Tuesday, June 2, 2026, episode of the podcast The Excerpt: In a surprising move, the Trump administration announced it would withdraw from a $1.776 billion anti-disarmament fund that was supposed to be established as part of President Donald Trump’s settlement with the Internal Revenue Service over leaked tax returns. Ahead of this bulletin, we spoke with USA TODAY Justice Department correspondent Aisha Bagchi about the dramatic legal and political headwinds facing the Trump administration.
Press play in the player below to listen to the podcast and follow the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated and edited in its current format for clarity. There may be some differences between audio and text.
Podcast: For true crime stories, in-depth interviews, and more USA TODAY podcasts, click here
Dana Taylor:
Is the Trump Administration’s Anti-Weaponization Fund legal? Is it ethical? The $1.8 billion fund was supposed to be established as part of a settlement reached by President Donald Trump with the IRS over leaked tax returns during his first administration. One major issue for lawmakers was that the fund could be used to compensate people who they believe were unfairly targeted by the Biden administration’s Justice Department, such as those involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. One court put the funds on hold last week, and another reopened the IRS case for further scrutiny. Meanwhile, opposition from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers intensified. USA TODAY sources confirmed as of Monday evening that the Trump administration is abandoning the fight to establish the fund. What happened to cause this dramatic change of heart?
Hello. Welcome to this excerpt from USA TODAY. I’m Dana Taylor. Today is Tuesday, June 2, 2026. Before this news broke, we spoke with USA TODAY Justice Department correspondent Aisha Bagchi about the dramatic legal and political headwinds facing the Trump administration. Here is our previous conversation.
Aisha, thank you so much for coming.
Aisha Bagki:
Thank you, Danna. I’m glad to be here.
Dana Taylor:
Let’s start with the first ruling on Friday that put the brakes on the fund. What did the judge rule?
Aisha Bagki:
It’s just a provisional ruling. In that case, the judge did not consider the substance of the lawsuit. Basically, the judge said there are some complex issues going on here and we need a little more time. I would like to hear from the government what it says about the legality of the so-called anti-weaponization fund, and whether the people filing the case can actually sue the government. So the government said, “We don’t want this fund to go ahead and waste its assets. It’s something that we can’t easily reverse until we hear a little more clarification about whether we should do something more long-term to stop this fund going forward.” So this is kind of a procedural thing, but it would prevent the government from moving forward at this point.
Dana Taylor:
The second blow to the fund was delivered Friday by a federal judge in Miami. What happened there?
Aisha Bagki:
This is an actual lawsuit filed by the President against the IRS. The judge in the case ended the case after the government and President Trump’s lawyers reached a settlement, saying the settlement did not require judicial approval. The judge closed the case, but then, as you mentioned in your opening, dozens of former federal judges wrote a letter to the court and basically said, “We think you should reopen this case. We believe that potentially fraud may have been committed against the court.” We believe that you were deceived in a way that you were told to close the case because you were unaware of the arrangements that were in place between the Department of Justice and the President himself about how the case would be handled and the basis for basically creating the so-called statutory basis.” ” And the judge said, “Yes, I am going to reopen this case to investigate the allegations that this case should never have ended in the first place, that the Department of Justice has not been transparent with me about what is going on here.”
And the former federal judges in this case pointed to the fact that there have been other similar cases, with different responses from the Justice Department, and essentially argued that there was a sort of collusion between the president and the Justice Department over how to handle the cases, and that everything was designed to produce the outcome the president wanted, regardless of the lawsuit.
Dana Taylor:
Aisha, these rulings are a huge blow to the Trump administration, but the backlash doesn’t just come from the courts. Even Republican lawmakers have expressed serious concerns about the fund. what do they say?
Aisha Bagki:
yes. Senate Republicans in particular seem very concerned about the lack of parameters regarding this fund. They have rejected a spending bill to fund the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, saying they want to work something out with the Justice Department about the fund first and have various proposals for it. If that happens, there may be clear restrictions on how the funds can be used. Many Senate Republicans are particularly concerned about the money going to those actually convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and are considering other measures as well. Maybe it shouldn’t be this group of five commissioners chosen by President Trump’s attorney general. The current acting attorney general is Todd Blanche, the former president’s personal attorney. They argue that perhaps the rules need to be slightly changed in how these commissioners are selected, or that judges should be involved in the disbursement of these funds to assess who really should receive them in the first place. They have different ideas and potentially even abolish the fund altogether.
