Search results for "slush fund"

New court battle reveals Trump’s slush fund far from dead: expert

On Wednesday night, a new twist in the court case pitting President Donald Trump versus the IRS indicated that the controversial anti-weaponization “slush fund” that emerged from his initial settlement is anything but dead. According to Lawfare senior editor Roger Parloff, Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter filed a motion demanding that the case be reassigned to a new judge, claiming that the one currently presiding rushed an opinion in an effort to produce it before Attorney General Todd Blanche was confirmed.

On July 13, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams had issued a blistering slapdown of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and its resulting slush fund settlement. As Politico explains, “Williams accused Trump of filing the lawsuit to ‘gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a “settlement” that had no viable basis in law or fact.’ She also said exempting Trump from audits would violate a federal law that prohibits the White House from directing IRS investigations.” She went on to note “that the case itself defied legal procedure because Trump sued an administration he runs, essentially putting him in the position of both plaintiff and defendant.”

“The court declines to adopt or accept the credulous exercise of divorcing President Trump’s current job title from an understanding of what happened here,” wrote Williams. “The Lead Plaintiff and the Government are one, a fully realized unitary interest.” In other words, she ruled that there had been collusion between both sides of the suit, issued sanctions against Trump’s attorneys, and ordered an investigation into whether there had been an effort to mislead the court.

Trump has appealed the ruling. While he initially backed away from the fund in an effort to secure Blanche’s confirmation, he has maintained his demand for immunity from IRS audits. Now with Blanche confirmed, commentators say Trump is likely to resume his push for both the fund and immunity.

In their appeal, Trump’s lawyers said Williams’ order “incorrectly branded the litigation collusive, mistakenly accused Plaintiffs and counsel of bad faith, threatened professional licenses and reputations, imposed monetary sanctions, and entered a sweeping injunction forbidding future reference to the Settlement Agreement.” Now, McCotter’s request that the case be reassigned asserts that Judge Williams’ order “contains numerous factual errors, typos, and erroneous citations, all suggesting a rush to issue Order.” He alleges that the “circumstances give the strong appearance that the rushed issuance was done for an improper political motivation,” because the order “repeatedly criticized the actions and ethics of the Department of Justice and Mr. Blanche.”

Regardless of whether or not these assertions end up holding water, they make clear that Trump and his allies intend to continue pursuing a slush fund to benefit J6 rioters and tax audit immunity for the president and his family.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

IRS workers sue over Trump 'slush fund' claiming a hidden legal trap

President Donald Trump's administration is being sued by a group of IRS workers because they claim his $1.776 billion slush fund for his supporters, by including a requirement that neither Trump nor his family ever be audited, requires them to break the law.

"An organization representing career Internal Revenue Service employees has joined a lawsuit over the contentious settlement reached in connection with President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS, challenging a carveout that would give him and members of his family immunity from certain tax audits," reported NBC News' Ryan J. Reilly on Thursday. "A Jan. 6 prosecutor fired by the Trump administration and others previously sued to block a fund that could have gone to Trump allies who said they were victims of weaponization, potentially including Jan. 6 rioters. A federal judge then temporarily blocked the fund from moving forward in May."

Reilly added, "Now, an amended version of lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia on Thursday afternoon alleges that the IRS audit immunity that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche agreed to for Trump and his family members in connection with the purported settlement is unlawful and unconstitutional. The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents career IRS auditors, has joined the litigation."

In their official filing, the National Treasury Employees Union argued that Trump is lying about canceling the slush fund and that, regardless, the demand that he not be audited is legally unenforceable.

"[The Department of Justice's] concurrent statement about the Immunity Order purports to narrow the scope of that Order but does not rescind it," the case said. "This unsigned piece of paper, which carries no more weight than a press release, confirms that the IRS will terminate tax audits and liability at the request of the President and conscript Plaintiff NTEU members into violating their oath and the Internal Revenue Code to grant the President with an unconstitutional emolument."

