5 lingering questions about Trump’s ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’

The Trump administration’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is dead.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche eulogized the $1.8 billion pot of taxpayer dollars — which the Justice Department appeared poised to dole out to allies of President Donald Trump claiming to be victims of government abuses — during a hearing with congressional appropriators Tuesday.

“We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said.

Blanche appears to be crossing his fingers that the declaration will end a short-term political headache for the White House, which has struggled to advance key legislative priorities amid bipartisan fury over the fund.

But Blanche’s comments left unresolved a host of questions about the administration’s intentions, the fate of the legal battles over the fund and whether Congress may still act to permanently prohibit the potential for payouts to Jan. 6 defendants.

Here’s a look at the lingering questions:

Can Jan. 6, rioters still be paid?

The announcement of the “anti-weaponization” fund last month immediately triggered exuberance from some of the 1,500 people Trump pardoned last year for their role in storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Dozens publicly proclaimed their desire to apply for payouts, including some who were convicted of assaulting police officers or seditious conspiracy.

That possibility became the lightning rod for criticism of the fund from the public and among lawmakers directly threatened by the Jan. 6 attack. But, despite the sweeping ring of Blanche’s assurances Tuesday, nothing forecloses payments from the Treasury to those who engaged in violence on that day.

Before the demise of the fund, DOJ officials emphasized that they already enjoy authority to order payments of essentially unlimited amounts to settle lawsuits and even legal claims not yet brought in court. That baseline authority hasn’t gone away.

Is Trump still protected?

Blanche said Tuesday that the administration is only stepping back from the $1.8 billion fund — not other aspects of the deal, including an agreement to drop all pending audits and existing financial claims related to Trump and his family members’ taxes.

Blanche appeared to say that the waiver will remain in place, but some legal experts have questioned its validity. It could be up to the IRS under a future administration to decide whether it would abide by Blanche’s promise or ignore it.

Are lawsuits DOA?

If the IRS is abandoning part of its settlement with Trump, there’s some possibility Trump could try to revive his lawsuit against the agency, although he formally dropped the case last month while agreeing not to refile it.

A spokesperson for Trump’s private legal team did not respond to questions about whether any changes are planned to the settlement, which says it can only be changed “by written agreement of the parties.”

Also still up in the air are the outcome of five lawsuits filed in recent days to halt the fund. One of those cases, in Virginia, resulted in a federal judge temporarily ordering the Justice Department to stop work on the project. It’s unclear whether Blanche’s verbal assurances that the fund is dead will be sufficient to shut down that volley of litigation or to dissuade judges from taking steps to make sure the fund doesn’t rise from the ashes.

Are legal sanctions possible?

Trump’s attorneys used Miami-based U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams’s court to facilitate the settlement and the establishment of the “anti-weaponization” fund.

Williams, an Obama appointee, now seems intent on discerning whether her court was abused in the process and whether the lawsuit was a sham from the outset.

Her inquiry doesn’t hinge on whether the “anti-weaponization” fund ever comes to fruition. In fact, it began after she initially closed the case altogether, only deciding to revisit the matter after a national backlash to the administration’s intentions.

Williams’ inquiry faces some obvious headwinds: Courts have limited power to force the executive branch to disclose details of its internal deliberations. Attorneys with the Justice Department and IRS may also have some protection because they never actually appeared before Williams or filed any pleadings in the case.

Nevertheless, Williams has taken the first step down the path toward some broader inquiry, demanding that Trump’s personal lawyers respond to allegations that the settlement was a pre-cooked outcome of a lawsuit that the Justice Department never intended to fight.

Will Congress be satisfied?

After early reports suggested the Trump administration was backing away from the fund, members of Congress — including Republican senators — clamored for more definitive assurances that no vestige of it would remain.

Democrats seem intent on pushing for votes to permanently bar the establishment of a similar fund or for payouts to those convicted of assaulting police officers at the Capitol, although it’s unclear how Trump’s broad pardon of Jan. 6 rioters might impact such restrictions.

Congress could also decide it wants to reassert its power of the purse over financial settlements. Back in 1961, Congress gave the Justice Department authority to make payments of up to $100,000 from the Judgment Fund to settle claims and cases. In 1977, lawmakers removed that cap, essentially green-lighting settlements of unlimited size. Following the blow-up over Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund, some lawmakers have signaled that they’d support returning to some cap on DOJ’s discretion to make big payouts.