But now they’re at odds with the Trump administration, saying they want a little more clarity and possibly restrictions on what happens with this fund before they’re ready to work with the Trump administration, withholding money from what the Trump administration wants.
Dana Taylor:
Former Vice President Mike Pence also weighed in. what did he say?
Aisha Bagki:
Mike Pence also said he has concerns about the fund. In particular, he doesn’t think money should be paid to those who assaulted police officers on January 6th. He said there are other ways for the government to reach settlements with people who have legitimate lawsuits alleging unfair treatment by the government, but he believes the fund itself should be abolished. It’s not really necessary. He commented that he believes the Republican Party has lost its way on these types of issues. So he wants the fund to be abolished and other mechanisms created for people who appear to have legitimate claims against the government.
Dana Taylor:
Now, you mentioned the Capitol police officers. How did they react to this fund? What did they say?
Aisha Bagki:
Some Capitol Police officers have actually filed lawsuits themselves. This is exactly the type of legal settlement that has sparked a series of lawsuits and bipartisan efforts to resist the fund. There is great concern in various constituencies about this fund. They include the Capitol Police officer who was assaulted on January 6, and they say the fund should not move forward. They are particularly concerned about people convicted of crimes on January 6th, who they say are themselves being harmed by the fund. That’s why they think they can sue because they’ve already been harassed, even receiving death threats for speaking out about what happened on January 6th. And they say if the fund goes ahead, it will embolden those who have already harassed police officers by speaking out about what happened that day. It will make the situation even worse and the harassment they face will get even worse. Essentially, this is a new effort to rewrite the history of what happened on January 6th and undermine the kind of public condemnation that has come from Congress and many institutions on a bipartisan basis regarding efforts that day to prevent the peaceful transition of power between presidents.
Dana Taylor:
The Democratic Party is also not missing an opportunity to participate in the fund. What’s the latest information?
Aisha Bagki:
yes. Some Democrats are calling for an inspector general at the Justice Department. The inspector general is basically the person who’s there to keep an eye on what’s going on at the Department of Justice and make sure things are happening properly, and he’s there to investigate what happened here. Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is the minority leader for Democrats in the Senate, also said that Democrats and the Senate would pursue options to block the creation of the fund. That includes legislative mechanisms in the Senate, the introduction of amendments related to the fund, and other steps to push Republicans to the floor to address the issue, as well as possible legal measures to block the fund from moving forward. That’s why Democrats are so united in trying to stop this fund from going forward.
Dana Taylor:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is also considering the possibility of insurrectionists convicted on Jan. 6 receiving payments from the fund. Let’s listen.
Gavin Newsom:
One of the things we plan to do with your support is 100% tax. Any California resident who receives these funds would like to have their proceeds taxed 100%, and that’s something California can do. This is the behavior we expect.
Dana Taylor:
Aisha, does Newsom have any influence here, and perhaps other Democratic governors could follow suit?
Aisha Bagki:
That’s an interesting approach. Newsom said he could move forward with this as a way to prevent Californians from receiving these funds. Similar proposals are being made in New York and New Jersey. So it appears that there are some states that are trying to prevent people from acquiring these types of assets. It is not clear what legal issues this may pose. But again, that’s limited to states that choose to pursue these types of measures to prevent people from getting the funds.
It is notable that Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys during the January 6th insurrection, said he plans to seek millions of dollars from this fund. Since he is not a resident of those states, it is not clear whether this type of effort would prevent such a person from receiving funds. He was convicted of inciting conspiracy for actions related to the Jan. 6 attack and sentenced to 22 years in prison. He has now been pardoned. So, if he really could receive money from the government for the prosecution, this would be another way he could undo the history of what he did and what happened to him.
Dana Taylor:
Aisha Bagchi is USA TODAY’s Justice Department correspondent. Aisha, thank you so much for solving this problem for us.
Aisha Bagki:
Of course, my husband. I’m glad to be here.
Dana Taylor:
Thank you for your attention. I’m Dana Taylor. Be sure to follow the excerpt. That way, you can always read tomorrow’s story.
