The Justice Department on Monday announced that it was establishing a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” after President Donald Trump moved to dismiss a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over his leaked tax returns.
Justice Department officials announced that Trump and his co-plaintiffs would drop their IRS lawsuit as well as other claims of damages in connection with the 2022 search of Mar-A-Lago and in connection with the Russian collusion scandal “in exchange” for the creation of the fund, which DOJ said set up a “systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare.”
The establishment of the fund came ahead of court deadlines in the IRS case, which would have required the Trump administration to explain whether there was an actual case to be heard, given Trump’s control over the Justice Department’s actions.
ABC was first to report on the news of the settlement.
The massive fund would give Jan. 6 rioters pardoned by Trump a mechanism to seek taxpayer payouts for their claims of government overreach. The fund could even issue “formal apologies” to individuals who made claims against the government, the announcement stated. The fund will stop processing claims by Dec. 15, 2028, about a month before Trump’s second term is set to end.
The $1,776,000,000 amount available for the fund was based “upon the projected valuation of future claimants’ claims,” according to the Justice Department.
A group of House Democrats called the move a “$1.7 billion slush fund” that the president could use to “reward allies, including the nearly 1,600 defendants convicted or charged in connection with the January 6th attack on the Capitol.”
Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., called the news “one of the most brazen examples of corruption we’ve seen from this administration.” The House Democrats’ Litigation Task Force filed a motion seeking to block what Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., called “pure fraud and highway robbery.”
The attorney general would appoint five members of the commission to oversee the fund, including one member to be chosen in consultation with congressional leadership, the DOJ said, adding that Trump could remove any member of the commission.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who issued a memo establishing the fund, said the “machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American” and that the Justice Department intended to “make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again.” Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter said that the “use of government power to target individuals or entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, or ideological reasons should not be tolerated by any Administration.”
The president’s two elder sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, as well as the Trump Organization, were the other plaintiffs in the IRS case and also moved to drop the lawsuit, according to a Monday court filing.
A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement on Monday that “President Trump, his family, supporters, and countless other America First Patriots were illegally targeted by the Democrat-lead law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice, and the IRS.” The statement added that Trump was “entering into this settlement squarely for the benefit of the American people, and he will continue his fight to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable.”
The White House referred questions about the filing to the DOJ. Representatives for the Treasury Department and the IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit in January, alleging that the IRS and the Treasury Department failed to prevent a former IRS employee from leaking their tax returns.
Last month, the judge overseeing the case had questioned whether there was an actual controversy for the court to address, given Trump’s control over the Justice Department.
The Trump administration was facing a Wednesday deadline to explain “whether a case or controversy exists,” and outside legal experts had told U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams that it could be “useful” for the court to look into whether the attorneys representing the government were “insulated” from the president.
“This case is unprecedented: A sitting president seeks monetary damages for alleged harm to his personal interests from an executive agency that he controls. That presents significant Article III subject matter jurisdiction concerns,” the experts wrote.
“The Court might ask why DOJ’s approach to litigating this case appears to depart from its approach in similar cases, as well as what steps Defendants are taking to ensure that settlement discussions are conducted at arm’s length and without risk of collusion,” they continued.
In Monday’s filing, the president’s personal lawyers argued that the court did not have to weigh in because they were voluntarily dismissing the case and the administration never replied to the suit.
Leave a Reply