The lawsuit places career civil servants at the center of an unprecedented constitutional showdown over executive power and tax compliance. By forcing IRS auditors to grant lifetime immunity, the administration effectively commands them to violate their professional oaths to uphold the tax code equally. Legal experts warn that if the immunity order stands, it establishes a dangerous double standard, transforming a federal agency into a political shield. With the National Treasury Employees Union now driving the litigation, the battle moves beyond mere partisan fighting to focus on safeguarding the institutional integrity of the nation's tax system against unprecedented presidential overreach.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Trump officials 'still fighting' to keep 'slush fund' alive: legal expert

Back in June — before then-Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and took over the position permanently — the Donald Trump loyalist claimed that the Trump administration's "anti-weaponization fund" was "not moving forward." But according to MS NOW legal reporter Fallon Gallagher, Trump officials haven't "forgotten" about the $1.8 billion fund and are "still fighting to keep it alive."

MAGA Republicans described the "anti-weaponization fund" as a way to compensate people it claims were wrongly prosecuted under former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland during the Biden administration. But critics attacked it as a "slush fund," arguing that taxpayers would be giving money to Trump supporters who violently attacked the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.

Gallagher, reporting for MS NOW, warns that while the $1.8 billion fund "has largely faded from headlines," the Trump administration "hasn't forgotten" about it.

"The fight is returning to federal court in Virginia on Friday," Gallagher explains. "U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema is set to hear arguments over the government's bid to dismiss the most successful legal challenge to the fund. This is the same judge who blocked the fund indefinitely in June. When Brinkema blocked the fund, she gave the government an opportunity to declare — under penalty of perjury — that it would not move forward with the fund in any way, shape or form in the future. If they did that, she indicated she would likely dismiss the case."

Gallagher continues, "The government did not file that declaration. But on Friday, the Justice Department will ask the same judge to dismiss the case, the exact thing the judge likely would have done had the government filed it in response the first time she requested it. This feels like a case of — to use a movie quote — 'so, you're telling me there's a chance?'"

The lawsuit was brought by Democracy Forward, whose president, Skye Perryman, is certain that Trump and his allies aren't giving up on the fund.

Perryman told MS NOW, "It's very clear that this administration had no interest in halting the fund. They have halted the fund because of the court order that's in place blocking the fund. This administration continues to try to avoid accountability from the courts and from the people, which is why they're trying to move to dismiss a case about something that is clearly unlawful and something that's very unpopular. That is their MO, is to try to dismiss cases in order to avoid accountability."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

George Conway thinks he knows who Trump's 'incompetent personal advisor' is

On Friday, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) posted the assertion that some “incompetent personal advisor” had convinced President Donald Trump he should continue pursuing his controversial “slush fund.” Commentators have been guessing the identity of said advisor ever since, and many have drawn the same conclusion: it was Trump himself.

“The President made it clear today that the so-called Anti Weaponization Fund is still alive, which is exactly why we are attempting to formally end it,” posted Tillis. “While I never disagreed that the Biden Administration pursued a number of vindictive prosecutions related to January 6, the criminals who assaulted police officers and defiled our nation’s Capitol are not ‘great American patriots’ who are ‘victims of government abuse.’ Anyone who attacked law enforcement should still be in prison, not getting a check from the federal government.”

Tillis wrote this in response to an earlier post from Trump, in which the president claimed “there has never been a group of people treated so badly in our Nation’s history,” referring to January 6 insurrectionists and saying they should be "paid back.” The Senator made it clear that he does not agree, writing, “Senator Cornyn and I have been working with Acting AG Todd Blanche to end the Anti Weaponization Fund, and he has been forthright, thoughtful and patient. It’s a shame his confirmation has hit a snag only because an incompetent personal advisor to the President refuses to amend the bogus settlement.”

The internet lit up with guesses as to who the advisor could be.

Attorney and Democratic congressional candidate George Conway, who was formerly married to one of Trump’s top first-term advisors, mused suggestively, “Is there a prediction market play on who the ‘incompetent personal advisor’ is?” One response captured the gist of his implication, guessing, “John Barron” — the name many suspect Trump uses as a pseudonym for calling into C-SPAN.

“JFC,” declared a popular political account. “The ‘incompetent personal advisor’ is TRUMP!”

"Incompetent personal advisor,” noted another. “President Trump famously almost never takes advice.”

“Is this ‘advisor’ physically inside of Trump's head right now?” wondered another. “Answer: Yes, it's Trump.”

“ITS THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF DIPSH–,” said another still.

Others have asserted that it could be “anyone from that garbage administration,” someone else in the GOP, or Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s personal senior counsel since 2025, whose team handled Trump’s IRS lawsuit. Many also took issue with Tillis, suggesting he was using the euphemism to avoid giving Trump his due blame.

