Trump DOJ Makes Shock Admission on Slush Fund Payouts

Summary

Legal AF by MeidasTouch — "Trump DOJ Makes Shock Admission on Slush Fund Payouts"

Date: May 22, 2026
Host Panel: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok, Karen Friedman Agnifilo

---

Episode Overview

This episode delivers a deep dive into the recent controversy involving the Trump-era Department of Justice and its establishment of what is being described as an "anti-weaponization" slush fund. Key revelations and a fiery Senate hearing raised alarm about eligibility criteria that could allow even convicted January 6th insurrectionists—including those who assaulted police—to receive payouts from this fund. The Legal AF team unpacks the shocking admissions, explores legal and moral implications, challenges misleading historical analogies, and looks ahead to expected legal challenges.

---

Key Discussion Points & Analysis

1. Shock Admission: Slush Fund May Pay Out to Capitol Attackers

• What Happened:
  Todd Blanche, acting Attorney General (and described as still “trying out for the job” by host Michael Popok), admitted during a Senate oversight hearing that people convicted of assaulting Capitol Police on January 6th could be eligible to apply for compensation from the new "anti-weaponization" fund.
• Popok summarizes:

  “People that assaulted police Officers, including at Jan.6, may be eligible to apply for funds and reimbursement from the anti weaponization fund that Donald Trump just created using his captured DOJ, captured IRS and … captured Treasury Department.” (01:00, Michael Popok)

2. Senate Oversight Hearing: The Blanche–Van Hollen Exchange

• Senator Van Hollen confronts Blanche:
  • Directly questions if those who assaulted police officers—the very perpetrators of violence at the Capitol—could benefit from the fund.
  • Key exchange:
    • Senator Van Hollen:

      “Will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund?” (02:40)

    • Todd Blanche:

      “Anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were [victims of] weaponization.” (02:56)

  • Pushback on the lack of exclusions for violent offenders:
    • Van Hollen: “Why not make that a rule?” (03:07)

3. Bogus Historical Comparisons: The 'Keepseagle Case' Analogy

• Blanche’s justification:
  Attempts to justify the anti-weaponization fund by analogizing to the historic Keepseagle settlement (a government settlement addressing discriminatory loan denials to Native American farmers).
  • Legal AF’s Michael Popok:

    “They actually have the brass ones to compare the settlement to a very famous settlement by the Department of Agriculture … It was approved by a court, no court involved here in 2010.” (03:39, Michael Popok)

• Senator Chris Coons debunks the analogy:
  • Highlights that Keepseagle was overseen and approved by an independent federal judge—whereas the Trump fund is not.
  • Coons to Blanche:

    “No federal judge has approved this fund, have they, Mr. Attorney General?”
    Blanche: “No.”
    Coons: “So that's a big difference between this case and the case that you compared it to.” (05:02–05:25)

  • Coons:

    “To compare that case to this one is incredibly deceptive.” (05:47)

4. Host Commentary: Why This Is Legally and Morally Outrageous

• On the fund’s legitimacy:
  • Popok sharply declares the entire construct “illegitimate,” “illegal,” and “fraudulent.”
  • Popok:

    “Donald Trump's illegitimate claims were the midwife that gave birth to this fund. This fund is illegitimate. This fund is illegal. This fund is fraudulent. It violates the emoluments clause.” (05:55)

• On bypassing judicial scrutiny:
  • Criticism that the fund is deliberately designed to avoid federal court oversight, unlike proper settlements.
  • Disapproval directed at Judge Williams for closing the case without further inquiry but hope is expressed for future lawsuits to challenge the settlement.

5. The Real January 6th: Context Matters

• Myth-busting right-wing narratives:
  • Popok calls out media figures (Miranda Devine, NY Post) for minimizing the violence by claiming insurrectionists were “defenseless.”
  • Popok:

    “Maybe you should spend as much time as we did on Legal AF going through each of the Department of Justice press releases, indictments, … to learn what really happened on January 6th.” (07:25)

• Detailed recounting of the violence:
  • Lists improvised weapons, injuries, and deaths.
  • Directly ties Trump’s rhetoric and actions to the events of the day.

