A former Justice Department official described the department's creation of a $1.776 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' as 'patently unlawful.' The fund, announced Monday, was established in exchange for President Donald Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. The official, speaking anonymously, told HuffPost that the memo outlining the fund is 'patently unlawful.'
Lack of Transparency
The Justice Department provided scant details about the fund upon its announcement. Even after releasing a new settlement agreement on Tuesday, specifics remain unclear. The agreement states that within 30 days, the fund will 'establish funding and any other relevant requirements, rules, conditions, terms and waivers' for claims. The initial press release did not define criteria for applicants or explain how the $1.776 billion figure was determined.
Potential Beneficiaries
It is expected that funds will go to Jan. 6 rioters who file claims. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers that 'anybody could apply' and that commissioners appointed to the fund—selected with his help—will decide payouts. The settlement notes that time 'spent in prison or federal custody as a result of lawfare and weaponization from any source' will be considered. Trump pardoned over 1,500 rioters, including those who assaulted police, but he dodged questions about whether such individuals should be paid.
Andrew Warren, senior counsel at Democracy Defenders and former federal prosecutor, stated: 'A hallmark of this administration is to say things that are completely divorced from reality to conceal its own misconduct.' He added that Trump is willing to 'line his own pockets and that of his friends and family at the expense of American taxpayers.' Notably, the settlement includes a clause barring the IRS from investigating Trump or his affiliated individuals, businesses, and trusts.
Vague Eligibility and Oversight
The Justice Department remains vague on eligibility, stating only that a claimant must 'assert at least one legal claim stating that the claimant was a victim of lawfare and/or weaponization.' The Anti-Weaponization Fund has final say on claim validity, basing decisions on 'supporting evidence' or 'the claimant’s actions, actual damages incurred, attorneys’ fees... and other factors the anti-weaponization fund deems just and appropriate.' A 'third-party contractor' may audit claims, but fraud assessment criteria are undefined.
The settlement agreement states that 'there shall be no appeal, arbitration or judicial review of claims, offers or other determinations made by the Anti-Weaponization Fund.' Payouts will come from the Judgment Fund, a taxpayer-backed fund typically overseen by courts. However, for this fund, oversight is left to the attorney general and a five-member commission, with one member chosen 'in consultation with congressional leadership.' Trump can remove any commission member and replace them similarly.
'I’m deeply curious what the rationalization was of the administration to the Treasury to explain this,' said the former DOJ official. It is unclear if the Treasury Department agreed to the terms; its top lawyer resigned after the fund was announced.
Legal Precedent Disputed
The Justice Department cited the 2011 Keepseagle v. Vilsack settlement as legal precedent. However, lead counsel Joe Sellers called it 'a totally inapt analogy.' In Keepseagle, a class action lawsuit resulted in $760 million for Native American farmers, with court oversight and clear claim determinations. 'It was the court that had total control,' Sellers said. 'Not some panel of people who were appointed by somebody to do this.'
Warren noted the fund's expiration date of December 2028, suggesting Trump wants to control disbursements before leaving office. 'He’s doing it so he can put his thumb on the scale on deciding who gets the money and then have the spigot shut off as soon as he leaves office.'
Trump has made weaponization of the federal government routine, including attempts to investigate political foes. 'It has been a nonstop deluge of corruption since Day 1,' the former DOJ official said. 'The fact that neither the judiciary nor the legislative branches seem to have any ability to curb this corruption is troublesome to say the least.'
