May 27, 2026 • 18 mins
The US Justice Department has announced it would establish a $1.776 billion legal fund to compensate people who claim they’ve been targeted unfairly by the federal government. The plan has been met with swift bipartisan backlash, with some lawmakers calling it a “slush fund” that could line the pockets of Trump loyalists and Jan. 6 rioters with taxpayer dollars.
On today’s Big Take podcast, host Sarah Holder joins Bloomberg reporters Chris Strohm and Erik Wasson to break down the mechanics of the fund, the Trump administration’s rationale for using it and the mounting questions around its oversight and legal grounds.
Read more: Jan. 6 Rioters Who Beat Police May Get Payouts, Blanche Says
Trump’s $1.8 Billion Settlement Fund Hits Senate GOP Backlash
Why Critics Call Trump’s $1.8B Anti-Weaponization Fund an Abuse of Power
We have a special Bloomberg subscription offer for podcast listeners at Bloomberg.com/podcastoffer.
Hosted by Sarah Holder; Produced by David Fox; Reported by Chris Strohm, Erik Wasson; Edited by Aaron Edwards.
Fact-checking by Laura Newcombe, Rachael Lewis-Krisky; Engineering by Emma Munger.
Senior Producer: Naomi Shavin; Deputy Executive Producer: Julia Weaver. Executive Producer: Nicole Beemsterboer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Congressional Republicans and Democrats in the US don't agree on
a lot these days, but the Department of Justice and
President Trump recently agreed on a deal that as lawmakers
on both sides of the aisle pushing back, this is.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
An illegal political slush fund to give payouts to Trump's
supporters and friends.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
I mean, this is just stupid on stilt. Last week,
the DOJ announced that as part of a settlement of
Trump's ten billion dollar lawsuit against the IRS, it would
establish a new federal fund meant to pay people who
claim they've been targeted unfairly by the federal government. It's
a pot of nearly one point eight billion taxpayer dollars,
(00:53):
called the Anti Weaponization Fund.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Democrats would say it's just pure corruption.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Bloomberg Congress reporter Rick Wawson.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
It's beyond unusual, and certainly Republicans are very worried, both
about the optics and the timing of this release of
this information before the midterm elections where they are vulnerable.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
The Trump administration says anyone who fits the fund's criteria
can apply. Anyone who alleges they're a victim of government weaponization,
but critics say in practice it could be a way
for Trump to line the pockets of his allies and supporters,
including rioters who stormed the Capitol on January sixth, twenty
(01:31):
twenty one.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
The idea that some people should be able to go
to the government and seek compensation for being unfairly investigated
and unfairly prosecuted. I don't think it's so controversial.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Chris Strum covers the DOJ for Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
I think what's so controversial is that the way this
whole thing was rushed and the way it's being set
up appears to be engineered just to benefit trump allies
and conservatives and the causes that MAGA believes in.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
I'm Sarah Holder, and this is the big take from
Bloomberg News today on the show, Trump's Anti Weaponization Fund,
How it could work, who stands to benefit, and why
it's making some prominent Republicans nervous, Chris. Last week, the
(02:37):
Justice Department announced they'd be creating something called the Anti
Weaponization Fund. What is that?
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Well, essentially, what they're setting up is a pot of
money that individuals and organizations can apply to if they
feel that they can make a case that they've been
attacked victimized by the government, and the arguments that they're
making is that the previous administrations took actions against Republicans
(03:10):
and Conservatives and Trump and Trump's allies that were unjustified
and went overboard and either investigated or prosecuted and in
some cases put people in jail in ways that were
considered to be weaponizing the use of law enforcement tools.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Where does the money for this fund come from.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
The fund is taxpayer dollars that is set aside to
make payments to people for compensation. The way that they've
set this up is they're holding the money in the
Treasury Department. There's a section within Treasury that's called the
Judgment Fund, and it has historically been used to make
payments to individuals and organizations who get judgments against the government.
