WASHINGTON — Democrats are poised to force a House vote on legislation that would permanently ban President Donald Trump's "Anti-Weaponization Fund" and the personal tax break he granted himself through it. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) plans to file a "discharge petition" as early as this week on a bill that would outlaw the fund and prevent presidents from settling lawsuits against their own administrations without court approval.
Discharge Petition Strategy
Discharge petitions allow any House member to bring legislation directly to the floor for a vote without approval from party leadership or a committee. While historically rare, this tactic has succeeded four times in the past year, including on a bill to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Raskin needs signatures from 218 members—all Democrats plus six Republicans—to force a vote.
"The people's representatives must decide whether to uphold the rule of law and protect taxpayer dollars – or stand aside as this unprecedented corruption spins out of control," Raskin said in a Thursday statement.
The Anti-Weaponization Fund
The Justice Department announced the creation of the approximately $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund last month, stemming from a faux legal settlement between the department and Trump, who sued his own administration in January over a past leak of his tax information. Critics say the fund was designed to compensate January 6 rioters who had lobbied for reparations for their alleged mistreatment. "They are determined to compensate Trump's private street-fighting militia and create 1,600 MAGA Millionaires with our money," Raskin added.
The settlement also freed Trump, his family, and his businesses from ongoing tax audits, potentially saving them millions of dollars. The court hearing the lawsuit did not approve the settlement, which was announced before a skeptical judge could dismiss the case.
Backlash and Legal Challenges
Amid fierce backlash, including from Republican senators, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the fund would not move forward. However, the Justice Department has refused to formally disavow the slush fund and has fought a lawsuit seeking to block it. A judge has temporarily halted the fund pending the outcome of that case.
Prospects for Passage
If Raskin secures 218 signatures—which is not guaranteed—a House vote could occur as soon as next month. Even if the House passes the legislation, the Senate is unlikely to follow suit, as Senate Republicans have already declined opportunities to ban the fund.
