Particle.news
Download on the App Store
12 ARTICLES
·
37m ago

DOJ Creates $1.776 Billion Anti‑Weaponization Fund and Bars IRS From Probing Trump

The Justice Department says the fund will use the Treasury’s Judgment Fund to compensate alleged victims of political 'weaponization,' prompting legal and oversight challenges.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media as he arrives at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, U.S., May 20, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
The signal to Trump’s base is clear: Break the law to expand Trump’s power, and you may not only receive immunity from prosecution but also be financially rewarded for it.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, in December 2025.
Former national chairman of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, holds a megaphone following a march from The Ellipse to the U.S. Capitol in memory of those who died on, or in the aftermath, of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, on the fifth anniversary of the attack in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 6, 2026. REUTERS/Leah Millis

Overview

  • The Justice Department announced the $1.776 billion Anti‑Weaponization Fund on May 20 after President Trump moved to withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.
  • An addendum signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche states the government is "forever barred and precluded" from prosecuting or pursuing past tax claims against President Trump, his family, and related businesses.
  • The fund will be financed from the Treasury’s long‑standing Judgment Fund and overseen by a five‑member commission appointed by the attorney general with one member chosen in consultation with congressional leaders.
  • Senior administration officials said virtually anyone can apply, which critics warn could allow some January 6 defendants and pro‑MAGA allies to seek payouts and could worsen risks to officers who faced rioters.
  • Democrats, watchdogs and two January 6 police officers have sued or filed motions to block the fund, arguing it may violate the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause and lacks normal court review, but legal experts say challengers face steep standing and venue hurdles.