"Anti-weaponization fund" - theft in broad daylight

[Welcome to Darwin]

I'm just assuming that filling a claim if you're not one of the people it's meant to benefit just paints a target on you for all kinds of (hopefully just bureaucratic) retaliation: tax audits, extra screening going through security in airports, etc.

 

[papadage]

When they rule against you, that's when you sue for discrimination.

They are not a protected class.

 

[Coriolanus]

The ‘anti-weaponization’ fund is private. Its source will be a dispersement(s) from the Judgement Fund, ran by the Treasury to pay out when the government loses a monetary judgement. That account, the Judgement Fund, is subject to automatic appropriations.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31+section:1304+editionrelim)

Look at the very first term. ‘Necessary amounts are appropriated.’ No monetary or time limits.


The Judgement Fund was set up with perpetual & automatic appropriations in 1956.

The actual disbursement fund that Trump et al are setting up with the five board members and yada yada yada? Is 100% outside of government control. Once the money is dispersed from the Judgement Fund to said ‘anti-weaponization’ fund? That’s effectively the end of government control unless otherwise stipulated by the settlement… so that’s the end of government control.

This is all interagency actions and approvals. Congress already put their stamp on it 70 years ago. Because they probably didn’t think that the President would be using the Judgement Fund as a vehicle to steal from the people of the United States. Trump is doing this; the only way Congress can stop it requires action on their part by creating new veto-proof legislation. ‘Not voting’ will do… nothing.

More on the Judgement Fund over at Treasury:
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/payments-from-government/judgment-fund/about

I am going to respectfully disagree.

While the Judgment fund is automatically appropriated, the funds themselves are restricted to paying "final judgments, awards, compromise settlements, and interest and costs specified in the judgments or otherwise authorized by law."

The anti-weaponization fund is not a final judgment, or a settlement. Thus, the only way the Judgment Fund can be legally diverted into the anti-weaponization fund is by an act of Congress.

 

[Diabolical]

The anti-weaponization fund is not a final judgment, or a settlement. Thus, the only way the Judgment Fund can be legally diverted into the anti-weaponization fund is by an act of Congress.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441201/dl?inline
Trump v IRS Settlement Agreement. Part of which establishes the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

However, this Lawfare article does a really good job of explaining why this not good enough… sort of. Basically, the AG (or acting AG, in this case) has incredibly broad authority in this area. Probably too broad, if I’m honest.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/articl...nd-the-history-of-abusive-federal-settlements

It is, in short, nothing new for the settlement authority to be bent to ends other than resolving a specific legal dispute. Such distortions, even if strictly within the law’s letter and morally defensible, raise awkward questions about the kind of discretion the attorney general yields. No less important, these examples undermine any sense that the Trump administration’s misuse of the settlement power comes from thin air.

None of this is to suggest the AWF is even remotely lawful. To begin with, the statute commands that there be an actual “compromise settlement” before the Judgment Fund can be used. No actual settlement, no lawful payouts in other words. If there is no real prospect of any adverse court ruling—as is arguably the case here and in the Japanese Latin Americans case—then is the resulting agreement a “settlement”? The statute contains no specific definition. Yet it is surely impossible to “settle” a dispute if no actual dispute exists and there is no realistic prospect of the government losing in court. What follows in these cases might be called a gift or a boondoggle. It is not a settlement in the ordinary meaning of the word.

The article goes into how it’s going to be extremely difficult for pretty much everyone except Congress to establish standing, because of the aforementioned Article 1 power of the purse.

And again (and again and again… I don’t know how many times I can say this) - the only way to stop this shit from happening is if Congress actually bloody does something. Sitting there saying this is bad and then not actually bringing suit or passing legislation will result in Trump and co walking away with $1.8 Billion of our god damn money.

And they aren’t going to do that. Not until Democrats take either the House or the Senate.


Edit:
For those who don’t want to read it, the Lawfare article goes into several cases where the Attorney General under other administrations has set up a Fund that were… dubious. And of course those examples were part of how the Trump administration justifies this.

The fund in the Keepseagle case benefited Native American farmers who’d experienced discrimination at the Department of Agriculture’s hands, and who were allegedly represented by a member of President Obama’s transition team.

Blanche’s reference to Keepseagle implies that a tit-for-tat logic: It also underscores the fact that the Judgment Fund and the settlement power have been combined in the past to yield payouts to politically preferred groups even when there was no real prospect of a legal challenge against the government prevailing in court—and not only during the Obama presidency.

