Republican brawl over Trump fund eases, then flares

anti-weaponization fund – Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told senators on June 2 that the Justice Department will not move forward with President Trump’s so-called “anti-weaponization” fund. Democrats say the conflict isn’t over and plan to force Republicans into votes that would

When Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stepped before Congress on June 2, he made a promise that GOP lawmakers had been demanding for weeks: the Justice Department would stop moving forward with the nearly $2 billion “anti-weaponization” fund.

“We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said during a congressional hearing, trying to put a brake on a reserve that has roiled Senate Republicans and inflamed criticism that the money is a political “slush fund” for President Trump’s allies.

For many Senate Republicans, that message offered relief. The headache eased. But it hasn’t gone away completely, and Democrats are betting it could get worse—especially as the approach of the midterm elections turns Capitol Hill into a live wire.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, pledged to force a vote this week that would put Republican lawmakers on record about the so-called anti-weaponization fund.

“The only way to end this scheme is abolish it by law,” Schumer told reporters. He added that Trump “doesn’t get to use your tax dollars to pay off MAGA insurrectionists.”

The fight is now shifting from whether the Justice Department will halt the program to whether Congress can kill it outright.

Blanche’s promise came after weeks of internal GOP turmoil over what critics call an unprecedented fund created through a settlement tied to a lawsuit involving the IRS.

The fund was created as part of a settlement of a $10 billion lawsuit that Trump and his two oldest sons filed against the Internal Revenue Service. Critics argued that the money—nearly $2 billion in reserve—could be used to compensate Jan. 6 rioters who assaulted Capitol police officers.

Sen. Ted Cruz used unusually sharp language for the level of disruption he said the dispute caused within the Senate GOP, describing “fireworks at an epic level” during the weeks-long clash.

The skepticism inside the Republican conference was not subtle. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina questioned the premise directly during the brewing debate over the settlement.

“To provide restitution to somebody who assaulted a police officer and pled guilty to it?” Tillis said. “I’ve seen some crazy stuff before, but that’s right up there with crazy.”

Cruz also described a confrontation on May 22 involving Blanche that he said turned into shouting. He said the meeting was “one of the roughest meetings I’ve ever had in the Senate,” and called it a “screaming” match.

The White House pressure that followed was part of what prompted the DOJ’s changed posture. After House Speaker Mike Johnson met with President Trump, the White House backed off on the fund. The Justice Department then committed to following a court order that halted the fund’s implementation.

In a statement provided following Blanche’s June 2 testimony, the agency said the goal of the fund was to fix past wrongs, “but given the extraordinary misunderstanding of this, the DOJ is not proceeding.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, said Blanche’s remarks were enough to calm Republicans and urged action elsewhere on legislation.

On Wednesday, June 3, Thune moved the pace on an immigration enforcement package by starting the voting process for a roughly $70 billion immigration enforcement funding bill.

“We have Republican senators who understand that we succeed as a team, we fail as a team,” Thune said.

That immigration effort matters because the fund dispute helped throw off Republican plans earlier in the month.

Two weeks before Blanche’s testimony. Senate Republicans decided to leave Washington without passing the roughly $70 billion immigration enforcement funding bill. They had hoped to push the legislation through Congress before Memorial Day. But the plan was upended by the intraparty uproar over the Justice Department fund.

The human version of that disruption is straightforward: senators were pulled away from a major funding fight, forced to spend weeks arguing about where the money would go and who it would reward.

Now Democrats are trying to turn that same conflict into a test of whether Republicans will stand behind the idea of legally ending it.

Procedural rules in Congress give Democrats a narrow opportunity to press the issue when the budget bill moves.

Because of those rules, Democrats will have a small window to introduce amendments to the budget bill that would try to officially end the fund. They could also attempt to impose restrictions—for example, barring those involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection from receiving payouts.

Those efforts would likely hit a steep barrier in the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. Even so, Democrats see opening: a “sizeable group” of Republican senators has openly complained about the fund, leaving the door open to cross-party defections.

On the Senate floor, Schumer made the challenge explicit.

“I tell Republicans, you’re going to have to vote,” Schumer said. “Does anyone think that Blanche will keep his word to stop this grift?”

There is a reason Democrats are pushing for a formal vote rather than relying on the DOJ’s promise: it offers a cleaner record for voters if a law shuts down the money for good.

The political stakes run beyond this one fight.

Schumer’s push comes as Congress heads toward the midterms, and as Democrats seek pre-election messaging opportunities that can expose divisions within the GOP.

The last time Congress was dealing with a similar procedural impasse, in April, Democrats offered a “flurry” of affordability-related measures. Two Republicans in key competitive races this November—Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska—crossed party lines on some of those bills.

That history hangs over the fund dispute now: if members of the GOP can break rank on affordability bills, Democrats believe they can pressure them again on the anti-weaponization fund.

For Senate Republicans, the choice is sharper than it appears. Blanche has said the department will not proceed. Democrats are pressing to make the end permanent through law.

The dispute that once dominated Republican conference meetings is shifting toward an even harder question: whether Republicans will accept a vote that could pull them into public disagreement with their own leadership—just as the calendar tightens.

anti-weaponization fund Department of Justice Todd Blanche Ted Cruz Chuck Schumer John Thune Mike Johnson Susan Collins Dan Sullivan Jan. 6 rioters immigration enforcement funding bill IRS lawsuit IRS settlement Senate vote threshold