(04:03):
So it involves either settlements that the government reaches with
individuals or court rulings where individuals or organizations are awarded
compensation and the money will come directly out of the treasury.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
How have different presidential administrations used this fund in the past,
and what's different about the Trump administration's approach.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
So previously money was taken out of this fund after
people and organizations went through years of litigation or years
of negotiations with the government, and there was some kind
of a independent or outside person or judge or jury
that made the decision on awarding compensation. And Trump has
(04:51):
done away with that in this iteration of what he's
trying to do, because when this fund was announced by
the Justice Department by essentially Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche,
it came with no direction or construction of how this
is going to work. What the administration is saying right
now is that the Justice Department essentially is going to
(05:11):
identify five individuals who will sit on a commission, and
that individuals or organizations can make applications to this commission.
We don't know who's going to be on the commission.
We don't know what process they're going to use to
make decisions. We don't know if there's certain categories that
will be prioritized. We don't know if there's certain claims
(05:34):
that cannot be made. The commission has to be set up.
It doesn't even exist yet.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
So Eric Chris has laid out where the money for
this fund comes from. But I'm wondering what led to
its creation. How did the Anti Weaponization Fund come about?
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Well, what led to the creation was Trump suing himself,
as Rand Paul whose no liberals said, this is an
extraordinary situation of someone settling with himself as a party
to both law suits. The Trump and his lawyer basically
sued for ten billion dollars over an IRS contractor's leak
of Trump's tax returns to the New York Times.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
And they released them and a certain firm released them,
which was I guess a private firm, but it released
them to a lot of the fake news, and the
fake news went and you're just not allowed to do that.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
The judge in the case was showing some skepticism of this,
and then it was quickly settled before the judge could
really weigh in.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Why did the DOJ settle?
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Well, I mean, I have no direct internal communication proof,
but Trump is in charge of the administration, so certainly
he's pressuring the DOJ. He fired the first attorney general
who's pushed out, and now we have his former personal attorney,
Todd Blanche acting as the acting Attorney General, who has
certainly shown himself to be very compliant to the president's wishes.
(06:56):
You know. In defending the settlement and social media, the
President has said he could have easily won the ten
billion dollars and that this is a very generous act
on his part to find victims of weaponization and pay
them money.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
But the anti weaponization fund wasn't the only thing the
DOJ agreed to in this settlement, right Eric, What else
did Trump get out of this deal?
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Well, it turned out he had an extraordinary annex to
the agreement, saying that all of his past tax returns,
including those of his family and associates, would no longer
be able to be audited by the IRS. Trump has
kept his tax return secret, unlike opponents in his presidential races,
under the claim that they're being audited by the IRS.
Was an extraordinary get out of jail free card. Some
(07:40):
estimates put it one hundred million dollar penalty that was
potentially going to be lodged against the president for under
reported income in the past and other tax dodges that
may be illegal that he's an organization is employed.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Eric is absolutely correct that Trump was on pace to
lose his lawsuit against the IRS. This fund was announced
just days before the Justice Department had to make a
filing in Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, and in standard practice,
the Justice Department disputes whatever claims are being made against
(08:14):
a federal agency. And so the Justice Department was going
to have to take a navisarial position against Trump. And
that's when this fund was announced, and by all accounts,
the judge and looking at this was going to rule
against Trump.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Chris, you started to tell us a little bit about
what we know and what we don't know about how
this anti weaponization fund will work, who is expected to
benefit from it, and how will they apply for these funds.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
It is clearly being set up to benefit people who
are in MAGA and believe that the government was weaponized
against them. And one of the big categories of people
that is raising the most concern right now are those
individuals who attack the capital on January sixth, twenty twenty one,
(09:04):
in order to stop the certification of Joe Biden to
be president. They were, you know, Trump supporters. They broke
into the capital, they beat cops, and there have been
hundreds and hundreds of individuals who have either pled guilty
to crimes or been convicted by juries. Trump pardoned all
of them, and so now they are considered to be
(09:26):
one of the biggest categories of people who will be
in line to make claims to get funding from this
weaponization fund.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Well mentioned one category of likely applicants to this fund,
the January sixth rioters. But I'm wondering about the other
side of the coin. For example, could citizens who've been
detained or targeted by ICE access to this fund?
Speaker 1 (09:53):
Absolutely, the administration has made it clear that anybody can apply,
and so you could very well expect James Comy to apply,
the former FBI director.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
The operative word though, is apply, Chris. I mean, this
five person panel is likely to be construed with just
Trump allies. And notably, the fund is slated to run
out in twenty twenty eight, so like there's no real
chance the Democratic president would have control of this money.