Consider the case of between 1,400 and 1,700 Japanese Latin Americans, who were seized in Peru and other nations, to be transported and interned in the United States through World War II.

<…>

Yet the Justice Department reached a settlement in 1998 with these plaintiffs, giving each one $5,000—even though they had no practical possibility of prevailing in court. There is, to be sure, no moral equivalence between the interned Japanese and the Jan. 6 rioters. Yet both this Clinton-era case and the AWF are uses of the settlement power and the Judgment Fund to make payouts to politically favored groups absent a credible threat of litigation defeat. That is, they may be morally distinct but are legally parallel.

There are a couple of other examples. I think the article does a really a good job of explaining all the various angles the Administration is twisting things to steal our money, and is well worth a read.

 

[Jordan83]

Yeah, that was why I initially thought it was on hold pending Congressional approval. Nobody can seem to agree on whether or not it's actually legal, or just not really strictly illegal. There are critical differences between the AWF and its precedents that cause even more uncertainty than there was for the precedents.

But I guess it still doesn't matter, the DOJ is proceeding forward and the Treasury is complying and Congress is doing nothing specifically to stop it. As of this moment, they haven't endorsed it...but nor have they made any action to do anything about it. Which is hard to read as anything other than an implicit endorsement at this point, as with so many other things they're just sitting on the sidelines about and letting this administration get away with.

 

[Jordan83]

Well, here we go. Look what I just came across.

Maybe nobody in Washington will try and do anything about it, but their inaction does leave the door open for potential state action. I don't know if this has any realistic chance of going anywhere, but it's at least an unambiguous message and an attempt to address it.

NY State House representative has put forth a bill that would tax any New Yorker who receives a payout from the AWF for 100% of the amount.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...s-tap-anti-weaponization-fund-100-rcna347133?

 

[Diabolical]

Anna Bower (of lawfaremedia.org) for Legal Eagle breaks this all down:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5waWbsMgjQ


Includes the most cursed Pokémon ever.

 

[Tijger]

Well, here we go. Look what I just came across.

Maybe nobody in Washington will try and do anything about it, but their inaction does leave the door open for potential state action. I don't know if this has any realistic chance of going anywhere, but it's at least an unambiguous message and an attempt to address it.

NY State House representative has put forth a bill that would tax any New Yorker who receives a payout from the AWF for 100% of the amount.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...s-tap-anti-weaponization-fund-100-rcna347133?

That would be just lovely

 

[DarthSlack]

Don't know if this goes anywhere, but 35 ex-judges have asked the judge overseeing the Trump IRS case to reopen it an examine the "settlement" as a potential fraud case.

The reasoning they're putting forth is that the actual dismissal of the case made no mention of the $1.8B settlement and they're accusing Trump of running a sham case to give cover to fraud. It's not clear if the presiding judge will reverse her order, but it is clear that the stench of the settlement is being noticed across the country.

 

[Shavano]

I am going to respectfully disagree.

While the Judgment fund is automatically appropriated, the funds themselves are restricted to paying "final judgments, awards, compromise settlements, and interest and costs specified in the judgments or otherwise authorized by law."

The anti-weaponization fund is not a final judgment, or a settlement. Thus, the only way the Judgment Fund can be legally diverted into the anti-weaponization fund is by an act of Congress.

It's "final" because the plaintiff has instructed the defense, who are his agents, not to contest it. That's where it's corrupt.

@Diabolical is right it's for Congress to fix it, and they don't want to so they won't. I expect that $1.8B to be gone before Congress has the majority they'd need to even assemble a committee to look into it.

 

[Coriolanus]

It's "final" because the plaintiff has instructed the defense, who are his agents, not to contest it. That's where it's corrupt.

It's not, because a court cannot accept or enforce a settlement where the parties are in collusion and there is no case or controversy under contention for Article 3, Sec 2 purposes.

If the court rejects the sham settlement, then the only other way for it to go forward is an act of Congress. At that point, it doesn't make sense to repurpose funding from the Judgment Fund. You might as well just ask for it outright.

 

[Diabolical]

If the court rejects the sham settlement,

And that’s the rub. Because the Judge in question isn’t making any moves so far to do so.
Unless you’re speaking of some other judge? In which case, could you share some insight/context?