6. Political Implications and Call to Action

• Message to law enforcement supporters of Trump:
  • Popok criticizes the hypocrisy and betrayal:

    “… [Trump] always made a big show during the campaign … to have police and firefighters … standing behind him … They should be embarrassed and ashamed that they supported this guy 'cause he's about to give money to those that were arrested for … attacking the Capitol.” (06:30)

• Mobilizing for accountability:
  • Encourages listeners to make this a mobilizing issue for midterm elections.
  • Expects and promises updates on imminent legal challenges by public-interest legal groups (e.g., Democracy Forward, ACLU).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Senator Van Hollen to Blanche:

  “Will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund?” (02:40)

• Todd Blanche (Acting AG):

  “Anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were [victims of] weaponization.” (02:56)

• Michael Popok:

  “Donald Trump's illegitimate claims were the midwife that gave birth to this fund. This fund is illegitimate. This fund is illegal. This fund is fraudulent.” (05:55)

• Senator Chris Coons:

  “To compare that case to this one is incredibly deceptive.” (05:47)

• Popok on the violence of Jan 6th:

  “...every indictment, every arrest, every conviction … tells you exactly the crimes that these people committed … using flagpoles, bicycle racks, shields, pieces of wood, pieces of barricade, anything they could get their hands on, Bear spray, things they brought with them, knives.” (08:15)

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:00–02:40: Michael Popok explains the DOJ’s admission and Senate pushback over payouts to Jan 6th offenders.
• 02:40–03:39: Senator Van Hollen and Blanche’s exchange — fund eligibility for violent Capitol attackers.
• 03:39–05:02: Breakdown of Blanche’s misleading historical comparisons and Senator Coons’s debunking.
• 05:55–08:00: Popok’s critique of the fund’s legitimacy and legal outlook.
• 08:00–09:00: Correction of misinformation about Jan 6 violence; political and legal call to action.

---

Conclusion & Forward Look

The episode spotlights a pivotal and controversial legal development—the creation of a Trump-DOJ settlement fund that could reward individuals convicted of Capitol violence. Legal AF’s analysis is scathing, calling out legal sleight-of-hand, historical misrepresentation, and the looming threat to democratic accountability. The hosts predict imminent legal challenges and urge political and civic engagement.

Stay tuned: Legal AF promises close future coverage of litigation against the Trump settlement fund and offers additional resources via Substack for real-time updates and context.

---

Transcript

[A]

Pros save more on the materials you need to get the job done inside and out at Lowe's right now get 10% off in stock Trex Naturals decking now available in more styles. Plus get 15% off select custom entry, interior and storm doors. Then we'll deliver it all straight to your job site. To help keep your jobs moving, get the brand's pros trust priced right and ready when you need them. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's, valid through 527 while supplies last selection varies by location.

[B]

What would you do if your online store converted 36% more shoppers? You could take 36% more vacation.

[C]

Another pina colada.

[B]

Yes, please open a new retail location with 36% more square feet.

[C]

Fantastic.

[B]

Hire 36% more help.

[D]

You're hired and you're hired.

[B]

Shopify has the world's best converting checkout up to 36% better than other e commerce platforms. What you do with those extra sales is up to you. Switch to Shopify [e-mail] setup and get a $1 trial. Shopify.com setup apparently according to the Department

[C]

of Justice's top guy, Todd Blanch, in testimony to Senator Van Hollen today, he said that people that assaulted police Officers, including at Jan.6, may be eligible to apply for funds and reimbursement from the anti weaponization fund that Donald Trump just created using his captured doj, captured IRS and and captured Treasury Department people who assaulted police officers. You know, part of the Jan6 insurrectionists, the ones that actually got convicted, the worst offenders that were held in jail because they would not a judge would not let them out for pretrial detention. They're going to be entitled to compensation. Yes, says Todd Blanche. And then he has the brass ones to compare the settlement to a settlement that the Obama administration made with the native community about stolen land, which led to mocking and chuckling during the Senate oversight hearing. I'm Michael Popo with an update. Fast moving story. You're going to want to follow it here on Midas Touch and on Legal af. Let's talk about, let's talk about the back and forth between Senator Van Hollen and Senator Coons and Todd Blanche. Anybody in this country, Blanche said, is eligible to apply if they believe they were victims of weaponization? Anybody? And that was in response to a question about police being beaten and Trump paying off the people that beat them. Play the clip.

