General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump Aides Reportedly Discussing Whether to Kill 'Anti-Weaponization' Fund
Top advisers to President Donald Trump have discussed nixing the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday evening.
Citing sources familiar with the situation, the Journal reported, More than a dozen Republican senators have privately urged top Trump aides to drop the fund since its creation last week. Among them was Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The Department of Justice established the fund this month in exchange for Trump dropping his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. In January, the president sued his own administration for $10 billion, stemming from a leak of his tax returns during his first term. His sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, who run the Trump Organization, also sued. Based on the leaks, the Times reported in 2020 that the billionaire president paid just $750 in income tax in 2016 and in 2017.
Administration officials have grown increasingly concerned about the viability of the fund, people familiar with the matter said, which had been expected to provide payouts to an array of Trump allies, the Journal stated. Trump hasnt agreed to drop the fund, but has told allies that he understands he has political problems with Senate Republicans, the people said.
White House aides have suggested Trump kill the fund in exchange for immigration enforcement funding from Congress.
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump/new-trump-aides-reportedly-discussing-whether-to-kill-anti-weaponization-fund/
Raven123
(7,924 posts)No, we shouldnt have a slush fund, but lets not forget what he really wants.
LetMyPeopleVote
(182,619 posts)The ruling was a blow to both President Trump, who had voluntarily dismissed the suit last week, and to the Justice Department, which used the suit to establish a fund likely intended for Trump allies.
Link to tweet
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/29/us/politics/trump-irs-lawsuit-ruling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.mFA.muWo.MFi8gLTfd6Q-&smid=nytcore-ios-share
The ruling by the judge, Kathleen M. Williams, on Friday to revive the case shortly after closing it was a significant blow both to Mr. Trump, who had voluntarily dismissed the suit last week, and to the Justice Department. After the president withdrew the suit, senior department officials released a pair of extraordinary agreements that settled the case by establishing a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people who claimed they were victims of government weaponization by Democrats.
The deal also conferred lucrative tax benefits on Mr. Trump, his family and his businesses.
Judge Williamss decision came in response to court papers filed on Wednesday by a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges who urged her to bring the case back to life and dig into the details of the agreement to settle it.....
In her brief but stern order on Friday, Judge Williams said that she wanted to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Trumps efforts to settle the lawsuit in a way that benefited him and his allies. If she succeeds in moving forward with her inquiry, it could ultimately result in questions being asked of the Justice Department leaders who signed the agreements to settle the suit chief among them, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, and Stanley Woodward Jr., the No. 3 official in the department.
In her order, Judge Williams asserted that she was empowered to investigate serious misconduct in any case before her, and ordered Mr. Trumps lawyers to tell her by June 12 whether the lawsuit should be formally reopened because the court was the victim of a fraud......
Mr. Trumps suit, as I.R.S. officials laid out in their memo and other lawyers have noted, had clear legal flaws. Potential defenses against it include that it was filed after the statute of limitations, and that it incorrectly faulted the I.R.S. for the actions of Mr. Littlejohn, previously a contractor employed by Booz Allen Hamilton. But the Justice Department never made an attempt to contest Mr. Trumps suit. No government lawyer entered an appearance in the case.
That has fueled criticism that the deal the Justice Department struck with Mr. Trump was not a genuine attempt to avoid a loss on the merits to the president in court, but instead a scheme to provide him and his political allies with public benefits.
In a footnote, Judge Williams questioned the provision granting Mr. Trump, his family and their businesses immunity from I.R.S. scrutiny of tax returns they had already filed. She wrote that the audit protection may run afoul of Justice Department rules requiring legal settlements to directly relate to the issues in the suit.