“You’ve already pissed off Trump,” said one. “Why are you still deflecting his responsibility here?”

“Lmao dude,” said another. “YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONDING TO THE PRESIDENT HERE. THIS IS *HIS* POSITION. Why are you giving him the benefit of ‘bad advice?’ My god you are pathetic. “

“FFS,” one asked, “Why must you still genuflect to the cult leader?”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

GOP senator abruptly halts meeting after Trump pick ignores demand to kill slush fund

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has canceled his meeting with President Donald Trump's candidate for attorney general, Todd Blanche, after the Justice Department made it clear it doesn't have any further information on confirmation that the so-called "slush fund" was officially eliminated as a possibility, reported MS NOW producer Kyle Griffin.

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Blanche was questioned about the nearly $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that could be used to give a kind of restitution to anyone who felt they'd been wronged by the DOJ in the past. This includes Jan. 6 attackers who both confessed and were convicted of crimes related to a violent riot at the U.S. Capitol Building.

“Hopefully they now recognize the seriousness of this,” said Cornyn, according to a Politico report. “I haven’t seen a single piece of writing that is responsive to what I’ve requested.”

“Maybe they think I’m just going to give up or, you know, go along, but they’re mistaken," he added.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Cornyn must indicate whether he's a "yay or nay" on Blanche by 4 p.m. on Wednesday. According to Politico, Grassley needs to know "if the vote could go forward, putting the Trump administration on a tight timeline if it wants Blanche confirmed before the Senate starts its summer recess next week."

Blanche has maintained for the past several months that the fund is "dead" and that it would not be created. The problem, Cornyn said, is that the legal agreement that Blanche and Trump came to about the IRS would still establish the fund. Trump sued the IRS after his personal information was leaked in a data breach along with over 405,000 other people and businesses.

When Blanche asserted the fund was "moot," Cornyn asked, "Well, I would refer you to the settlement agreement. Do you happen to have a copy of that in front of you?"

Cornyn read the language verbatim from page four of the agreement: "This settlement agreement can be modified, may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties. Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement fund?"

Blanche claimed that the fund was not going forward, so there is no modification to the agreement between Trump and the government.

"Well, so the settlement agreement remains as it was originally. But I hear what you're saying is it — is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?" he asked.

Blanche said that it was and would be considered an "enforceable document."

Kathleen Williams, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, published a 56-page ruling not only denouncing the case as "an exercise in self-dealing," but also bashing Trump's so-called "settlement" over his IRS lawsuit, a case "that had no viable basis in law or fact."

Blanche has continued to refuse to sign a legal document asserting that the slush fund is dead.

From Your Site Articles

'Facts are stubborn things': Judge ruling a 'masterclass' on smacking down Trump

On Tuesday, a federal judge issued a ruling on President Donald Trump’s controversial IRS “slush fund” settlement that attorney and legal analyst Jay Kuo calls a “masterclass in legal analysis and logic.” As a result, Trump’s effort to reward his loyalists has been seriously hindered.

According to Kuo, “U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams, an Obama appointee sitting in Miami, handed down a 56-page order in Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, voiding the ‘settlement’ between President Trump and his own Justice Department and referring two of his lawyers for possible discipline. The fact pattern she tackled — a sitting president suing an agency he controls, then ‘settling’ with himself to secure a windfall benefiting his political allies — was straight out of a law professor’s box of exam tricks. But it was no match for Judge Williams. She not only dismantled the government’s claims, but also identified new novel concerns.”

Kuo says that it was clear where the decision was headed when the judge wrote in its first pages that she declined to accept “the credulous exercise of divorcing President Trump’s current job title from an understanding of what happened here.” In other words, she was making clear the “conflict of interest” that arose from the president overseeing settlements with himself.

Furthermore, the legal precedent had already been set that courts “do not engage in the academic pastime of rendering judgments in favor of persons against themselves.” In other words, Trump can’t be on “both sides of his own case,” which was precisely what Judge Williams found, concluding that the “Lead Plaintiff and the Government are one, a fully realized unitary interest,” and that it was “risible” to suggest “that there was ever adverseness between the Parties.” So essentially, notes Kuo, the judge was agreeing with Trump’s own assessment offered months ago when he declared, “I’m suing myself.” It turns out that’s illegal.