 

[Coriolanus]

And that’s the rub. Because the Judge in question isn’t making any moves so far to do so.
Unless you’re speaking of some other judge? In which case, could you share some insight/context?

There are currently at least two separate lawsuits filed to block the terms of the settlement using the reasoning I provided.

https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news...cutor-sue-to-block-trump-doj-settlement-fund/

A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges also filed a motion with presiding judge Kathleen Williams to block the final settlement under FRCP Rule 60 for essentially the same rationale.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.63.0.pdf

 

[Diabolical]

There are currently at least two separate lawsuits filed to block the terms of the settlement using the reasoning I provided.

https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news...cutor-sue-to-block-trump-doj-settlement-fund/

A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges also filed a motion with presiding judge Kathleen Williams to block the final judgment under FRCP Rule 60 for essentially the same rationale.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.63.0.pdf

I knew about the second. Thanks for the details on the two suits!

 

[Coriolanus]

I knew about the second. Thanks for the details on the two suits!

Personally, I think the motion by the judges is a lot stronger than the lawsuits. Judge Kathleen Williams already express concerns that the settlement is not at arms length previously. The two lawsuits are vulnerable to standing issues.

 

[Diabolical]

Personally, I think the motion by the judges is a lot stronger than the lawsuits. Judge Kathleen Williams already express concerns that the settlement is not at arms length previously. The two lawsuits are vulnerable to standing issues.

That was my interpretation on the two lawsuits as well. The thing is… I think if Judge Williams was going to act, she’d have done so already.

I hope I’m wrong on that count.

 

[AverageDutchGuy]

That was my interpretation on the two lawsuits as well. The thing is… I think if Judge Williams was going to act, she’d have done so already.

I hope I’m wrong on that count.

If she's going to act, she better make DAMN sure that every step she takes is legally 100% watertight, because you just know that if she blocks the "settlement" and there's even the slightest issue (that normally nobody would notice) she'd get nailed for it hard. So IF she's going to act she's probably working through that, consulting with experts, writing supporting briefs, etc and she's probably not going to tip her hand before needed because Trump and his Do"J" is going to do everything in it's power to block her from making any such moves.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

If she's going to act, she better make DAMN sure that every step she takes is legally 100% watertight, because you just know that if she blocks the "settlement" and there's even the slightest issue (that normally nobody would notice) she'd get nailed for it hard. So IF she's going to act she's probably working through that, consulting with experts, writing supporting briefs, etc and she's probably not going to tip her hand before needed because Trump and his Do"J" is going to do everything in it's power to block her from making any such moves.

I suspect this is what's taking so long.

 

[yd]

I got pulled over once because of a lack of road signage in Illinois doing 2mph over the speed limit. As a foreigner, I feel that I had been illegally targetted because I was driving a G wagon.

Can I apply for a few million?

 

[Diabolical]

I got pulled over once because of a lack of road signage in Illinois doing 2mph over the speed limit. As a foreigner, I feel that I had been illegally targetted because I was driving a G wagon.

Can I apply for a few million?

Only if it was a democrat who pulled you over. Given you got pulled over by a fascist cop? Also, you need to have been pulled over by a US Marshal or ICE or something.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441201/dl?inline

Slight edits for readability, emphasis mine:

C. The conduct alleged in the Case and in the Pending Agency Claims is representative of the sustained use of the levers of government power by Democrat elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents in order to target individuals, groups, and entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, and/or ideological reasons ("Lawfare" and "Weaponization"). Other well-known examples of Lawfare and Weaponization include the Biden Administration's abuse of the FACE Act, the Biden Administration's wrongful labeling of certain parents as domestic terrorists, and the IRS's targeting of groups based on improper ideological criteria.

 

[DarthSlack]

So this could get entertaining.....

That anti-weaponization fund? Payouts from it are considered to be taxable income. Which may put Trump, personally, on the hook for hundreds of millions in additional taxes. I mean, I'm sure he'll either ignore the taxes owed or skim them off the top of the $1.8B, but it's still kind of funny that he can't even fraud right.

 

[Stern]

Maybe that's why he made that deal with the IRS...?

 

[elliptic]

Trumps don’t pay taxes. Taxes are for little people.

 

[Coriolanus]

That was my interpretation on the two lawsuits as well. The thing is… I think if Judge Williams was going to act, she’d have done so already.

I hope I’m wrong on that count.

