Raskin seeks vote ending Trump’s slush fund

Rep. Jamie Raskin says he plans to file a discharge petition as soon as this week to force a House vote on a bill that would permanently ban President Donald Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and bar presidents from settling lawsuits involving their own admini

By the time the House hears it, the fight may already be hardwired into the calendar: Rep. Jamie Raskin says he’s ready to push for a vote on legislation this week that would permanently shut down President Donald Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, plans to file a discharge petition as soon as this week. If successful. it would allow any House lawmaker to force the chamber to vote on the measure without approval from party leadership or a committee. Under the rules, the threshold is 218 signatures—meaning Raskin would need all Democrats and six Republicans.

“The people’s representatives must decide whether to uphold the rule of law and protect taxpayer dollars – or stand aside as this unprecedented corruption spins out of control,” Raskin said in a statement Thursday.

The bill he wants the House to take up would do two things: it would permanently ban the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” and it would stop presidents from settling lawsuits against their own administrations without court approval.

Raskin’s push lands after the Justice Department announced the creation of the roughly $1.8 billion fund last month. The decision came after what Democrats have described as a faux legal settlement between the department and Trump—after Trump sued his own administration in January over a past leak of his tax information.

The fund, Raskin said, appeared to reflect demands from Jan. 6 rioters who had lobbied the government for reparations for their supposed mistreatment.

“They are determined to compensate Trump’s private street-fighting militia and create 1,600 MAGA Millionaires with our money,” Raskin said in the statement.

There was another major piece of fallout from the settlement: it freed Trump, his family, and his businesses from any ongoing tax audits, a change that could potentially save them many millions of dollars.

But the court process around the settlement was shaky from the start. The hearing did not approve the settlement, even as it was announced before a skeptical judge could throw out the case. In the aftermath, backlash surged—including from Republican senators.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche then announced that the fund would not be moving forward. Yet the Justice Department has refused to formally disavow the slush fund and has instead fought a lawsuit seeking to have it blocked. A judge has temporarily blocked the fund pending the outcome of the case.

Raskin’s strategy leans on the House rule that makes discharge petitions a weapon of timing as much as math. The petition route has been used rarely; it has happened four times in the last year. including on a bill to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Now. Raskin is betting that the momentum around the fund—and the fight over whether presidents should be allowed to settle disputes involving their own administration without court sign-off—will be enough to move members who usually do not sign onto these efforts.

If he reaches the 218-signature mark, a vote could happen as soon as next month. Even then, the legislative path is steep. Republicans in the Senate have already passed up opportunities to ban the slush fund, and it is not likely the upper chamber will follow the House if it approves the measure.

Still, for Democrats, the point of forcing a floor vote is not just to win—it’s to force the country to watch where lawmakers stand when the question is whether taxpayer money can be used through settlements that keep presidents and their businesses shielded, even as the courts signal unease.

Jamie Raskin discharge petition Anti-Weaponization Fund Trump slush fund House vote IRS settlement Anti-Weaponization Fund ban Todd Blanche Justice Department Jan. 6 rioters tax audits court approval Jeffrey Epstein files