The order temporarily halts funding and organization of the fund while a judge considers arguments against the program, which critics have called a slush fund to reward the president’s supporters.
Could the January 6th rioters benefit from President Trump’s Justice Department funding?
Who will benefit from President Trump’s $1.776 billion Justice Department fund? Let’s take a closer look at the legal, ethical, and political issues.
WASHINGTON – A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s action to establish a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people the Justice Department deemed unfairly investigated.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia ordered the Trump administration to take no further action, including creating or administering the Anti-Weaponization Fund, or considering any pending claims or disbursing funds to the fund. She set a hearing for June 12.
The Department of Justice created the fund as part of a settlement of a lawsuit brought by President Trump and his family against the Internal Revenue Service in the wake of leaked tax returns. Democrats and some public interest groups denounced the proposed program as a slush fund to reward the president’s political allies.
The White House referred questions about the order to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Fund established after President Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS
The Justice Department announced on May 18 that it would provide $1.776 billion to “victims of legal battles and weapons charges” as part of a $10 billion settlement of a lawsuit filed by Trump and his family against the Internal Revenue Service.
Some criticism of the fund is that it could benefit people who were convicted or charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and later pardoned by President Trump.
President Trump said a five-person committee overseen by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would decide how to allocate the funds.
Opponents ridicule ‘slush funds’ for Trump allies
But Congressional Democrats argue that the fund is unconstitutional because lawmakers traditionally decide how federal funds are spent. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the fund “one of the most depraved” of President Trump’s “corrupt schemes” and said Democrats would continue to fight it in the courts and Congress.
Opponents of the fund, including those who filed the lawsuit, argued that it would become a “slush fund” for President Trump to reward political allies. The lawsuit was brought by Andrew Floyd, a former assistant U.S. attorney for Virginia. Jonathan Caravello, professor at California State University, Channel Islands. New Haven, Connecticut. and advocacy groups Common Cause and the National Abortion Federation.
Caravello was arrested during a protest against the government’s immigration crackdown. Floyd prosecuted those who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and was fired by the Trump administration. New Haven had been the target of administrative litigation and funding disputes. However, the lawsuit argues that the plaintiffs cannot demand “an apology, let alone compensation” from the fund.
“The Department of Justice and the Treasury Department created a $1.776 billion slush fund of taxpayer dollars to make payments to individuals favored by the Trump-Vance administration,” the complaint states. “Since its inception, this fund has been on a collision course with the U.S. Constitution.”
Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, which represents those suing the Justice Department, said no administration has the authority to spend public money through political pay programs that have never been authorized by Congress.
“Mr. Brinkema recognized the urgent need to stop taxpayer funds from being distributed through a secret and unprecedented political compensation system before its legality could be fully reviewed in court,” Perryman said in a statement.
Derek Muller, a professor at the University of Notre Dame School of Law, said there are “significant” questions on social media about whether the plaintiffs will be allowed to sue. But he said the hearing schedule would give both sides time to submit full written arguments for Brinkema to consider before the government takes irreversible steps toward creating the fund or distributing the funds.