What’s more, Trump’s attorneys had already argued successfully to the Supreme Court that no one in the Executive Branch can be legally “adverse” to the Chief Executive. But now they were arguing the opposite: that the IRS and Treasury were “independent adversaries” of Trump. The judge noted this contradiction.

At this point, says Kuo, the case was essentially over, but the judge went on to support her opinion with a number of other factors. For example, Attorney General Todd Blanche had ordered that the IRS be barred from auditing Trump, but federal statute expressly makes it a crime “for any ‘applicable person,’ including the president and specified White House officials, to ‘request, directly or indirectly’ that the IRS start or stop an audit of a specific taxpayer. Williams wrote that the audit-immunity provision ‘directly contravenes’ the statute.”

She also raised questions as to whether Trump was following constitutional requirements that he “faithfully execute” the laws rather than suspend them for his own benefit. Then there was the constitutional question of “emoluments” beyond the president’s fixed salary, and the judge suggested Trump’s settlement may qualify as illegal compensation.

Beyond that she cited a number of ethics codes, but according to Kuo, the whole opinion can be boiled down to five “uncontroverted facts: 1. Donald Trump is President. 2. President Trump controls the actions of the Secretary of the Treasury Department, the IRS Commissioner and all Executive Branch actors. 3. President Trump, through Executive Order 14215, also controls the litigation strategy and interpretation of the laws guiding the Department of Justice. 4. For the 109 days that this case was pending, no attorney representing the United States filed a notice of appearance or any document indicating the government’s position, interest or awareness of the matter. 5. Defendants’ actions are consonant with the dictates of Executive Order 14215.”

“Because there was never a proper case before the Court,” she therefore concluded, “there was nothing to settle.”

She ended her opinion by quoting John Adams, noting, “facts are stubborn things.” Whatever the parties wished, whatever they’d already agreed among themselves before ever walking into a courtroom, she wrote, they “cannot alter the state of the facts or evade the rule of law.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Not so fast: Trump 'slush fund' is not permanently 'dead' — yet

On Monday, it was announced that President Donald Trump will drop his $1.8 billion slush fund, with sources saying, “It’s dead for now.” As some experts are pointing out, however, that “for now” could mean something, and Senate Republicans may still have to take action to prevent the administration from giving the fund another try.

“They disagree with the ruling, but ‘will abide’ by it,” posted Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman over a retweet of the DOJ’s announcement. “I think Rs are still gonna want something in reconciliation to make sure that admin doesn't do this in the future.” Punchbowl’s senior congressional reporter shared his sentiments, posting, “Something tells me this is not going to be satisfactory to enough Senate Republicans.” “This won’t satisfy Senate R’s,” Reese Gorman of NOTUS agreed.

“Boy do we have a bill for them!” replied Jacob Peters, Communications Director for Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ). Kelly has become a vocal opponent and frequent target of the administration ever since advocating that military service members refuse illegal orders.

The announcement of the fund’s demise comes on the heels of news that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) had told Trump that he either had to shut down the fund or lose his budget reconciliation.

“I made my views very clear on the issue,” Thune said. “I do think the best way to handle it is if the administration decides to shut it down themselves.”

The fund had drawn bipartisan fury over the likelihood that it would benefit convicted January 6 rioters, with a major Florida editorial board calling it “the biggest heist in history.” In a rare moment of alignment, anger at the fund prompted vocal pushback from Republicans, “imaginative” plans to thwart it from Democrats, and even a legislative collaboration between the two parties.

The final straw seems to have come when a number of Republican Senators threatened to block an immigration and border control budget reconciliation bill, a key GOP priority that has faced an uphill battle. Now the bill has been cleared of this impediment, but another remains. “This likely clears way for Senate GOP to pass the $70 billion immigration enforcement funding bill in the coming days,” noted Semafor congressional chief Burgess Everett, “assuming ballroom security stays out of bill.”

This is a reference to what has proven to be another hindrance to the bill: $1 billion in funding for security at Trump’s White House ballroom. Americans oppose the project by an overwhelming margin of 2-to-1, and with the midterms looming, Congressional Republicans are desperate to diminish the already heavy headwinds caused by the war with Iran and skyrocketing prices. The elimination of the slush fund provides much-needed breathing room to their jam-packed, make-or-break legislative week ahead, and takes off some pressure with November approaching.