[D]

Mr. Attorney General, this is an outrageous unprecedented slush fund that you set up. Simple question. Will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund?

[E]

Well, as it makes plain.

[D]

Anybody just let me know if they're eligible for the fund.

[E]

As, as, as was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were victim weapons.

[D]

Mr. Change, let me ask you this. Are there going to be rules that say that if you've assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer or committed a violent crime, you will not be eligible? Why not make that a rule?

[E]

I expect that. Well, because I'm not one of the commissioners setting up the rules.

[D]

I expect more of the five members. Aren't you, Mr. Attorney?

[E]

Pardon me?

[D]

You're appointing four of the five members I am appointing. You can set up the rules. I would hope you would make a rule that anyone convicted of assaulting a police officer, a violent crime is simply not eligible. They should not apply.

[C]

You know, you then have buried in the memo that was created by Todd Blanche approving the settlement. They actually have the brass ones to compare the settlement to a very famous settlement by the Department of Agriculture about not so much stolen lands. As I said before, denying of loans to Native Americans on a discriminatory basis systematically by the US Department of Agriculture 1980s and 1990s is known as the Keeps Eagle settlement. It was approved by a court, no court involved here in 2010. And to hear, as he said in his memo and his relating relating to this, to hear Todd Blanche talk about the settlement in those terms got under the skin of Chris Coons who mocked Blanche's claims that this relates to the Keep Siegel settlement proposal. This is a anti weaponization fund falsely created by Donald Trump to settle a case that was filed in bad faith and about to be dismissed by a judge he didn't want. He doesn't want the settlement to be administered by a federal judge like the Keep Siegel one. He wants it as far away from Judge Williams as possible.

[D]

As you compared it to the Keepsakel case. But I think you know full well that in that case the settlement agreement was approved by a federal judge, including the payments to people who were not originally parties to the lawsuit. No federal judge has approved this fund, have they, Mr. Attorney General?

[C]

No.

[E]

No federal judge did approve.

[D]

So that's a big difference between this case and the case that you compared it to.

[E]

No, it's not.

[D]

Did a judge sign off on this case?

[E]

No.

[D]

A judge did sign off on the other one.

[E]

Yes. But your question was whether it's a big difference. It's not.

[D]

Of course it is because that allows for an independent person to look at it rather than the there was no independent person.

[E]

There was no independent. There was a single commissioner that a judge signed off on it. A judge had Mr. Providing the money.

[D]

There was a judge who looked at it and signed off on it. So to compare that case to this one is incredibly deceptive.

[C]

