Justice Department Creates $1.8 Billion Fund for Weaponization Claims Settlement

The U.S. Department of Justice has established a nearly $1.8 billion fund as part of a settlement resolving former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax returns. The fund is intended to compensate individuals who claim to have suffered from government “weaponization and lawfare,” a term used to describe perceived misuse of government power.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress that the fund is for anyone who feels victimized by a weaponized government, but applying for compensation does not guarantee payment. Blanche will appoint five members to a board overseeing the fund, all of whom can be dismissed by President Trump. Congress will have input on one of the five members.

The fund has drawn criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who expressed reservations. Stacey Young, founder of the group Justice Connection and a former Justice Department employee, protested the fund by projecting a John Adams quote—”A government of laws, not of men”—onto the Justice Department building. Young called the fund an “appalling” abuse of power and accused the Justice Department of acting as an extension of the White House to protect Trump’s allies and target his enemies.

Legal experts have raised concerns about the fund’s implications for constitutional checks and balances. David Super, a Georgetown University law professor, described the fund as a “remarkable move that degrades not one but both of the other branches of government.” He explained that the fund bypasses congressional oversight and allows the president to distribute taxpayer money without judicial or legislative approval. Super characterized the underlying litigation as “collusive,” noting that Trump controls both the plaintiffs and defense lawyers, preventing independent court scrutiny.

Bobby Kogan of the Center for American Progress called the fund a “profound loophole in the appropriations process,” emphasizing that the Constitution requires congressional approval for federal spending. He warned that this precedent could enable any administration to allocate Treasury funds without Congress’s input, potentially even to support political allies.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, condemned the fund as a “racket” designed to funnel taxpayer dollars to Trump’s allies, including participants in the January 6 Capitol riot. He accused the administration of using government power to reward supporters and punish opponents.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward defended the fund, stating it is too early to judge its impact since no claims have been filed or paid. He said the fund aims to correct the “weaponization” that was pervasive in the previous administration.

Legal experts note that challenging the fund in court may be difficult. Super explained that courts generally expect Congress to address such issues legislatively rather than through lawsuits, and that current judicial attitudes may prevent challenges from Congress or taxpayers. However, he acknowledged that future courts might take a different view.