So sure they came out so they can apply, but
chance of getting it I would pays very low, wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
You, Yeah?
Speaker 2 (10:24):
I would.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
I mean, the way this whole thing is being engineered
is that the money's going to be directed toward people
who Trump favors. Also, the way the commission is being
set up, Trump can fire any commissioner at any time
for any reason. There's no redress. They don't even have
to make public why these people were removed. And additionally,
the way the commission is set up, it only takes
(10:45):
two individuals in order to make a decision, so they
could put three Let's say they put three Democrats on
and two hardcore MAGA loyalists on. Those two individuals could
just go out head and steamroll everybody and make the decisions.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
Can Trump apply? Can his family apply?
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Not under the current construction. They laid out very limited conditions,
but one condition they did put in there is that
Trump and his family members cannot apply. However, they haven't
ruled out that Trump's Political Action Committee could apply. They
haven't ruled out that Trump's lawyers could apply in order
to get reimbursement. So there's ways in which money could
(11:26):
flow into Trump's coffers on some level without a direct
payment to Trump or his family members.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Plans for the fund have faced bipartisan backlash since they
were announced, So what could happen next? That's after the break.
(11:59):
The US Department of Justice's announcement of a nearly one
point eight billion dollar anti weaponization fund meant to pay
victims of alleged government law fare, has drawn backlash from
both sides of the political aisle. Democrats have framed it
as a slush fund to enrich Trump loyalists, and it's
also drawn criticism from some Republican lawmakers. I talked to
(12:22):
Bloomberg reporters Eric Wasson and Chris Strum about what that
could mean for the plan. Eric, why are Republicans coming
out against this President?
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Trump had a very difficult week toward the end of
May in Congress with pushback from Republicans. They're trying to
pass seventy two billion dollars in ICE and CBP, that's
immigration enforcement funding through the rest of the Trump's term.
They need all Republicans, or almost all Republicans to stick
completely together through this arduous budget process to ram this through.
(12:51):
They were on the cusp of doing that in the
Senate when this fund was announced. Todd Blanche went up
to the hill in a closed door meeting and he
was absolutely shell by Republicans, people like Tom Taillis and
other screaming, yelling, saying this is completely morally wrong. Others
who are closer allies of the president, like Kevin Kramer
of North Dakota, just saying the timing is terrible. Why
would you drop this right before we're trying to do
(13:13):
this big vote, and in general, it's before our midterm
where suddenly the Senate looks like it's up for grabs,
and there's a sense that the Trump administration is not
doing really much at all to help Republicans stay in power,
that Trump is focused on talking about the ballroom instead
of how to lower prices, continuing to wage an unpopular war,
and this just fed into that general frustration. There's a
(13:35):
real push, I think, among Republicans to get some kind
of guardrails on this. I think the most important one
would be to stop anybody who beat up cops or
was convicted of assaulting police officers from getting money. They're
just a feeling this creates a perverse incentive for people
to in fact assault police officers if they're going to
be paid for it. There's also talk about rearranging the
way this Committee of Five works, making it subject to
(13:57):
congressional confirmation to whether any kind of deal can be
worked out. But I do not see that seventy two
billion dollar bill moving forward unless there's at least some
kind of change to this fund, because Republicans are just
outraged about it.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
So there are a few things that could come out
of this Republican backlash year. Describing Eric one, is, you know,
changing the way that this fund works, putting more guardrails
on it. Is there a sense that this fund could
be stopped or shut down if enough Republicans or lawmakers
across the aisle oppose it.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
I think it's a realm of possibility, perhaps not likely.
In the House, we have a group of modern Republicans
led by Brian Fitzpatrick, who is in the district that
Trump lost three times. He's put together a bill to
essentially block this. He has a method for getting a
vote called the discharge petition. He's gotten several votes on
his bills. Essentially just need you know, three or four
(14:52):
Republicans and all Democrats to sign a piece of paper
and force a vote. If that's forced out of the
House floor, it could very well pass. Whether it goes
into the Senate, it gets through the Senate seems a
bit more doubtful, but it could put pressure on them
to try to come up with some kind of solution.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
What has the Trump administration and the DOJ said in
defense of the fund and the way it's structured.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
I mean, they're saying that anybody can apply. So they're
saying it's not just limited to Trump allies and MAGA
types that can make applications to get money from this fund.
