...
By Andrew Stanton and Jason Lemon
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Representative Brian Fitzpatrick threatened to "kill" the $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund announced by President Donald Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) this week.
Fitzpatrick, who represents a Pennsylvania swing district, is among the Republicans expressing discomfort with the anti-weaponization fund. The DOJ announced the fund as part of a deal to end the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the IRS. The plan has drawn bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill, as both Democrats and Republicans have denounced it.
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email.
Read More on Politics
What Brian Fitzpatrick Said About the Fund
Fitzpatrick, a centrist, discussed his views on the fund Wednesday.
"Bad news. We're going to try to kill it," Fitzpatrick said in a video posted by Meidas Touch Washington Correspondent Scott McFarlane, responding to a question about it.
"We're considering legislative options. We're going to write a letter to the AG [attorney general] to start, but we're considering a legislative option. We're trying to unpack what exactly the legal machinations are, but—he can't do that," Fitzpatrick said.
Axios also reported that Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, plans to introduce legislation supported by Fitzpatrick, which says "no Federal funds may be used to create or make payments to fund" Trump's anti-weaponization fund.
Fitzpatrick laid out his concerns in a letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, writing that it “raises serious questions about transparency, oversight, and the legal authority under which this fund is being created and administered.” The letter was first reported by Punchbowl News.
...
The Pennsylvania Republican asked Blanche where the money was being diverted from, the fund's “legal purpose,” whether individuals convicted of federal crimes or associated with violent acts will be eligible and whether there are examples of previous administrations “establishing discretionary compensation programs that are not authorized by Congress.”
Trump Administration's Anti-Weaponization Fund: What to Know
The DOJ announced the fund in a statement on Monday, describing it as a “systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare.” Trump and other Republicans have accused former President Joe Biden's DOJ of weaponizing the law against conservatives during his tenure, highlighting prosecutions against Trump and individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as purported examples of weaponization. Many legal experts, however, say there was no weaponization, viewing those examples as legitimate prosecutions.
The fund would have the authority to issue formal apologies and award monetary relief to claimants, and there are no partisan requirements. It will receive $1.776 billion from the judgment fund tied to the IRS lawsuit, the DOJ said.
Blanche said the DOJ is “setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”
During a hearing with senators on Tuesday, Blanche defended the fund as “unusual” but “not unprecedented," while stressing anyone, not just Republicans, can apply.
“It's not limited to Republicans. It’s not limited to the Biden weaponization. It's not limited in any way, scope or form to January 6th, or to Jack Smith,” he said.
Anti-Weaponization Fund Draws Swift, Bipartisan Backlash
The fund has drawn bipartisan criticism. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said he is "not a big fan" of the fund, CNN reported.
Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana took to X on Wednesday in opposition of the funding, saying, "People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the President and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability. This is adding to our national debt. If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide."
Cassidy lost his primary election over the weekend to Trump-backed candidate Representative Julia Letlow.
Democrats and government watchdogs called the arrangement “corrupt” and unprecedented, warning that it could channel taxpayer funds to Trump allies while inviting questionable claims of political persecution.
"First, Trump pardoned the violent January 6th insurrectionists, and now he can use YOUR taxpayer dollars to pay them from a $1.8 BILLION slush fund. This is a heist and a disgrace," Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, wrote to X.
Trump said Monday he was not involved in the fund’s creation.
“This is reimbursing people who were horribly treated, horribly treated. It’s anti-weaponization. They’ve been weaponized,” he said. “They’ve been, in some cases, imprisoned wrongly. They paid legal fees they didn’t have. They’ve gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed.”
DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund Draws Legal Challenges
U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges, who were at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, sued the administration over the fund, warning it would fund groups like the Proud Boys.
“The Fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches," the complaint reads.
A total of 93 House Democrats signed onto an amicus brief challenging the fund, according to a press statement from the House Judiciary Committee Democrats. Raskin, committee ranking member, described it in a statement as “fraud and highway robbery.”
“This case is nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters, and white supremacists, including those who brutally beat police officers on January 6, 2021, and sycophant accomplices to his election stealing schemes,” Raskin wrote.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines