely rallied behind Trump—at a time when the administration is trying to move major legislation and when Republican divisions over the fund have already begun to spill into other policy fights.

Appearing on NBC News’ “Meet the Press. ” Pence described the proposal as “deeply offensive. ” pointing directly to the possibility that people who assaulted police officers or vandalized the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 could receive compensation. During the attack. rioters chanted “Hang Mike Pence” and erected makeshift gallows at the Capitol after Trump pressured him to reject the 2020 presidential election results—something Pence said he lacked the authority to do.

“I mean, it’s deeply offensive to me that you could have a fund that could even possibly compensate people who assaulted police officers or vandalized the Capitol on January 6th,” Pence said on Sunday. “And I think that’s broadly held by most Republicans and most Americans.”

The remarks put Pence among a widening group of prominent Republicans publicly opposing the fund in recent days. transforming what began as Capitol Hill backlash into a broader intra-party clash. That clash has already become more than messaging. Republican divisions over the fund have delayed a major immigration funding package. and some lawmakers have warned the controversy could become a political liability for the party as the 2026 elections approach.

The administration’s critics argue the fund isn’t just controversial in concept—it raises questions about executive authority, the use of taxpayer money, and eligibility for individuals convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

What the anti-weaponization fund is—and why it is drawing fire

The dispute centers on nearly $1.8 billion in federal money tied to a settlement connected to Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over leaked tax returns. The fund was created as part of a settlement between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Trump to resolve that lawsuit. Under the terms, the DOJ established the “anti-weaponization” fund after Trump dropped the case.

The arrangement is designed to allow individuals who claim they were victims of government “weaponization” to apply for compensation or formal apologies through a commission that reviews claims through 2028.

The DOJ spokesperson said the fund is supported by precedent, including “Obama-era settlements,” and defended it as lawful. In an email on Friday. the spokesperson told Newsweek: “The Department remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent. including Obama-era settlements. ” adding. “We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare.” On Sunday. the White House referred Newsweek to the DOJ.

From that point on, the fight has been as much about who the money could reach as it is about how the program fits into the broader legal landscape Trump and his allies have been contesting.

Republicans opposing the fund are now ranging from party leadership to rank-and-file members

Pence is not alone. The growing list of prominent Republicans opposed to Trump’s anti-weaponization fund now includes Senators Bill Cassidy, Thom Tillis, and Mitch McConnell.

McConnell delivered some of the harshest criticism, calling compensating January 6 rioters “utterly stupid” and “morally wrong.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he is “not a big fan” of the fund and does not see a clear purpose for it, while indicating lawmakers want a full review.

Senator Thom Tillis described the idea as a “payout pot for punks” and urged colleagues to oppose it, warning it could be politically damaging ahead of the midterm elections. Senator Bill Cassidy called it a “slush fund…without a legal precedent.”

More skepticism is coming from other corners of the Senate as well. Senator John Curtis warned about the executive branch distributing money without proper judicial oversight.

In the House. Representative Brian Fitzpatrick—who represents a Pennsylvania swing district—has taken a leading role in the House opposition by introducing bipartisan legislation aimed at blocking the fund and pledging to try to kill it. Representative Don Bacon also questioned the arrangement. calling it “inappropriate” and criticizing the optics of negotiating over taxpayer dollars in such a way.

Even when some lawmakers stop short of full opposition, their questions are becoming harder to ignore. Senator Joni Ernst demanded more transparency regarding the fund’s financial structure. Senator John Hoeven suggested the plan could face significant legal challenges.

Alongside GOP concerns, Democrats have pushed for blocking efforts or limits on payouts

Democrats have been equally forceful, arguing the fund is an abuse of executive power and could route taxpayer money to politically aligned individuals, including some involved in the riot.

Legislative efforts have been introduced with the goal of blocking the fund entirely or restricting how money can be distributed. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said Wednesday that the state would seek to impose a 100 percent tax on payouts distributed from the fund.

The Trump administration has responded to criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the initiative as a way to compensate Americans allegedly targeted by a “weaponized” government. saying the fund is part of a lawful settlement process. Administration officials have also argued that claims will be handled through a structured process and that payments will be evaluated case by case.

GOP Representative Byron Donalds defended the proposal as meant to help people who were unfairly targeted by the government.

A parallel fight is underway over who wants to apply

While lawmakers argue about the fund’s legality and optics, some prominent Trump supporters are already signaling interest.

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a leading advocate of Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen, said he plans to pursue compensation through the fund, arguing his company lost $400 million because of perceived government weaponization.

Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader sentenced to 22 years for “seditious conspiracy” in relation to January 6—but pardoned by Trump last year—told Reuters he plans to apply and said his claim could be worth between $2 million and $5 million.

Mark McCloskey, who drew national attention after he and his wife pointed guns at demonstrators outside their St. Louis, Missouri, home in 2020, said he is waiting for details on how to apply. “Everybody’s very excited about it,” he said, according to The Washington Post. “It’s the first ray of light we’ve seen in a long time.”.

Michael Cohen, a former Trump attorney who served prison time, said he plans to apply for the fund and told CBS News he is working through the process and will submit the letter directly to the DOJ once completed.

What happens next hinges on legal action—and where GOP leadership lands

The political and legal pressure is not slowing down. Republican leaders are expected to revisit the issue in the weeks ahead. At the same time. legal challenges and continued pressure from both parties could determine whether the fund moves forward as currently structured or is altered before implementation.

On Friday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with the fund. That injunction sets up a June 12 federal court hearing to decide whether the temporary block should remain in place as broader legal and political challenges mount.

For Pence, and for the Republicans now publicly challenging the proposal, the timing matters as much as the substance. As the fund’s potential reach becomes clearer—alongside the administration’s insistence on its legality—the party’s internal split is getting sharper. and with it. the odds that the issue can be contained before it spills further into national politics.

Mike Pence anti-weaponization fund Trump administration DOJ settlement January 6 Mitch McConnell Thom Tillis Bill Cassidy immigration funding package June 12 hearing