So you know, that is the polish that they're trying
to put on this. I just don't think that anybody
is really buying that at this point. There, you know,
are lawsuits that have already been filed making different arguments
(15:39):
about why this fund should be stopped. The problem is
is that the fund isn't in existence right now, and
the commission hasn't been set up. It's kind of like
a chicken and egg thing where the fund needs to
come into existence and the Commission needs to take action
in order to create a class of people who have
(16:00):
standing to file lawsuits against the fund.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
So it might be too soon to tell how exactly
this fund is going to work, who's going to be
paid out? But in the meantime, have we seen anyone
apply to the fund yet?
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Nobody can apply officially, but we've seen people put up
their hands and say they are going to apply. Michael Flynn,
for example, he might be somebody that would want to apply.
Roger Stone, he was a political operative for Trump. He
was part of the organizing around the January sixth, you know,
attack on the Capitol. These are Trump allies who they
were indicted by the Justice Department for certain actions that
(16:37):
they took. Trump pardoned them. And then you have a
whole slew of people who were involved in January sixth
who were actually charged by the Justice Department and either
they pled guilty or they were convicted at trial. And
you know, I think it's important to say that you
have a lot of examples of people who had due
process through the courts in order to try to litigate
(16:59):
their claims of innocence and either eventually pled guilty or
they were convicted by a jury. And there's no sense
of how anybody on this five person committee is going
to be able to replicate what would happen in court.
And so you could have a situation right now where
somebody already filed a lawsuit against the government claiming that
(17:22):
they were victimized in a target of weaponization by the
Biden administration and their case was dismissed by an independent judge,
and now they just bypassed that all of that process
that was done is completely set aside, and they just
go into this committee and the committee secretly authorizes payments
(17:43):
to them. The way that they come to their decisions
in the amount of money that they pay may never
be made public. The settlement that was announced just says
that the committee has to make a report to the
Attorney General Todd blanche, but it doesn't say that report
ever has to be made public.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
This is The Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm Sarah Holder.
To get more from The Big Take and unlimited access
to all of Bloomberg dot com, subscribe today at Bloomberg
dot com slash podcast offer. If you liked this episode,
make sure to subscribe and review The Big Take wherever
you listen to podcasts. It helps people find the show.
Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Congressional Republicans and Democrats in the US don't agree on
a lot these days, but the Department of Justice and
President Trump recently agreed on a deal that as lawmakers
on both sides of the aisle pushing back, this is.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
An illegal political slush fund to give payouts to Trump's
supporters and friends.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
I mean, this is just stupid on stilt. Last week,
the DOJ announced that as part of a settlement of
Trump's ten billion dollar lawsuit against the IRS, it would
establish a new federal fund meant to pay people who
claim they've been targeted unfairly by the federal government. It's
a pot of nearly one point eight billion taxpayer dollars,
(00:53):
called the Anti Weaponization Fund.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Democrats would say it's just pure corruption.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Bloomberg Congress reporter Rick Wawson.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
It's beyond unusual, and certainly Republicans are very worried, both
about the optics and the timing of this release of
this information before the midterm elections where they are vulnerable.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
The Trump administration says anyone who fits the fund's criteria
can apply. Anyone who alleges they're a victim of government weaponization,
but critics say in practice it could be a way
for Trump to line the pockets of his allies and supporters,
including rioters who stormed the Capitol on January sixth, twenty
(01:31):
twenty one.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
The idea that some people should be able to go
to the government and seek compensation for being unfairly investigated
and unfairly prosecuted. I don't think it's so controversial.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Chris Strum covers the DOJ for Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
I think what's so controversial is that the way this
whole thing was rushed and the way it's being set
up appears to be engineered just to benefit trump allies
and conservatives and the causes that MAGA believes in.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
I'm Sarah Holder, and this is the big take from
Bloomberg News today on the show, Trump's Anti Weaponization Fund,
How it could work, who stands to benefit, and why
it's making some prominent Republicans nervous, Chris. Last week, the
(02:37):
Justice Department announced they'd be creating something called the Anti
Weaponization Fund. What is that?
