...
By Kate Plummer
Senior US News Reporter
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.
Lawmakers are challenging a $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund announced by President Donald Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) this week, citing concerns about its legality and constitutionality, though efforts to block it could face significant hurdles.
Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, a centrist, and Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland have moved to challenge the fund amid bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, two police officers who were at the U.S. Capitol during the riot on January 6, 2021, have sued the Trump administration over the fund, warning it will fund groups including the Proud Boys.
The DOJ announced the fund on Monday, describing it as a "systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare," amid accusations that former President Joe Biden's DOJ weaponized the law against conservatives during his term, including via prosecutions against Trump and people involved in the riot.
Read More on News
"The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again," Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Monday. "As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress."
Newsweek reached out the White House by email for comment.
...
The fund will consist of a five-member commission—four appointed by the attorney general—and will have the authority to issue formal apologies and award monetary relief to claimants. There are no partisan requirements. It will receive $1.776 billion in exchange for Trump dropping his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service around the leak of his tax returns, the DOJ said.
The emerging legal and political battle raises broader questions about the limits of executive authority and the use of taxpayer funds in settlement agreements.
A DOJ spokesperson told Newsweek: “The only thing illegal and corrupt about this situation is the brazen weaponization of federal resources by previous administrations to retaliate against those with opposing political beliefs. This Department will continue to expose this lawfare and ensure those who experienced injustices are made whole.”
Newsweek has outlined the vehicles through which the fund might be stopped.
Court Challenges
U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department Officer Daniel Hodges asked a judge to block the fund and reverse any payments made by the Treasury Department. In a complaint, they argued that the new fund is illegal, unconstitutional and dangerous.
"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," read the complaint, which was filed in the District of Columbia. "The Anti-Weaponization Fund will both compensate and empower the very people making those threats. Militias like the Proud Boys will use money from the Fund to arm and equip themselves.
"The Fund will grant their pasts acts of violence legal imprimatur. And, most chillingly, the Fund will signal to past and potential future perpetrators of violence against Dunn and Hodges that they need not fear prosecution; to the contrary, they should expect to be rewarded."
The lawsuit represents one of the first major legal challenges to the fund and asks the court to halt its creation and any payouts.
Meanwhile, the House Democrats’ Litigation Task Force announced in a Monday statement that it filed a motion “to block this unconstitutional taxpayer-funded settlement,” as Trump “attempts to conclude the sham $10 billion lawsuit he filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—an agency he oversees as President of the United States.”
More than 90 House Democrats said they filed the motion, opening a second legal front alongside the lawsuit brought by January 6 officers.
Congressional Action
Lawmakers have also begun exploring legislative options to block or restrict the fund, though such efforts would require congressional approval. Fitzpatrick said "we're considering legislative options" to stop the fund.
"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.
Axios also reported that Raskin plans to introduce legislation, supported by Fitzpatrick, that says "no federal funds may be used to create or make payments to fund" Trump's anti-weaponization fund.
Fitzpatrick also laid out his concerns in a letter to Blanche, writing that it “raises serious questions about transparency, oversight, and the legal authority under which this fund is being created and administered.”
Fitzpatrick also 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 would be eligible, and whether there are examples of previous administrations establishing similar discretionary compensation programs without congressional approval.
Any attempt to block the fund through Congress could face political challenges, particularly if lawmakers are divided or lack the votes to pass binding restrictions.
Other Challenges
Other ways exist to try to constrain the fund even if legal and legislative challenges falter. Government watchdog groups and congressional committees are expected to scrutinize how it operates, using tools including audits, reporting requirements and hearings to ensure the fund complies with ethics rules.
While this form of pressure may not stop the fund outright, it could shape how it is implemented and draw attention to controversial claims or recipients.
Officials may also seek to challenge how the money is spent through appropriations law and broader political pressure.
Why Blocking It Could Be Difficult
Efforts to block the fund face significant structural hurdles tied to how it was created and funded. Because the program is embedded in a legal settlement rather than standalone legislation, there may be limited avenues to challenge it directly in court once the underlying case has been dismissed. It is also financed through the Treasury’s Judgment Fund—a pre‑existing pool of congressionally authorized money—reducing the need for fresh legislative approval.
Meanwhile, political dynamics on Capitol Hill could limit efforts to intervene if lawmakers are unwilling or unable to act. Combined with the slow pace of litigation and legislation, these factors mean the fund could begin operating—and potentially distributing payouts—before opponents are able to block it.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines