Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) pushed back Sunday against mounting criticism of the Department of Justice's newly established $1.78 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” dismissing the uproar as overblown. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Donalds argued that similar compensation mechanisms existed under President Barack Obama, pointing to settlements after the IRS was sued for targeting conservative groups.
“This is not new,” Donalds told host Shannon Bream. “It happened under the Obama administration after the IRS had been sued multiple times, and they settled with groups. This has occurred before.” He emphasized that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has insisted the fund is nonpartisan.
The fund stems from a settlement in President Donald Trump's lawsuit against the IRS after his tax returns were leaked to the press earlier this year. Under the deal, the DOJ will pay out compensation and issue formal apologies to individuals who claim they were politically victimized by the federal government.
But the program has sparked a firestorm among Republicans on Capitol Hill. GOP senators revolted over the fund, with discontent forcing an early adjournment before the Memorial Day weekend, derailing a planned party-line budget reconciliation bill that would have funded Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. The internal GOP rift has been exacerbated by fears that the fund could pay out to individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot, a prospect that has drawn sharp condemnations from both parties.
In a separate development, CNBC host Kernen slammed the fund as a “retribution fund,” while Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) demanded the DOJ explicitly exclude January 6 rioters from eligibility. Meanwhile, figures like former Trump administration official John Acosta and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell have already signaled they will seek payouts, raising concerns about a flood of claims.
Donalds defended the fund's structure, arguing that it simply redirects money from the IRS settlement to help others wronged by the government. “Anybody who's been victimized by our government for political purposes, they can actually apply to the fund,” he said. “The dollars are there because IRS lost this case, and they settled it because they did victimize the commander-in-chief, and instead of taking the money, he said, ‘Put it into a fund for other people.’ Now everybody's losing their minds. I don't understand that.”
The controversy has also drawn in President Trump, who recently blasted Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) as a “nitpicker” for questioning the fund's scope. Blanche, the acting attorney general, has defended the program, arguing that “people that hurt police get money all the time,” a comment that further inflamed tensions.
With Congress deadlocked and the fund's implementation proceeding, the fight over the anti-weaponization fund is likely to intensify, testing party unity and raising questions about accountability and precedent in the Trump era.