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Well, essentially, what they're setting up is a pot of
money that individuals and organizations can apply to if they
feel that they can make a case that they've been
attacked victimized by the government, and the arguments that they're
making is that the previous administrations took actions against Republicans
(03:10):
and Conservatives and Trump and Trump's allies that were unjustified
and went overboard and either investigated or prosecuted and in
some cases put people in jail in ways that were
considered to be weaponizing the use of law enforcement tools.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Where does the money for this fund come from.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
The fund is taxpayer dollars that is set aside to
make payments to people for compensation. The way that they've
set this up is they're holding the money in the
Treasury Department. There's a section within Treasury that's called the
Judgment Fund, and it has historically been used to make
payments to individuals and organizations who get judgments against the government.
(04:03):
So it involves either settlements that the government reaches with
individuals or court rulings where individuals or organizations are awarded
compensation and the money will come directly out of the treasury.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
How have different presidential administrations used this fund in the past,
and what's different about the Trump administration's approach.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
So previously money was taken out of this fund after
people and organizations went through years of litigation or years
of negotiations with the government, and there was some kind
of a independent or outside person or judge or jury
that made the decision on awarding compensation. And Trump has
(04:51):
done away with that in this iteration of what he's
trying to do, because when this fund was announced by
the Justice Department by essentially Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche,
it came with no direction or construction of how this
is going to work. What the administration is saying right
now is that the Justice Department essentially is going to
(05:11):
identify five individuals who will sit on a commission, and
that individuals or organizations can make applications to this commission.
We don't know who's going to be on the commission.
We don't know what process they're going to use to
make decisions. We don't know if there's certain categories that
will be prioritized. We don't know if there's certain claims
(05:34):
that cannot be made. The commission has to be set up.
It doesn't even exist yet.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
So Eric Chris has laid out where the money for
this fund comes from. But I'm wondering what led to
its creation. How did the Anti Weaponization Fund come about?
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Well, what led to the creation was Trump suing himself,
as Rand Paul whose no liberals said, this is an
extraordinary situation of someone settling with himself as a party
to both law suits. The Trump and his lawyer basically
sued for ten billion dollars over an IRS contractor's leak
of Trump's tax returns to the New York Times.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
And they released them and a certain firm released them,
which was I guess a private firm, but it released
them to a lot of the fake news, and the
fake news went and you're just not allowed to do that.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
The judge in the case was showing some skepticism of this,
and then it was quickly settled before the judge could
really weigh in.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Why did the DOJ settle?
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Well, I mean, I have no direct internal communication proof,
but Trump is in charge of the administration, so certainly
he's pressuring the DOJ. He fired the first attorney general
who's pushed out, and now we have his former personal attorney,
Todd Blanche acting as the acting Attorney General, who has
certainly shown himself to be very compliant to the president's wishes.
(06:56):
You know. In defending the settlement and social media, the
President has said he could have easily won the ten
billion dollars and that this is a very generous act
on his part to find victims of weaponization and pay
them money.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
But the anti weaponization fund wasn't the only thing the
DOJ agreed to in this settlement, right Eric, What else
did Trump get out of this deal?
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Well, it turned out he had an extraordinary annex to
the agreement, saying that all of his past tax returns,
including those of his family and associates, would no longer
be able to be audited by the IRS. Trump has
kept his tax return secret, unlike opponents in his presidential races,
under the claim that they're being audited by the IRS.
