The Trump administration is moving to scrap its nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund following intense pressure from members of Congress and a series of significant judicial interventions, The Hill reported. This decision marks a major shift in strategy for the administration, which had previously defended the fund as a necessary tool to provide restitution to those it claimed were victims of lawfare. The fund, which totaled $1.776 billion, was established following the voluntary dismissal of a lawsuit involving the IRS.
The path to this reversal was paved with legal hurdles and growing friction on Capitol Hill. On Friday, a federal judge in Florida decided to reopen a case against the IRS that had served as the foundation for the fund. In a sharp move, the judge ordered President Trump and the Justice Department to submit formal briefs explaining charges of collusion and whether the parties involved were truly adverse. This specific legal scrutiny touched on the fundamental constitutional requirement that matters before a court must represent genuine controversies between opposing parties.
Simultaneously, a federal judge in Virginia issued a ruling on Friday that temporarily halted the fund from making any payouts. The Justice Department initially reacted with defiance, stating it would not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with its efforts. However, by Monday, the tone had changed drastically.
Critics had long argued that the president was negotiating with himself to create a fund using government resources
The Department of Justice issued a statement confirming it would abide by the court’s ruling. The department noted, “The Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people.” The statement further claimed, “This Fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise. The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling.”
Beyond the courtroom, the political pressure was mounting at an unsustainable pace. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, made his stance clear to reporters on Monday. He expressed his hope that the administration would take the initiative to shut the fund down, noting, “I made my views very clear on the issue. I do think the best way to handle it is if the administration decides to shut it down themselves.”
Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, also met with President Trump at the White House on Monday to discuss the matter. The fund had become a major point of contention for both Republicans and Democrats, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatening a coordinated effort to dismantle what he termed a slush fund.
The stakes were particularly high because of a critical piece of legislation. Senate Republicans had warned Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche during a heated meeting last week that a budget reconciliation bill, which is a top priority for the administration regarding immigration enforcement, would remain stalled until the concerns surrounding the fund were addressed.
Leader Thune suggested that the reconciliation bill would have a solid chance of passing if the administration successfully closed the fund. He argued that the best path forward is to keep the bill focused on its original goals, which included funding Customs and Border Protection and ICE for the next three years, covering the remainder of the Trump administration.
Concerns about the fund were widespread and varied. Many observers worried the money would be used to support allies of the president, specifically those who faced convictions related to the events of January 6 at the Capitol. Legal experts pointed out that the settlement was riddled with ethical and legal questions, which prompted various groups to take action. Organizations like Public Citizen and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, along with former Capitol Police officers, filed lawsuits to challenge the arrangement.
Even though the administration has signaled it will drop the fund, the process remains fluid. Neither the White House nor the Justice Department has taken official, final action to formally close the fund as of Monday. Some litigants have noted that they intend to keep their cases active until they receive formal written confirmation that the fund is fully dissolved.
It remains an open question whether the president might attempt to revisit or revive the concept in future discussions with lawmakers. As the Senate and House prepare to reconvene this week, the focus will remain on whether this reversal is enough to clear the way for the administration’s broader legislative agenda.
Published: Jun 2, 2026 03:30 pm