But while many opponents of the fund are celebrating its demise, some experts point out that the delay may not be permanent. “That ruling is temporary order while litigation proceeds,” noted Ryan Goodman, Chaired Professor at NYU Law. “Reporting sounds broader than complying with temporary order, but instead responding to political concerns from Republicans on Hill etc to drop the fund.”

As Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney clarified, “Folks the court did NOT rule that the fund is dead. She only ruled that for a two-week period the fund would be on pause while the judge could sort through the legal issues. Abiding by the court order does not mean killing the fund.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

'You have failed': Judge tears into Trump DOJ lawyers in IRS case

On Friday, a federal judge put Department of Justice lawyers on blast for their "untenable" explanations as to why they won't provide information about President Donald Trump's lawsuit against the IRS. “You have failed on both ends of the discovery process,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis told Justice Department senior counsel Andrew Block. “That cannot continue.”

According to Bloomberg, "At a hearing on Friday, a federal magistrate judge in Alexandria, Virginia, accused the U.S. of failing to comply with court rules by refusing to fully respond to questions about the origins of the arrangement with Trump. The judge gave both sides another chance to reach an agreement before he takes a heavier hand in dictating what the government must produce. However, he did order the release of certain preliminary disclosures in the next week. The lawsuit in Virginia by a group of Trump critics challenges a now-defunct plan to create a $1.8 billion fund for victims of alleged government 'weaponization' as well as a still-active order from Attorney General Todd Blanche immunizing Trump, several of his family members and his company from audits into past tax filings. As part of that arrangement, Trump dropped his lawsuit in Florida against the IRS."

A key sticking point in the case, explains Bloomberg, "involves requests by the challengers for the names of individuals involved not only in creating or executing the fund plan and the broader settlement agreement, but also in the 'conception' of the terms. Blanche announced he would abandon the fund plan in response to Republican opposition, but Trump has continued to express support for the idea and the settlement agreement hasn’t been formally changed."

On Friday, Judge Davis said the Justice Department had to produce names or explain why such information would be protected under attorney-client privilege or other rationale, but noted that it had done neither. According to Bloomberg, the judge declared that, "The government’s stance on what’s known as discovery — the exchange of evidence and information in litigation — was 'untenable.'" Toward the end of the hearing, the judge told Block that although he understood “you’re not running the show,” the rules apply to all parties involved.

The judge's assertions come as Trump has received a string of blows in court. Earlier today, for example, a federal judge denied his request to have the appeal against his felony convictions transferred to a higher court, which would have fast-tracked his case to the Supreme Court. In that case, the judge said the arguments presented by Trump's attorneys were "neither new nor legally sufficient."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Republicans who fell for Blanche 'being made absolute fools': ex-prosecutor

Former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori trounced Republicans willing to accept new Attorney General Todd Blanche's claims about a possible "slush fund" being dead.

Republican Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Dr. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) all took issue with President Donald Trump's push to create a $1.8 billion "slush fund" for people who believe they were unfairly targeted by the federal government.

CNN's Boris Sanchez and Brianna Keilar asked the lawyer on Thursday, about Blanche's speech to the Justice Department this week as he officially took over as attorney general. The speech restated that he would not establish the anti-weaponization fund. But Khardori said that Blanche doesn't need to. A fund already exists, and the Trump administration has been using it.

"They have a readily available recourse. Actually, many of these Jan. 6th defendants have submitted claims ... under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the government connected to their the charges against them," Khardori explained.

In those cases, Blanche and the Trump administration "can settle those cases and make payouts on a 1-to-1 basis, rather than out of a fund, and can do so potentially without — well can do so without any judicial oversight and potentially without the public even knowing."

The ex-prosecutor called it "unfortunate" but said the situation was "eminently predictable."

"All I have to say to the Republican senators who fell for the dog-and-pony show around this fund and it being dead and took the, you know, the signature on the piece of paper from Todd Blanche as if it put this to bed. They're being made absolute fools of," said Khardori.

As The Guardian explained about the Federal Tort Claims Act, "The Justice Department has complete and unchecked discretion over whether to settle the claims, giving the Trump administration a powerful vehicle to reward those responsible for violence on January 6."

