Trump's new $1.776B 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' is a wild ride | About That

So here I am trying to understand the merits of Donald Trump's new $1 .8 billion fund using taxpayer money, which is supposed to reimburse Americans facing political persecution in the U .S.Except I feel like I'm trying to wrestle fog because I'm looking for accountability and not quite finding it.Like, from the official paperwork, the United States has no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguarding of those funds or any other fraud or misuse of the funds.Like, what do you mean?The U .

S.has no liability for fraud or misuse of the $1 .8 billion of taxpayer money it is about to deposit into this fund, which does what, again, exactly?

Will you commit to making these reports fully public so Americans know who's getting taxpayer dollars out of this settlement fund?

The reason why I want to be careful in my answer is because there's obviously laws that exist around privacy that may prevent some of the information that the commission takes in from being fully public.

Trump's new anti -weaponization fund is an absolute wild ride, both in terms of how it came to be and what it claims to be.

I'll explain.And we're joined now by the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Jamie Raskin.Congressman, thank you for joining us this morning.You've called this proposed settlement a fraud.Is it illegal?

So let's start with what this anti -weaponization fund is meant to pay for.The Justice Department's frame for this is that the machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American.So, it says, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.I'll note, this is a very broad and thorough process.vague and subjective mandate, but with very concrete outcomes.The Fund will have the power to issue formal apologies and monetary compensation.

owed to claimants.So the $1 .8 billion in this fund are meant to be paid to people who Trump's Justice Department determines were victims of the law.The assumption here is that one very distinct group of such victims might be the rioters on January 6th.

that was stolen from us.Release the J6 hostages.They've suffered enough.

You have the President of the United States.seemingly, without congressional approval, appropriating billions of dollars which may go to political allies.

Now, technically, someone seeking an apology and or payment through this fund could be a Republican or a Democrat.But it's worth noting, to make a successful claim, one would have to persuade a very small group of people under Trump's direct control.It's all spelled out right here in court documents.The Anti -Weaponization Fund shall consist of five members, and the man who appoints those members is Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is himself a Trump appointee.You can see the beginnings here of what one might call a conflict of interest.Only one of the members shall be chosen in consultation with congressional leadership, not by Congress, mind you, but in consultation with it, whatever that might mean.

However, all five members shall serve until they resign or are removed by the president, who can remove any member without cause.So the president appointed the attorney general who is appointing these five people who are responsible for the disbursement of $1 .8 billion, but who are allunequivocally accountable directly to the president who can fire any of them without cause.

I think we're operating in an area that perhaps is legal technically, but certainly is controversial.

It's completely a giveaway.to whoever they want to give however much they want to give money to.

And let's talk about the amount of money involved.Not actually exactly $1 .8 billion, but $1 .776 billion.1776, the birth of America.I note this only to say how we've barely even started.And I'm here questioning how much of this attorney general claim I actually believe.That the Anti -Weaponization Fund's funding is based on the projected valuation of future claimants' claims.

Is it based on projections or politics?

In two and a half centuries, that's 250 years, the spirit of 1776 has carried our flag to places and heights that our founding fathers could never have dreamed.Together we will give America the greatest birthday celebration our country has ever seen.

Truth is, I don't know what to think, because the math of arriving at what certain Americans are owed through this fund is undisclosed.And instead, what we have is a monstrously large number that could not at all plausibly calculate to exactly $1 .776 billion if this number was based on good faith calculations alone.What I'm saying is that, at best, baked into this fund is an intention to make a political point.And that's just the beginning.This fund is not its own standalone idea.It is

intimately tied to Trump's belief that he and his supporters have been victims of a U .S.S.justice system bent on punishing them.The clue here to the fund's origin story is right in the first line of this Attorney General Declaration.The settlement agreement in Trump v. IRS has created the Anti -Weaponization Fund.Trump v. IRS is a private suit launched by Trump and his family against the U .

S.government, but launched this year while Trump is president.

President Trump is suing the IRS and Treasury Department in his personal capacity for $10 billion.

