WASHINGTON — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on May 18 that the Justice Department is establishing a nearly $1.8 billion compensation pool, which he called the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” to provide payments to individuals who contend they were wrongly targeted by federal investigations and prosecutions. Blanche said in a statement that the fund represents “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”
The fund was created as part of a deal resolving Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The settlement itself places approximately 250,000 pages of Trump’s financial records into the public record, and the Justice Department said the money for the new fund comes from that settlement.
Blanche’s announcement did not specify how investigations and prosecutions of Trump’s political opponents conducted under his own watch might expose the Justice Department to the same accusations of politicized law enforcement he has said he opposed. The statement also made no mention of what criteria would be used to determine eligibility for payouts, or whether individuals convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could apply.
Democratic lawmakers immediately condemned the fund. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland described it as a “slush fund” that violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which requires that taxpayer money be spent only as authorized by Congress. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the fund appeared to be a vehicle to reward political allies who had faced criminal accountability.
The administration has not yet released the fund’s operational rules, including who will adjudicate claims and what standard of evidence will be required for a payout. The fund’s stated purpose — compensating individuals the executive branch determines were wrongfully treated by the same branch — has drawn criticism from legal scholars and former Justice Department officials across the political spectrum who argue it undermines the principle of independent law enforcement.