On Monday, May 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" as part of a historic and controversial settlement with former President Donald Trump. The fund, totaling precisely $1.776 billion, is designed to compensate individuals—primarily Trump allies—who claim they were unjustly investigated or prosecuted for political reasons. The announcement came in tandem with Trump, his two eldest sons, and the Trump Organization dropping their $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the leak of his tax returns, a move that has sparked fierce debate across the political spectrum.
According to the Associated Press, the fund will allow anyone who believes they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes to apply for payouts and formal apologies. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who now finds himself at the center of this political tempest, said in a statement, "The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department's intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again." Blanche further emphasized that the fund creates "a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress."
The settlement resolves a lawsuit Trump filed against the IRS and the Treasury Department, following the leak of his and his organization’s confidential tax records by former IRS contractor Charles Edward Littlejohn. As reported by CNBC and The Hill, Littlejohn, who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, was sentenced to five years in prison in 2024 after pleading guilty to leaking tax information about Trump and other wealthy Americans to news outlets, including The New York Times and ProPublica. The infamous 2020 New York Times story revealed that Trump paid just $750 in federal income tax the year he took office, and no income tax at all in some years, thanks to massive reported losses.
In exchange for the DOJ’s creation of the fund, Trump and his sons will not receive any payout, but will be given a formal apology, per the DOJ’s official release. The fund will be managed by a five-member commission appointed by the Attorney General, with one member chosen in consultation with congressional leadership. Trump retains the power to remove any member, but replacements must be selected following the same process. The DOJ specified that the fund will stop processing claims on December 15, 2028, and that its resources will come from the DOJ’s judgment fund—a perpetual appropriation used to pay settlements and judgments against the government.
Trump’s legal team released a statement asserting, "President Trump, his family, supporters, and countless other America First Patriots were illegally targeted by the Democrat-led law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice, and the IRS." They accused the IRS of allowing "a rogue, politically-motivated actor to unlawfully leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to left-wing news outlets." The statement also referenced the "completely discredited Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax" and the "wrongful, election interfering raid" of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, both of which were included in the administrative claims Trump agreed to withdraw as part of the settlement.
But the fund’s creation has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and government watchdogs, who argue that it amounts to an unconstitutional slush fund for Trump’s allies. Nearly 100 House Democrats signed a legal brief urging a judge to block what they called an unprecedented resolution that would "unjustly enrich people close to the president with taxpayer dollars and open the door to meritless claims of political persecution," as reported by the Associated Press. Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, went further, saying, "This case is nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters, and white supremacists, including those who brutally beat police officers on January 6, 2021, and sycophant accomplices to his election stealing schemes."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) president Donald Sherman called the settlement "one of the single most corrupt acts in American history." He argued, "While Americans are struggling with an affordability crisis, President Trump plans to use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to pay off his friends and allies – including potentially the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th." Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., echoed these sentiments, posting on X, "Trump is one step closer to creating a giant slush fund of taxpayer dollars for his MAGA buddies. This is corruption on steroids." Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., added, "What Trump wants is a $1.7 billion slush fund for right-wing political violence and subversion, and if he follows through, it will be the most brazen theft and abuse of taxpayer dollars by any president in American history."
From the legal angle, the settlement’s legitimacy is already being questioned. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who handled the case, dismissed the lawsuit on May 18, 2026, but criticized the government for its lack of transparency about the deal. She noted that neither DOJ nor any other agency "submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed." Williams had previously raised concerns about President Trump serving as both plaintiff and defendant in the case, given his dual role as a private citizen and sitting president. "It is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other so as to satisfy [the Constitution’s] case or controversy requirement," she wrote. Trump’s attorneys, for their part, suggested the resolution would not be reviewable by a judge, effectively sidestepping judicial scrutiny.
In defending the fund, DOJ officials pointed to precedents like the Obama-era fund to compensate Native American farmers who experienced racial discrimination. Yet, as the Associated Press noted, that fund was not created with the goal of benefiting political allies of the president who had previously been investigated for potential criminal conduct.
Meanwhile, the White House has tried to distance itself from the details of the deal. When asked whether individuals who committed violence on January 6th would receive compensation, President Trump responded, "It’ll all be dependent on a committee. I didn’t do this deal. It was told to me yesterday." He insisted the fund was dedicated to "reimbursing people who were horribly treated."
As the dust settles, the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" stands as a lightning rod in the ongoing debate over the use of government power, accountability, and the boundaries of presidential authority. The fund’s future—and its impact on both the justice system and American politics—remains to be seen, but its creation has already left a deep and lasting mark on the nation’s political landscape.