So around 10 years ago, when Trump was first campaigning for president, I am officially running for president of the United States.

He was the only major nominee in 50 years to refuse to release his tax returns to the public.

plagued Trump through his first term.

But everything changed on September 27, 2020, just as Trump was preparing to leave office.An IRS contractor obtained and leaked Trump's tax returns to the New York Times.Fast forward to 2026, a year into Trump's second term as president.He sues the IRS, accusing it of not doing enough to keep his tax information safe.Except this lawsuit is now a huge problem because Trump is the head of the government agencies he is suing.He has the power to fire the people on the other side of the case.

And in fact, he did in the lead -up to it.about five months before filing his lawsuit.Trump is removing IRS chief two months after he was confirmed.And Trump's pick to replace him, Treasury Secretary Scott Besant.

President Trump's policies are reviving the American dream.And under President Trump, we are celebrating how much more money hardworking Americans will keep, not how much the government will take.

Scott Besant serves at the pleasure of the president.So too does the attorney general, who is head of the Department of Justice and considered the top legal advisor to the government.That's the same attorney general who, by the way, is creating Trump's new $1 .8 billion anti -weaponization fund.And this is where two worlds collide.

I have to work out some kind of a settlement.I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself.

So the judge in Trump v. IRS expressed reservation about Trump potentially playing both sides.

Essentially, the lawsuit's been won.I guess I won a lot of money.

In this court order, the judge writes that a key requirement of any lawsuit like this is the existence of adverseness.There must be an honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights by one individual against another, which is neither feigned nor collusive.As in, you can't make a joke of the legal system by pretending it's a fair, legitimate fight.So the judge issued a deadline for both sides to make their cases that this was a legitimate case at all.Arguments on my desk by May 20th, 2026.I'm recording this video right now on May 19th, 2026, one day before the deadline and one day after Trump just agreed to drop his family's lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for a formal apology from the United States and to provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims

of others who, like plaintiffs, state that they incurred harm from similar lawfare and weaponization.The Attorney General of the United States agrees to create the Anti -Weaponization Fund.It is to be funded by the U .S.Treasury.That's taxpayer money.

And it is operated, administered, and adjudicated by the hand -picked panel of five installed by Trump's Attorney General.

Most of the Capitol rioters were found guilty or they pleaded guilty.Now they were pardoned, which is the president's authority, but that doesn't mean that they were maliciously prosecuted or prosecuted for a constitutionally prohibited reason.So the question is, how would this fund even work?And what does weaponization really mean?

I want to make something very clear here.There are other examples of government funds that have been established to pay for past wrongs, but often these involve clearly defined harmed groups, not open -ended or politically defined categories.For example, two cases involving the U .S.Department of Agriculture over racial discrimination in denying farm loans in Keeps Eagle v. Vilsack and Pigford v. Glickman, Native American farmers and black farmers, respectively.Fairly clear criteria on who exactly qualifies for compensation, by what standard, and administered through a court -supervised claims process.

Trump's new anti -weaponization fund is not so clear.The accusation from prominent Democrats, this is a giant slush fund of taxpayer dollars.This is corruption on steroids.

Only Congress has the power to appropriate money.And Congress never voted on creating this $1 .7 billion political slush fund at the Department of Justice.And Congress would never pass that.

The president has set up a slush fund, however you want to say that it got set up.and he literally will get to choose through his hand -picked appointees who gets paid that fund.That is absurd.

What makes this fund's future hard to read is that it involves payouts to people making very politically contested claims.It risks having at least the appearance of self -dealing without the usual safeguards and oversight that would ensure this is 1 .8 billion dollars well spent.

I just must say, coming out of the gate, it doesn't look good to have something that seems very specifically designed to benefit the person who currently resides in the White House.

The problem is it's not clear who can challenge it.Congress could challenge it, but this Congress is a Republican Congress, and they're not going to challenge this president.

And I should add, the fund will also disappear into thin air as quickly as it arrived.Written into the fund's founding document is that it will stop paying money out at the very end of Trump's presidency, one month before he leaves office.