President Donald Trump’s new $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” may be one of the most constitutionally dubious and politically corrosive ideas ever advanced under the guise of a legal settlement.
Republicans in the U.S. Senate were right to refuse to advance a priority immigration package on Thursday, likely pushing past the deadline Trump demanded for the bill, because of concerns over the fund. They are at odds as to how to deal with it.
The program — created as part of a Justice Department agreement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns — would establish a massive taxpayer-funded compensation pool for individuals who claim they were unfairly targeted by the federal government. Among the expected beneficiaries are Jan. 6 defendants, Trump allies and political operatives who say they were victims of “lawfare.”
The first glaring question is: who authorized this?
Congress holds the constitutional power of the purse. Yet the administration appears poised to direct nearly $1.8 billion from the federal Judgment Fund — a permanent Treasury appropriation typically used to settle lawsuits against the government — without direct congressional approval.
Republicans should be arguing, as they have in then past, that presidents cannot simply repurpose federal money based on political priorities.
This arrangement is essentially a quasi-government reparations system for Trump loyalists, administered by a five-member commission appointed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and removable by Trump himself. The commission would have sweeping discretion and limited transparency requirements over who receives taxpayer money and why.
Even more troubling are provisions reportedly barring future IRS scrutiny related to Trump, his family and associates — essentially putting all of them above tax laws. Critics — including some Republicans — have argued the settlement effectively functions as a form of preemptive immunity.
This is not how constitutional government is supposed to work.
Presidents possess pardon power over federal crimes. They do not possess unilateral authority to create federally financed compensation structures for political allies while also insulating themselves and connected entities from future government action.
It’s also worth considering why Jan. 6 defendants are uniquely entitled to restitution.
Americans wrongly imprisoned have struggled for decades to obtain compensation. Families harmed by other catastrophic government failures have not received anything remotely resembling this type of sweeping federal reparations structure.
Nor did businesses destroyed during COVID lockdowns or Americans subjected to unlawful surveillance programs. Nor did Capitol Police officers assaulted on Jan. 6.
Many Americans reasonably believe parts of the Jan. 6 prosecutions became excessive or politically charged, and that is a legitimate grievance. The settlement program wouldn’t have a partisan lens for prosecution standards, opening it up to apply to Americans poorly treated during the Biden years.
But this entire idea merits more consideration before, if ever, being rolled out.
The federal government now compensating citizens for politicized prosecutions or institutional abuse is a can of worms that requires a near-impossible execution.
This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Trump’s anti-lawfare fund doesn’t pass smell test | Our View
Reporting by The Detroit News / The Detroit News
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
