...
By Newsweek Editors
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.
MAGA's new cash machine stopped whirring before it paid a single claim.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund," which the Department of Justice (DOJ) created to settle President Donald Trump's own lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax records. The department on Monday said it will comply with the federal order blocking it, despite strongly disagreeing with the ruling as backlash mounted from Republicans over the initiative.
The case against it is sound. Trump sued a federal agency he ultimately oversees, then settled against the government through his own DOJ—a "slush fund," critics say, run by a panel he can fire at will, with no judicial review, that hasn't ruled out considering claims from some January 6 defendants.
Read More on Analysis
Yet the principle underneath is one most Americans accept, and it doesn't stop at the left's usual victims.
A Trump adviser wiretapped for a year and never charged. A MAGA meme-maker whose conviction was overturned. An obstruction charge the Supreme Court narrowed across hundreds of January 6 cases.
That doesn't prove every grievance, just that the category is real. Trump's Anti-Weaponization Fund is profoundly flawed. The point underneath it is not.
The Slush-Fund Critique Has Teeth
The Trump fund’s design invites suspicion and skepticism.
The settlement gives a five-member body power to grant or deny claims, and the president can remove any member without cause.
Moreover, the agreement lets the fund determine its own procedures, and those may be made public only “in whole or in part, in its discretion." The agreement also bars appeal, arbitration or judicial review of fund determinations.
It makes the administrative architecture look less like neutral adjudication than executive discretion with a patriotic label.
A deeper objection is that there may have been no real lawsuit at all to underpin it.
Critics argue a sitting president cannot credibly sue agencies he controls and then have his own Justice Department settle against the government.
The judge in the IRS case had questioned whether the matter presented a genuine controversy before Trump moved to drop it.
Democrats have made the obvious attack, and some Republicans have supplied the credibility.
Rep. Seth Moulton, a Democrat, called the settlement an "illegal cash grab," while GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick and Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi introduced a bill to bar federal funds from paying claims submitted to the DOJ fund.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has said the fund would be nonpartisan, would not rule out considering claims from people who committed violence at the Capitol on January 6.
Those potential claimants are the test the fund will be judged by, because they are where a neutral-sounding principle meets its least sympathetic applicants.
PolitiFact found the administration's claim of legal precedent lacking because the Keepseagle v. Vilsack settlement the DOJ cited had more specific standards, more judicial oversight, a more conventional process and a different beneficiary structure.
Joseph Sellers, the attorney who led the Native American plaintiffs in 1999's Keepseagle class-action lawsuit, which led to the $760 million racism redress fund in 2011, called the administration's analogy "grossly inaccurate" in remarks to PBS.
The Principle Is Harder to Dismiss
The Trump version is procedurally weak, yet the restitution principle has deep roots in American law and politics.
The Treasury’s Judgment Fund pays court judgments and compromise settlements in lawsuits against the federal government.
Federal law allows compensation claims for unjust conviction and imprisonment, though it requires proof that a conviction was reversed, set aside, followed by acquittal, or pardoned on innocence grounds.
Congress and President Ronald Reagan approved the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which apologized for Japanese American incarceration and provided $20,000 to each eligible survivor.
Conservatives have already benefited from this logic in a narrower setting.
In 2017, Trump’s Justice Department settled cases brought by conservative groups whose tax-exempt applications were delayed after the IRS used inappropriate criteria.
The Treasury inspector general found that IRS employees used names and policy positions, including Tea Party references, instead of tax-law criteria to flag applications for review.
A civil-liberties rule that excludes politically unfashionable claimants becomes a factional privilege. A conservative rule that pays only friends of Trump becomes the same thing in red paint.
Process Can Punish, So Proof Matters
Blanche gave the best pro-fund argument—and one reasonable Americans could rally behind—when he said, "The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American."
Trump made the populist version targeted at his supporters when he said alleged victims “paid legal fees that they didn’t have” and had, in some cases, been driven into bankruptcy.
The settlement itself recognizes concrete injuries because it instructs the fund to consider actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and time spent in custody.
That is the strongest case for some form of compensation. Investigations, audits, prosecutions, raids and leaks can ruin people even when the state never wins a conviction.
This isn’t hypothetical. There are real examples involving Trump supporters where credible arguments for redress could be made.
The Justice Department's own inspector general found at least 17 significant errors and omissions in the applications used to wiretap Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser surveilled for nearly a year and never charged with a crime.
Douglass Mackey was convicted and sentenced to seven months over 2016 memes that falsely told Hillary Clinton supporters they could vote by text, before a unanimous appeals court reversed the conviction in 2025 for insufficient evidence of conspiracy.
And in 2024 the Supreme Court found that prosecutors had stretched a felony obstruction statute beyond its meaning—a charge brought against roughly 350 January 6 defendants, though most faced other counts too.
None of this proves every claim of weaponization; it proves the category cannot be dismissed as imaginary.
Civil libertarians make versions of that argument in other settings, and conservatives are entitled to ask why the argument vanishes when their names appear in the case caption. The answer cannot be vibes.
A serious system would require evidence of wrongful official action, proof of injury, a clear causal link and meaningful review.
But the current fund requires a claimant to assert a legal claim of “Lawfare and/or Weaponization," a phrase carrying immense political meaning and little evident legal precision.
Real Restitution System Would Disappoint Both Camps
The fund's future now depends partly on the courts. Judge Leonie Brinkema scheduled a June 12 hearing on whether to extend the block.
Congress has a separate path because Fitzpatrick and Suozzi’s bill would prohibit federal money from paying Anti-Weaponization Fund claims.
A better answer would channel the same concern through an independent, statute-based process with published standards, sworn evidence, adversarial testing, public reporting and exclusions for people whose criminal convictions stand.
That last filter is exactly where the January 6 cases expose the difficulty: Trump’s mass pardons erased many of those convictions, so a standing-conviction screen would not, on its own, keep out rioters who assaulted police.
Such a process would anger partisans on both sides.
It could allow a Trump supporter wrongly targeted by federal power to recover real losses. It could also deny a famous MAGA defendant whose claim is political grievance wrapped in legal jargon.
And it would force liberals to defend compensation for unsympathetic victims and force conservatives to accept neutral proof over movement loyalty.
The Trump fund deserves judicial skepticism because its structure treats public money as a remedy to be sorted by executive appointees. The premise underneath it deserves a better home.
When the government abuses coercive power, an apology is sometimes insufficient; when compensation becomes partisan back pay, the remedy repeats the abuse in another form.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines