The New York Times editorial board has delivered a scathing, 1,200+ word critique of Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion so-called “anti-weaponization fund.” In a lengthy editorial, the newspaper’s board opened with the stark question: “Has there ever been an episode of presidential corruption so blatant and threatening to constitutional order?” “Certainly not in modern times,” it answered itself, before laying out exactly why it believes that is the case. Read the full editorial at The New York Times. The board fiercely condemned the use of “taxpayer
money to create a $1.8 billion political slush fund,” predicted its purported aim of compensating “those who the department claims have ‘suffered weaponization and lawfare’” will just “in fact reward loyalists.” The editorial contextualized the fund, the result of a legal settlement after Trump sued over the leak of his tax records, within a broader pattern of behavior by Trump and his MAGA allies — who often claim the Justice Department has been weaponized against them. “He is destroying pillars of American democracy to empower
himself,” the board said, noting how he “claims elections are legitimate only if he wins,” “uses federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute his perceived enemies” and much more.
New York Times editorial board, Donald Trump, anti-weaponization fund, $1.8 billion, taxpayer money, political slush fund, constitutional order, legal settlement, tax records leak, MAGA allies, Justice Department weaponization, lawfare
1.8 billion is insane. Like where is all that even going…
NYT always gotta call everything corruption. Maybe it’s just a settlement thing and people are acting like it’s a slush fund for no reason. Also “weaponization and lawfare” sounds made up every time they say it.
So the fund is for people who got targeted by the DOJ right? But aren’t those the same folks who leak stuff? I’m confused because I thought the money was punishment for the media leak, not like paying loyalists. Either way 1.8B sounds like way more than it should be.
This is just the New York Times trying to stop Trump like always. If this was any other president they’d call it “accountability.” And the part about elections only matter if he wins… I mean that’s politics, not “constitutional order” whatever that even means. I’m not saying it’s fine, but I don’t trust the NYT to tell the whole story.