Was an extraordinary get out of jail free card. Some
(07:40):
estimates put it one hundred million dollar penalty that was
potentially going to be lodged against the president for under
reported income in the past and other tax dodges that
may be illegal that he's an organization is employed.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Eric is absolutely correct that Trump was on pace to
lose his lawsuit against the IRS. This fund was announced
just days before the Justice Department had to make a
filing in Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, and in standard practice,
the Justice Department disputes whatever claims are being made against
(08:14):
a federal agency. And so the Justice Department was going
to have to take a navisarial position against Trump. And
that's when this fund was announced, and by all accounts,
the judge and looking at this was going to rule
against Trump.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Chris, you started to tell us a little bit about
what we know and what we don't know about how
this anti weaponization fund will work, who is expected to
benefit from it, and how will they apply for these funds.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
It is clearly being set up to benefit people who
are in MAGA and believe that the government was weaponized
against them. And one of the big categories of people
that is raising the most concern right now are those
individuals who attack the capital on January sixth, twenty twenty one,
(09:04):
in order to stop the certification of Joe Biden to
be president. They were, you know, Trump supporters. They broke
into the capital, they beat cops, and there have been
hundreds and hundreds of individuals who have either pled guilty
to crimes or been convicted by juries. Trump pardoned all
of them, and so now they are considered to be
(09:26):
one of the biggest categories of people who will be
in line to make claims to get funding from this
weaponization fund.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Well mentioned one category of likely applicants to this fund,
the January sixth rioters. But I'm wondering about the other
side of the coin. For example, could citizens who've been
detained or targeted by ICE access to this fund?
Speaker 1 (09:53):
Absolutely, the administration has made it clear that anybody can apply,
and so you could very well expect James Comy to apply,
the former FBI director.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
The operative word though, is apply, Chris. I mean, this
five person panel is likely to be construed with just
Trump allies. And notably, the fund is slated to run
out in twenty twenty eight, so like there's no real
chance the Democratic president would have control of this money.
So sure they came out so they can apply, but
chance of getting it I would pays very low, wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
You, Yeah?
Speaker 2 (10:24):
I would.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
I mean, the way this whole thing is being engineered
is that the money's going to be directed toward people
who Trump favors. Also, the way the commission is being
set up, Trump can fire any commissioner at any time
for any reason. There's no redress. They don't even have
to make public why these people were removed. And additionally,
the way the commission is set up, it only takes
(10:45):
two individuals in order to make a decision, so they
could put three Let's say they put three Democrats on
and two hardcore MAGA loyalists on. Those two individuals could
just go out head and steamroll everybody and make the decisions.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
Can Trump apply? Can his family apply?
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Not under the current construction. They laid out very limited conditions,
but one condition they did put in there is that
Trump and his family members cannot apply. However, they haven't
ruled out that Trump's Political Action Committee could apply. They
haven't ruled out that Trump's lawyers could apply in order
to get reimbursement. So there's ways in which money could
(11:26):
flow into Trump's coffers on some level without a direct
payment to Trump or his family members.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Plans for the fund have faced bipartisan backlash since they
were announced, So what could happen next? That's after the break.
(11:59):
The US Department of Justice's announcement of a nearly one
point eight billion dollar anti weaponization fund meant to pay
victims of alleged government law fare, has drawn backlash from
both sides of the political aisle. Democrats have framed it
as a slush fund to enrich Trump loyalists, and it's
also drawn criticism from some Republican lawmakers. I talked to
(12:22):
Bloomberg reporters Eric Wasson and Chris Strum about what that
could mean for the plan. Eric, why are Republicans coming
out against this President?
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Trump had a very difficult week toward the end of
May in Congress with pushback from Republicans. They're trying to
pass seventy two billion dollars in ICE and CBP, that's
immigration enforcement funding through the rest of the Trump's term.
They need all Republicans, or almost all Republicans to stick
completely together through this arduous budget process to ram this through.
(12:51):
They were on the cusp of doing that in the
Senate when this fund was announced. Todd Blanche went up
to the hill in a closed door meeting and he
was absolutely shell by Republicans, people like Tom Taillis and
other screaming, yelling, saying this is completely morally wrong. Others
who are closer allies of the president, like Kevin Kramer
of North Dakota, just saying the timing is terrible. Why
would you drop this right before we're trying to do
(13:13):
this big vote, and in general, it's before our midterm
where suddenly the Senate looks like it's up for grabs,
and there's a sense that the Trump administration is not
doing really much at all to help Republicans stay in power,
that Trump is focused on talking about the ballroom instead
of how to lower prices, continuing to wage an unpopular war,
and this just fed into that general frustration. There's a
(13:35):
real push, I think, among Republicans to get some kind
of guardrails on this. I think the most important one
would be to stop anybody who beat up cops or
was convicted of assaulting police officers from getting money. They're
just a feeling this creates a perverse incentive for people
to in fact assault police officers if they're going to
be paid for it. There's also talk about rearranging the
way this Committee of Five works, making it subject to
(13:57):
congressional confirmation to whether any kind of deal can be
worked out. But I do not see that seventy two
billion dollar bill moving forward unless there's at least some
kind of change to this fund, because Republicans are just
outraged about it.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
So there are a few things that could come out
of this Republican backlash year. Describing Eric one, is, you know,
changing the way that this fund works, putting more guardrails
on it. Is there a sense that this fund could
be stopped or shut down if enough Republicans or lawmakers
across the aisle oppose it.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
I think it's a realm of possibility, perhaps not likely.