“If the Treasury Department is not going to enforce the restrictions on the use of the judgment fund, which is to settle impending or imminent lawsuits where there’s some risk of liability, then there’s no limit on what you can use that judgment fund money for, so long as someone files a bogus claim,” said Rupa Bhattacharyya, former director of the DOJ's director in the civil division’s tort branch.

Peter Ticktin, a Florida attorney and friend of Trump's, said he's filed about 400 claims for cash from Jan. 6 attackers who were either found guilty or pleaded guilty for their crimes.

One of those demanding $2.5 million is Andrew Taake, a Houston man who pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer with bear spray and a whip-like weapon. He was sentenced six years in prison until he was pardoned by Trump.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Republicans and Democrats team up to tank Trump 'slush fund'

In a divided political landscape, one of the few things that seems to have united politicians from both sides of the aisle is outrage at the “slush fund” that has emerged from President Donald Trump’s IRS settlement. Political leaders of all stripes have expressed anger at the idea that $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars could go to those convicted of committing crimes during the January 6 riots, and now one piece of bipartisan legislation seeks to put a stop to it.

Co-authored by Representatives Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), the Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act declares that “no federal funds may be used for the payment of any claim submitted to the Anti-Weaponization Fund, established by the Department of Justice on May 18, 2026.” And that’s all there is to it. It’s an exceptionally concise piece of legislation that, if adopted, would effectively mean the end of Trump’s slush fund.

There is no reference, however, to another highly controversial aspect of the settlement, which barred the IRS from auditing the taxes of Trump, his family, or anyone in his organization “forever.” According to former IRS commissioner John Koskinen, he’s “never heard” of such a deal, and it raises important questions: “You do have to wonder what's in those returns that makes it so important for them not to be audited.”

The announcement of the fund’s creation has drawn widespread condemnation and has thrown the GOP into disarray. On Thursday, Trump’s acting Attorney General and former personal lawyer, Todd Blanche, met with congressional Republicans in an attempt to win their support for the fund, which one conservative Senator has referred to as “tyranny.” The meeting was an abject failure, with Republicans adjourning for the Memorial Day break not only with no agreement on the fund, but without approving an immigration and border enforcement budget reconciliation bill they had hoped to have ready for Trump’s signature by Friday.

Republican opposition to the fund may not only spoil what Trump loyalists viewed as a major windfall — with convicted J6ers already saying they expect payouts as high as $30 million — but has upended much of the party’s current agenda. The relentless chaos and infighting will likely impact the GOP’s already suffering midterm chances, and they know it. As one Republican Senator said after the Blanche meeting failed to produce results, “Our majority is melting down before our eyes.”

Meanwhile, some Democrats are grabbing the popcorn to watch as the GOP implodes.

“It looks like Republicans are blowing up the whole damn reconciliation over Trump’s corrupt cop-beater-slush fund,” said a visibly delighted Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). “Oh my lord, what a mess. But it’s a good thing for America.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Judge halts Trump’s slush fund

An order from a federal judge in Virginia has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund.

Last week, Trump came to an "agreement" with the Justice Department that a fund would be set up to give settlements to those who felt they'd been wronged by the government. It prompted a lot of questions from members of Congress about whether taxpayer dollars would be given to those who staged a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, tearing apart the historic building, terrorizing lawmakers and staff and beating police officers. Trump then withdrew his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.

By Friday, the federal judge paused his new "fund."

"Because full briefing of the issue will enhance the ability of the Court to make a sound decision, plaintiffs Expedited Motion, is DENIED and defendants' request for additional time is GRANTED; however, to ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed from the Anti-Weaponziation Fund while plaintiffs' Motion is pending it is hereby ORDERED that defendants be and are ENJOINED from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the dispersing of any funds from the Fund..." the order says.

A footnote also reads, "It is important that the status quo be maintained until plaintiffs' pending Motion has been resolved, especially as plaintiffs allege in their Expedited Motion that defense counsel 'was unable to provide assurances of how long [the] status quo would last' and declined plaintiffs' 'request that the government commit to not transferring money to the Fund or processing or paying claims until at least June 19 to allow for less compressed briefing in this case.'"

Judge Leonie Brinkema, an appointee by former President Bill Clinton, is presiding over the case in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The hearing is set for June 12, where she will hear arguments about whether the pause will last longer.

From Your Site Articles
@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.