When you read the order closing the case, the judge goes out of her way to say that there has not been any reference to any settlement, no stipulation of settlement, no settlement on record at all about a case that she's called into question as being illegitimate. And they'll just say anything out loud. Well, this is like the Native American settlement with Barack Obama of the Agriculture department in the 1980s. It isn't, isn't anything like that because Barack Obama didn't sue the Agriculture Department and then in order to set up a phony settlement, ensuing his own agency set up a fund to be used by people who beat the police and then avoid using courts and court systems to settle legitimate claims. These are completely illegitimate claims that gave birth. It was the midwife. Donald Trump's illegitimate claims were the midwife that gave birth to this fund. This fund is illegitimate. This fund is illegal. This fund is fraudulent. It violates the emoluments clause. And soon, I mean very soon, we're going to be seeing a lawsuit and I'll be reporting on a lawsuit filed against this fund. Judge Williams felt like she didn't have the jurisdiction to handle the case any longer because the case got closed behind her back. I disagree. I think she should have held in order to show cause hearing before she actually closed the case. But so be it. It'll be for the next judge to come along, likely in the District of Columbia and take on this case. I didn't realize how much my old mattress was affecting my sleep until I finally upgraded to a Leesa mattress. Honestly, the difference was immediate. I'm falling asleep faster, sleeping deeper and waking up feeling actually rested instead of stiff and exhausted. What I really like is that Leesa has a lineup of mattresses designed for different sleep styles so you can find the right fit for how you sleep. The quality feels incredible from the first night and they back it up with free shipping, easy returns and 120 night sleep trial. Plus, Lisa has donated more than 43,000 mattresses to families in need, which makes supporting them feel even better. Go to leesa.com for 30% off select mattresses plus get an extra $50 off with promo code legal AF exclusive for my listeners. That's L E E promo code legal AF for 30% off select mattresses plus an extra $50 off. Support our show and let them know we sent you after checkout Lisa.com promo code legal af but for Todd Blanche, who's, who's the acting Attorney general still trying out for the job, to come on and look the American people in the eye and look the police and the police unions who supported Donald Trump, right? He always made a big show during the campaign when he was running for president. Both times to have a police and firefighters and uniforms, loves uniforms standing behind him with American flags. And they should be embarrassed and ashamed that they supported this guy cuz he's about to give money to those that were arrested for, for having weapons and attacking the Capitol. In a recent ballroom filing, the Department of Justice said that, that the lawyers for the National Trust about the ballroom were not giving proper deference to the planned attempted massacre at the White House correspondence dinner and the horrific aftermath that could have happened when the guy was on a floor below and he got caught. What about the horrific planned massacre of the Jan 6 insurrectionists, the ones who are now apparently the recipients of, you know, maybe a half a million to a million dollars apiece from this fund? See, I see the rewriting of history. I was reading recently in the New York Post something that Miranda Devine, the podcaster who works for Rupert Murdoch, wrote. She said everybody on John 6 was, had no weapons, they were defenseless, they had no weapons, and many of them did not storm the Capitol. Oh well, Miranda, maybe you should spend as much time as we did on legal AF going through each of the Department of Justice press releases, indictments, reportings about cases to learn what really happened on January 6th. Because every department, every indictment, every arrest, every conviction by a trial or a, by a judge or a jury, resulted in a press release that tells you exactly the crimes that these people committed and they were convicted of, including using flagpoles, bicycle racks, shields, pieces of wood, pieces of barricade, anything they could get their hands on, Bear spray, things they brought with them, knives. In fact, Trump knew it because we know for the Jan6report he was like, oh, why is there nobody here at my ellipse speech? Well, Mr. President, we're running everybody through the magnetometer because of weapons. No, they're not here to hurt me. Let them all in. So he let them all in with weapons and all, and then he pointed them all wound up and fomented and shot them like a weapon at the Capitol. We know that happened and we know that the people, either they brought weapons with them or they made them made them on the fly, makeshift weapons, sometimes beating members of the police with their own equipment, crushing them in revolving doors. Five people died that day, one by heart attack. One died the next day a, a young police officer. And inside the Capitol. And if the Metro and Capitol Police had not by themselves figured out a way outmatched to defend the Capitol, including shooting Ashley Babbitt, who was heading down the Speaker's hallway. And they got into that chamber with staff and senators and congresspeople there, a marauding batch of hundreds pouring in through the front door. What do you think was going to happen? They were going to hand out daisies. They were going to go peace and stick daisies there, or they were going to drag them out by their hair and hang them or use all, all of the, all of the battle gear that they had on the steps of the Capitol that they were using to beat and bash, like some sort of medieval Game of Thrones. They were going to do that to the people, the vulnerable elected officials in our, in our seat of our democracy. But that was stopped because the line eventually held and now Todd Blanch wants to hand out money to them for the government. Don't let them ever forget this at the midterms, folks, this is one of the things that should mobilize you in the voting. We're going to continue to follow it. The next time you hear from me, I think about this case is going to be about the lawsuit that gets filed. I don't know if it's by Democracy defenders Norm Isen. I don't know if it's Matt Plotkin, the former Attorney General of New Jersey and his group and his law firm. I don't know if it's going to be Democracy Forward or the American Civil Liberties Union. Somebody's going to be filing this week and we're going to bring it to you here on Midas Touch and Legal af. Take a minute, hit the free subscribe button. Help us to continue to grow our pro Democracy channel. Can't get your fill of Legal af. Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack stack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called, wait for it Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AO are there as well. We got some new reporting, we got interviews. We got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.