In the House, we have a group of modern Republicans
led by Brian Fitzpatrick, who is in the district that
Trump lost three times. He's put together a bill to
essentially block this. He has a method for getting a
vote called the discharge petition. He's gotten several votes on
his bills. Essentially just need you know, three or four
(14:52):
Republicans and all Democrats to sign a piece of paper
and force a vote. If that's forced out of the
House floor, it could very well pass. Whether it goes
into the Senate, it gets through the Senate seems a
bit more doubtful, but it could put pressure on them
to try to come up with some kind of solution.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
What has the Trump administration and the DOJ said in
defense of the fund and the way it's structured.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
I mean, they're saying that anybody can apply. So they're
saying it's not just limited to Trump allies and MAGA
types that can make applications to get money from this fund.
So you know, that is the polish that they're trying
to put on this. I just don't think that anybody
is really buying that at this point. There, you know,
are lawsuits that have already been filed making different arguments
(15:39):
about why this fund should be stopped. The problem is
is that the fund isn't in existence right now, and
the commission hasn't been set up. It's kind of like
a chicken and egg thing where the fund needs to
come into existence and the Commission needs to take action
in order to create a class of people who have
(16:00):
standing to file lawsuits against the fund.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
So it might be too soon to tell how exactly
this fund is going to work, who's going to be
paid out? But in the meantime, have we seen anyone
apply to the fund yet?
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Nobody can apply officially, but we've seen people put up
their hands and say they are going to apply. Michael Flynn,
for example, he might be somebody that would want to apply.
Roger Stone, he was a political operative for Trump. He
was part of the organizing around the January sixth, you know,
attack on the Capitol. These are Trump allies who they
were indicted by the Justice Department for certain actions that
(16:37):
they took. Trump pardoned them. And then you have a
whole slew of people who were involved in January sixth
who were actually charged by the Justice Department and either
they pled guilty or they were convicted at trial. And
you know, I think it's important to say that you
have a lot of examples of people who had due
process through the courts in order to try to litigate
(16:59):
their claims of innocence and either eventually pled guilty or
they were convicted by a jury. And there's no sense
of how anybody on this five person committee is going
to be able to replicate what would happen in court.
And so you could have a situation right now where
somebody already filed a lawsuit against the government claiming that
(17:22):
they were victimized in a target of weaponization by the
Biden administration and their case was dismissed by an independent judge,
and now they just bypassed that all of that process
that was done is completely set aside, and they just
go into this committee and the committee secretly authorizes payments
(17:43):
to them. The way that they come to their decisions
in the amount of money that they pay may never
be made public. The settlement that was announced just says
that the committee has to make a report to the
Attorney General Todd blanche, but it doesn't say that report
ever has to be made public.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
This is The Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm Sarah Holder.
To get more from The Big Take and unlimited access
to all of Bloomberg dot com, subscribe today at Bloomberg
dot com slash podcast offer. If you liked this episode,
make sure to subscribe and review The Big Take wherever
you listen to podcasts. It helps people find the show.
Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.
Hosts And Creators
Sarah Holder
Saleha Mohsin
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The MeatEater Podcast
Building on the belief that a deeper understanding of the natural world enriches all of our lives, host Steven Rinella brings an in-depth and relevant look at all outdoor topics including hunting, fishing, nature, conservation, and wild foods. Filled with humor, irreverence, and things that will surprise the hell out of you, each episode welcomes a diverse group of guests who add their own expertise to the vast world of the outdoors. Part of The MeatEater Podcast Network.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.