The Trump administration said it will abandon a planned $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund tied to an IRS settlement over leaked tax returns, after a pair of court rulings put the project on hold and lawmakers and Capitol Police officers amplified bipartis
On Tuesday, June 2, 2026, the Trump administration signaled it was backing away from a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund—one it had previously said would be created as part of a settlement tied to leaked tax returns.
The retreat came after legal and political pressure intensified from multiple directions: a judge issued procedural limits that halted the fund’s movement. another court reopened the underlying IRS case for closer scrutiny. and lawmakers—across party lines—pressed for restrictions so tight they effectively stalled the plan.
Dana Taylor, speaking on The Excerpt podcast, framed the question many Americans were already asking: whether the fund was even workable in practice, and whether it could end up rewarding people tied to the January 6, 2021 attack.
The administration had been pursuing the Anti-Weaponization Fund as part of President Donald Trump’s settlement with the IRS over leaked tax returns from his first administration. The money was intended to address claims that the Biden administration’s Justice Department unjustly targeted certain individuals.
But lawmakers and critics focused on how broadly the fund could be used—particularly the possibility of compensating people involved in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, including those convicted of assaulting Capitol police officers.
A temporary ruling on Friday “put the brakes” on the fund, according to the podcast discussion. The judge described the matter as complicated and said more time was needed. The court wanted the government to address the lawfulness of the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund and whether the parties bringing the lawsuit could actually sue the government. The government argued against moving forward with the fund and disbursing assets. warning that such steps wouldn’t be easily reversible until more briefing was completed.
Later the same day, another federal judge in Miami dealt a second blow. In that case, the president had filed a lawsuit against the IRS. The judge had closed the case after the government and the president’s lawyers said they had reached a settlement and that judicial approval was not required.
Former federal judges then wrote to the court urging the judge to reopen the case. They alleged the court may have been misled about why it was being closed. arguing that it was deceptive and that the judge was not aware of an arrangement involving the Justice Department and the president over how the lawsuit would be handled and how the Anti-Weaponization Fund would be created.
The Miami judge agreed to reopen the case to examine the allegations that the court should not have closed it in the first place and that the Justice Department was not transparent. The podcast also pointed to an additional concern raised by the former judges: they said other lawsuits were handled differently by the Justice Department. suggesting something akin to collusion to steer outcomes the president wanted.
As the courts tightened their grip, Republican resistance hardened in the Senate—especially around the scope of the fund. Senate Republicans refused to provide a spending bill to finance immigration enforcement by the Trump administration. saying they wanted to work with the Justice Department on the fund first.
The concern wasn’t abstract. The podcast described Senate Republicans pushing to add explicit limitations on what the fund could go toward. Some of that debate centered on whether money could be directed to people convicted of assaulting Capitol police officers during the January 6 attack.
They also criticized aspects of how commissioners would be selected: proposals included changing the composition of the five commissioners chosen by Trump’s attorney general. or altering the selection process so a judge would evaluate disbursements and determine who should receive money. Others went further, including calls to scrap the fund altogether.
Even with those internal differences, the immediate effect was a standoff—Republicans withholding money for immigration enforcement while seeking clarity and limits around the Anti-Weaponization Fund before moving forward.
That pressure also spread beyond Washington’s traditional caucuses. Former Vice President Mike Pence said he was concerned the fund could pay people who assaulted police officers on January 6. He argued there were other ways for the government to use settlements with people who claim they were mistreated. calling the fund unnecessary and saying it should be scrapped.
Pence also remarked that, on issues like these, the Republican Party “has lost its way,” according to the discussion on the podcast.
Capitol Police officers who say they were assaulted didn’t treat the fund as a distant policy dispute. Some officers have brought a lawsuit of their own. Their objections are rooted in the fear that the fund could empower people already accused of harassing police officers for speaking out.
The podcast described officers saying they have faced harassment and even death threats after opposing what happened on January 6. They argued the fund would worsen that climate and undermine the bipartisan congressional condemnation of efforts to halt the peaceful transition of power.
Democrats added their own push. The podcast described Democrats calling for the Justice Department’s Inspector General to investigate what happened. Senator Chuck Schumer—the Senate minority leader—said Democrats would pursue options to stop the fund. That includes legislative strategies such as amendments and forcing action on the Senate floor. along with legal avenues aimed at stopping the fund from moving forward.
Governors joined the fight, too. California Governor Gavin Newsom suggested a state-level approach if funds were paid to California residents. describing plans to tax 100% of proceeds for anyone in California receiving the money. The podcast said similar proposals were being floated in New York and New Jersey.
Whether state actions could fully block the impact was contested in the discussion. The podcast noted that Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio planned to seek millions of dollars from the fund. Tarrio is not a resident of one of the states considering proposals. so the podcast said it was unclear whether those initiatives would stop him from receiving money.
Tarrio was convicted of seditious conspiracy for acts related to the January 6 attack and sentenced to 22 years in prison. The podcast also said he has since been pardoned.
All these pressures converged as the administration faced a narrowing path: court orders that paused or reopened key decisions. lawmakers demanding limits while holding other funding hostage. and plaintiffs—including Capitol Police officers—arguing the fund would inflame harassment and rewrite the meaning of January 6.
As of early Monday evening. the administration was confirmed to be abandoning its fight to establish the Anti-Weaponization Fund—after the combination of the Friday procedural hold. the Miami reopening of the IRS case. and the escalating pushback from Republicans. Democrats. and affected law-enforcement officers.
Trump administration Anti-Weaponization Fund IRS settlement leaked tax returns Aysha Bagchi The Excerpt January 6 Capitol Police Mike Pence Chuck Schumer Gavin Newsom Inspector General Proud Boys Enrique Tarrio Todd Blanche Miami federal judge