Legal experts are raising alarms over President Trump’s newly created $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, calling it a legally and ethically dubious maneuver that only Congress can effectively halt. The fund, announced after Trump and the Justice Department moved to dismiss his $10 billion lawsuit over leaked tax returns, has sparked a bipartisan firestorm on Capitol Hill.
Former DOJ officials say the arrangement is unprecedented. Rupa Bhattacharyya, who oversaw the DOJ’s Torts Branch and the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, described the setup as “incredibly collusive.” She noted that Trump is both the plaintiff and the defendant in the case, making it a “sham litigation” that may have been filed solely to siphon taxpayer money.
Ankush Khardori, a former DOJ trial attorney, agreed, stating that the lawsuit was “very, very weak” and likely filed after the statute of limitations had expired. He added that the courts are unlikely to stop the fund, but Congress could “definitively and easily” block it—if lawmakers choose to act.
The fund has already triggered a bipartisan backlash. House Democrats introduced a bill to block it, and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a former FBI agent, told reporters, “We’re going to try to kill it.” GOP senators confronted acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in a heated meeting described as “mutinous,” with some refusing to advance the budget reconciliation package over concerns about the fund.
The controversy extends beyond Congress. Former Capitol Police officers have sued, arguing the fund signals approval to those who stormed the Capitol on January 6 and could be used by militias to arm themselves. The fund’s creation also raised questions about whether Trump and the DOJ are truly adversaries—a legal requirement for bringing cases in court.
Bhattacharyya also pointed out that the DOJ is diverting money from an existing settlement account without congressional authorization, which she called “illegal.” She noted that no guidelines have been set for who can receive payouts, leaving eligibility and compensation amounts entirely to a five-person commission appointed by Blanche. “Every other fund I’ve been involved in was set up by Congress with clear guidelines,” she said. “With this amount of taxpayer money at stake, that should really raise concerns.”
Trump defended the fund on Friday, claiming he “gave up a lot of money” in the case and that he is “helping others.” But critics remain skeptical, given that the IRS had drafted a memo recommending the DOJ dismiss the case, and the DOJ has previously argued it cannot be held liable for leaks by government contractors.
As the legal and political storm intensifies, the spotlight is on Congress to decide whether to rein in the executive branch. With GOP control of both chambers, the fate of the fund—and the broader questions about executive overreach—may hinge on whether lawmakers are willing to challenge a president from their own party.
