The Trump administration appears to be abandoning a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund created after congressional pushback and a judge’s ruling that blocked its creation—an effort opposed by both Republicans and Democrats.
For more than a week. officials argued they should be able to create a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund—money framed as restitution for people who say they were targeted by a “weaponized” justice system. Then the court line came back into focus. and by Monday. the Justice Department’s posture shifted from defiance to disagreement.
The White House is apparently scrapping plans for the fund to compensate allies of President Donald Trump after Congress pushed back. The Trump administration declined to comment. but it pointed to a statement in which the Justice Department said it agreed to abide by a judge’s ruling that blocked the fund’s creation.
In a statement posted on Monday to X. the Department of Justice said it “disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The department also quoted the court as stating that “under no circumstances. may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse. harm. and hate unfairly shown to so many people.”.
Those words land in the middle of an escalating political fight on Capitol Hill, where the fund has drawn rare, cross-party hostility—an unusual alignment that threatens to complicate other legislative priorities in the closing stretch of Trump’s term.
The fund traces back to a settlement Trump reached with the Internal Revenue Service over a contract worker’s leak of his tax documents. As part of that settlement. the Justice Department said it would administer the fund designed to compensate people who claim they were targeted by a “weaponized” justice system. The department did not describe in detail how it would assess individual claims.
Before Monday’s statement. the department sounded more defiant as recently as Friday. saying it would “not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare.” But the Monday filing focuses on the limits imposed by the court. leaving the proposal’s fate tied to the judge’s block rather than the administration’s preferred timeline.
That tension didn’t come as a surprise to lawmakers who had already decided the money was politically toxic.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune. R-S.D. said he hoped the White House would shut down the proposal shortly before the Justice Department’s statement. “I made my views very clear on the issue. ” Thune told reporters. and he said. “I do think the best way to handle it is if the administration decides to shut it down themselves.”.
Democrats moved just as aggressively. In a “Dear Colleague” letter on Monday. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. D-N.Y. said Democrats were launching a coordinated effort to “kill the slush fund before one cent goes out the door.” Schumer’s language framed the fund as an effort to distribute benefits under political cover.
The fight has also strained the calendar for unrelated GOP priorities. Dissension over the anti-weaponization fund threatens efforts by Republicans to approve a measure that would fund immigration enforcement through the rest of Trump’s term. GOP leaders are trying to pass the funding bill without Democratic support through a budgetary process known as reconciliation.
Schumer warned that Democrats would respond with procedural pressure if Republicans try to move around opposition. “If Republicans return to reconciliation, we will be ready with amendments to shut the fund down,” he wrote. “If they try to bury the issue, we will force them to the Senate floor. If they try to sneak behind appropriations, we will fight them there too.”.
The through-line running from the court’s limitation to the lawmakers’ threats is stark: even as the administration sought to position the fund as restitution. both parties treated it as a political vulnerability—one that could become leverage inside broader spending battles. Now the fight looks less like a debate over the fund’s purpose and more like a contest over whether it can survive a judge’s order at all.
White House anti-weaponization fund Justice Department Internal Revenue Service IRS settlement court ruling John Thune Chuck Schumer Senate reconciliation immigration enforcement funding lawfare Trump administration
So they’re just not doing it because people got mad? cool cool.
I don’t even get what “anti-weaponization” means. Like is it paying people for being treated unfairly or is it just another political slush fund? The title says judge ruled blocked it, then DOJ “disagrees strongly” which sounds like they’re still trying, just slower.
This is wild because it ties back to that IRS tax document leak and now it’s about “restitution” for allies?? I thought the government always has to follow court orders, but apparently they’re like yeah we disagree strongly, see ya later. Congress pushed back and both parties hate it so maybe it’s legit… or maybe everyone just wants to look good.
Not surprised. These funds always turn into a mess. One headline says “abandoning nearly $1.8 billion” and next thing you know it’s still gonna come back as something else with a different name so they can pay people anyway. Also the whole “weaponized justice system” thing sounds like propaganda, but then they quote the court like it’s totally opposite. I’m just waiting for it to be renamed and quietly approved behind closed doors.