The judge in one of the cases issued a temporary restraining order on disbursement of the fund while she considers the suit.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5900996-federal-judge-pauses-fund/

This stops the clock, and I don't think the case will survive standing issues. But for now, it is paused.

 

[Lt_Storm]

This stops the clock, and I don't think the case will survive standing issues. But for now, it is paused.

Presuming of course, Todd Blanch doesn't respond "make me".

 

[Coriolanus]

Presuming of course, Todd Blanch doesn't respond "make me".

Let's celebrate a brief respite rather than go down some sort of catastrophization spiral, please.

For all of our mental healths' sake.

 

[Coriolanus]

Devin Stone of LegalEagle just posted an interview with Congressman Jamie Raskin discussing the various illegalities and legal issues that arise from the anti-weaponization fund. I am currently listening to it and it has been pretty spot on so far.


View: https://youtu.be/5f7vCOXQ6fk?si=eMidJfPsuwMIbHN_

 

[Coriolanus]

Judge Kathleen Williams has opened an inquiry into whether the anti-weaponization fund settlement is fraudulent in response to a motion to reconsider by 35 former federal judges. I referred to the motion in an earlier post.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/29/trump-irs-settlement-anti-weaponization-fund-00943459

 

[Lt_Storm]

Let's celebrate a brief respite rather than go down some sort of catastrophization spiral, please.

For all of our mental healths' sake.

Fair enough. Though, the real point was that it would be nice to see some evidence that the Justice Department has implemented the court order.

 

[Technarch]

Let's celebrate a brief respite rather than go down some sort of catastrophization spiral, please.

For all of our mental healths' sake.

It's not a "catastrophization spiral" to be aware of ways the administration might respond. That said, I'm guessing this at least gets put off until after the midterms. Unless Trump needs his thugs for the midterms.

 

[Lt_Storm]

So, having groused about not yet having seen evidence that the Administration is going to obey the court order, I'm happy to present: evidence that the Administration is going to obey the court order. Though, it does seem like may be trying to preform some necromancy to bring this zombie back from the dead, so, it isn't all good news. But I will take what I can get.

 

[Shavano]

So, having groused about not yet having seen evidence that the Administration is going to obey the court order, I'm happy to present: evidence that the Administration is going to obey the court order. Though, it does seem like may be trying to preform some necromancy to bring this zombie back from the dead, so, it isn't all good news. But I will take what I can get.

What it means, I think, is that the Republican caucus isn't having it, and they're not having it because it gives their Democratic opponents a really nifty stick to beat them with if they don't oppose it.

I guess in some ways Congress still matters.

 

[DarthSlack]

What it means, I think, is that the Republican caucus isn't having it, and they're not having it because it gives their Democratic opponents a really nifty stick to beat them with if they don't oppose it.

I guess in some ways Congress still matters.

What I can't tell is if Congressional Republicans are just upset with the $1.8B or if they also include the Get Out Of Jail Free card the Trump family gets from the IRS as well. Because I think both are abhorrent, but everyone is focused on the cash grift.

 

[Technarch]

What I can't tell is if Congressional Republicans are just upset with the $1.8B or if they also include the Get Out Of Jail Free card the Trump family gets from the IRS as well. Because I think both are abhorrent, but everyone is focused on the cash grift.

I suspect the Congressional Republicans see the Proud Boys Insurrection Fund for what it is, and have no illusions as to whether those Proud Boys might be employed against them.

 

[Xenocrates]

I suspect the Congressional Republicans see the Proud Boys Insurrection Fund for what it is, and have no illusions as to whether those Proud Boys might be employed against them.

Again.

After all, they wanted to hang Pence and assault Congress the first time. That's what they're getting paid for.

 

[DarthSlack]

I suspect the Congressional Republicans see the Proud Boys Insurrection Fund for what it is, and have no illusions as to whether those Proud Boys might be employed against them.

Maybe, but both the cash and the tax crime immunity are profoundly corrupt acts, yet everyone is just laser focused on the cash.

Has everyone except Trump really forgotten what sent Al Capone to jail?

 

[Lt_Storm]

Maybe, but both the cash and the tax crime immunity are profoundly corrupt acts, yet everyone is just laser focused on the cash.

Has everyone except Trump really forgotten what sent Al Capone to jail?

For, Republicans, that's irrelevant as it's an article of faith that Trump can do no wrong. So why would they ever need to send him or his family to jail?