A settlement tied to President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS would grant immunity from investigations while establishing a $1.776-billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” aimed at compensating people deemed “victims.” The agreement—signed off on
The deal landed with the force of a change that doesn’t look temporary.
Trump—along with what the settlement would call an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” for people described as “victims”—is at the center of an extraordinary agreement reached between President Donald Trump. the Department of Justice. and the Treasury Department to settle the president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. The terms. as described. do two things at once: they would grant Trump and his family immunity from investigations into potential tax fraud. and they would create a $1.776-billion pool of money—$1. 776. 000. 000—set to be disbursed at will to January 6th insurrectionists and others who claim they were “victims” of the “weaponization” of the Justice Department.
The money is planned to come from tax dollars paid by the public. The article describes the cost as “six dollars from every man. woman. and child in this country.” It also notes that a number of Capitol police officers have already sued. and that courts could still stop the fund or Congress could intervene.
The settlement’s defenders would frame the recipients as people punished for their views and targeted by a politicized justice system. But the article draws a sharp. courtroom-centered line between the alleged wrong and the actual outcomes for those it describes as “January 6th insurrectionists.” It says those individuals “actually received jury trials. ” were found guilty by their peers. and were sentenced not for being Trump fans but for battering Capitol police officers. for hunting Congressional members with the intent of killing them. for vandalizing the citadel of American democracy. and for trying to subvert the will of the people by preventing the peaceful transfer of power.
Despite that history, the article warns that members of that group could “gain wealth, possibly millions,” through the transfer of taxpayer dollars into their bank accounts.
At the center of the agreement, in the account provided, is Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. The piece says Blanche signed off on the deal and that it carries the “DOJ’s imprimatur” to authorize the arrangement. It describes Blanche as being fully supportive of the president’s demands regarding retaliation.
Jonathan Rusch. director of the Anti-Corruption Law Program at the American University Law School. is the clearest legal voice in the piece. He tells the writer that “One of the most basic problems with this Anti-Weaponization Fund is there are no objective criteria for determining who would be eligible for compensation.” He argues the fund is designed to maximize discretion for DOJ officials—pointing to what he says is missing from the formal document that created the fund. In his view. the document “doesn’t say what the actual. articulated purpose is. ” and is “a further effort to provide for people out to disrupt the congressional process for their service in Trump’s interest.”.
Shortly after the announcement of the settlement agreement, the article says Brian Morrissey, identified as the Treasury department’s top lawyer, abruptly resigned. It emphasizes that he has not made a public statement and suggests the timing indicates discomfort with what was unfolding.
Rusch lays out what he believes the legal risks could be. He says the shielding of Trump. his children. and the family business from IRS scrutiny could be viewed as obstruction of justice. He adds that the rewarding of political allies through taxpayer dollars could be interpreted as a conspiracy to defraud the United States. He also points to possible federal laws prohibiting misappropriation of public property if the fund involves a fraudulent appropriation of property.
In Rusch’s account, the structure is a “handout scheme to buy the affections of people who are your supporters,” including the Proud Boys and other white supremacist groups. He describes the arrangement as “all about financial handouts to supporters.”
As for Blanche, the article includes Rusch’s assessment that the Acting AG is “completely supportive of and prepared to carry out every wish and demand the president makes with regards to retaliation,” calling it “a derogation of principled constitutional government.”
The article’s urgency is sharpened by its broader list of grievances. which it says include actions ranging from an “illegal war on Iran” to an “inhumane fuel blockade of Cuba. ” and from “AI weapons to crypto corruption.” It also cites decisions it characterizes as dismantling parts of U.S. public life—describing the tearing apart of USAID. the evisceration of the country’s refugee resettlement program. and the dismissal of climate change as a hoax—while also listing firings of top public health experts. attacks on First Amendment rights of academics and journalists. the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. and efforts to neutralize Black political representation.
Against that backdrop, the settlement—pairing immunity from IRS-related scrutiny with a $1.776-billion payout mechanism—becomes, in the article’s telling, the latest turn in what it portrays as a steady seizure of public power and public money.
The piece closes by reaching for the clipped fury of the 1976 film “Network. ” quoting Howard Beale’s on-air cry—“I’m as mad as hell. and I’m not going to take this anymore”—and returning to the same refrain: urging Americans to “open their windows and scream at the top of their lungs that they were mad as hell and weren’t going to take it anymore.”.
Trump IRS lawsuit Department of Justice Treasury Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche Anti-Weaponization Fund January 6th immunity taxpayer money Capitol police lawsuit
So they’re paying people from Jan 6?? Like with taxpayer money?? That’s insane.
Immunity from investigations is the part I don’t get. Like how is that even allowed if it involves tax fraud. And the “anti-weaponization” name sounds like a PR spin for something else.
Wait I thought Trump was suing the IRS to get money back, not to create a fund for “victims”?? Also “January 6th insurrectionists” doesn’t mean victims… but they’re calling them victims so maybe I’m missing the fine print. The article kept saying $1.776 billion like it was normal.
“Six dollars from every man woman and child” is such a weird line, like they’re bragging about costs. I don’t even know if the DOJ/Treasury can just do this, like settlements just make stuff happen. Also didn’t Capitol Police already get paid in the past?? Feels like the same situation dressed up with a new fund name. Courts could stop it, sure, but Congress too—so basically nobody stops anything until after it’s already spent.