Republicans 'clash' as Congress left 'fuming' over Trump's slush fund: report

Senate Majority Leader John Thune arrives for President Donald Trump's State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., February 24, 2026. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

Republicans in Congress left for their latest recess "fuming," according to The Hill, with the House and Senate camps set to "clash" over how to approach President Donald Trump's widely derided Justice Department "slush fund" and other key legislation.

The DOJ last week announced a settlement for Trump's $10 billion IRS lawsuit that would instead set up a $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund for anyone who claims that the government targeted them for their political beliefs. Critics immediately pounced on the idea, decrying it as another effort to pilfer the U.S. Treasury to pay out money to Trump's allies. They also noted that the terms of the fund were vague, meaning that any number of criminals could potentially get paid from it, and it could never be held accountable by Congress.

On Monday, The Hill reported that "House and Senate Republicans were fuming as they left Washington last week for a long holiday break," but over different issues, with Senate Republicans steaming over the slush fund, and their House colleagues mad over how it disrupted major immigration legislation.

"While many Senate Republicans were furious with the Trump administration for creating a new $1.8 billion 'anti-weaponization' fund at the Justice Department — a surprise development prompting Senate GOP leaders to abandon plans to move an immigration enforcement bill before the weekend," The Hill explained. "Many House Republicans welcomed the idea of compensating 'victims of lawfare.' Their anger was directed instead at their Senate colleagues for leaving town before the immigration package was passed."

“[Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche] said they are setting up a fund to compensate all Americans who have been the subject, the target of lawfare or weaponization of the federal government," House Speaker Mike Johnson told the press. "Again, that’s not a partisan proposition either — everybody should support that. He did not say who will be eligible, that there’s many details to be filled out on that. And … I’m not going to comment on that until it comes out.”

“It’s stupid,” Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, told The Hill. “We’ve wasted a whole daggum week, and I think it’s kind of pathetic.”

“It’s frustrating,” Rep. Eric Burlison, a Missouri Republican, said. “The Senate has got to — they’ve got to figure this out, how they’re going to start functioning.”

“Not a big fan, and I’m not sure exactly how they intend to use it,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told Punchbowl News. “I don’t see a purpose for that.”

“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops?” former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement after the settlement was announced. “Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick.”

The Hill argued that the divide stems from the different constituencies at play: Senators have to represent the diverse populations of an entire state, while Representatives are more narrowly focused on their own districts. The immigration funding bill at the heart of the conflict, the report added, now appears poised to miss Trump's June 1 deadline for it, which will only be exacerbated if the Senate demands a provision that limits the parameters of the DOJ slush fund against House opposition.

From Your Site Articles