Trump's $1.7b Friends and Family Fund

Summary

The Bulwark Podcast: "Trump's $1.7b Friends and Family Fund"

Hosts: JVL (Jonathan V. Last) and Sarah Longwell
Date: May 15, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode delves into explosive new reporting regarding a proposed $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded "compensation fund," which would be overseen by a commission appointed—and removable at will—by Donald Trump. The fund, emerging from a settlement surrounding Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the DOJ and IRS, is framed by the hosts as both a slush fund for Trump’s allies and a profound example of political corruption. JVL and Sarah explore the implications for American democracy, accountability, and the limits of institutional reform, all against the backdrop of impending elections and the enduring polarization of U.S. politics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Details of the $1.7 Billion Compensation Fund

[02:27 – 08:33]

• Nature of the Fund: The fund would distribute up to $1.7 billion in taxpayer money to Trump allies alleging harm from the Biden administration’s "weaponization" of the legal system, including January 6th defendants and potentially Trump-associated entities.
• Structure and Control:
  • A five-member commission, all appointed (and removable at will) by Trump, would have total discretion over payouts.
  • Identities of recipients and the process for grants could be kept secret.
  • Any unspent funds would revert to the government before the end of Trump's term.
• Transparency and Accountability: No requirement for the commission to disclose procedures or decision-making, raising fears of cronyism and unaccountable spending.

Memorable Quote:

“[Trump] personally can name the members of the board who do the voting, and the identities of the people who get the money get kept secret. The process and the votes are kept secret and the whole thing gets wound down before he leaves office.”
— JVL, [08:01]

2. Corruption, Projection, and Political Irony

[05:15 – 07:48]

• Sarah calls attention to the “deep irony” that Trump's allies, who accuse Democrats of corruption, are pursuing a blatantly corrupt arrangement themselves.
• She draws a parallel with J.D. Vance’s efforts to use taxpayer money for a ballroom, and the hypocrisy of Republicans’ use of “projection.”

Notable Moment:

• Sarah references the January 6th defendants—many of whom, she points out, have been implicated in new or serious crimes since—being eligible for the fund’s payouts.

Memorable Quote:

“While Americans’ gas prices are going up...this guy is spending taxpayer dollars, all this stuff, and now he’s starting the slush fund that is specifically so he can give out money to the January 6th perpetrators.”
— Sarah Longwell, [06:27]

3. Limits of Legal and Institutional Response

[08:33 – 10:47]

• Hosts lament that while this fund “seems legal,” it illustrates the limits of norm-based governance and accountability in the face of determined bad actors.
• Sarah references Andrew Weissmann’s new book, which advocates legal reforms to criminalize election denial—but notes the challenges of adopting similar measures in the U.S., given First Amendment constraints and judicial opposition.

Memorable Quote:

“And the whole system is broken and can’t be fixed.”
— JVL, [12:57]

4. Supreme Court, Filibuster, and Reform Feasibility

[10:48 – 15:40]

• JVL floats scenarios for Supreme Court expansion, which Sarah deems "fantasy politics" due to structural and electoral obstacles.
• Both hosts note that real reform would require both a Democratic president and Senate, plus abolition of the filibuster—an increasingly unlikely scenario given partisan polarization and geographic electoral hurdles.
• They express cynicism that, even with unified government, Democrats would prioritize institutional reform over “kitchen-table issues.”

Memorable Exchange:

JVL: “You’re not going to get the chance.”
Sarah: “But let’s prioritize what the reforms are...prioritize which reforms are likely to be able to get done...if you were so lucky to get a Democratic president in 2028, the chances that a Senate...you’re not going to be able to get these majorities.”
— [13:09 – 16:13]

5. The Challenge of Building Political Power

[15:41 – 19:49]

• Sarah pleads for focus on achievable political power rather than aspirational or “fantasy” reforms.
• Majoritarian reforms (e.g., D.C. statehood, Supreme Court expansion) remain out of reach unless Democrats can win and hold the Senate, which is considered highly unlikely in the foreseeable future.
• Sarah argues the critical need is reducing Trump’s and the GOP’s popularity to generate a reform mandate, based less on theory and more on practical coalition-building and voter outreach.

Memorable Quote:

“I’m begging people to live in the world that we live in, not the fantasy politics world…”
— Sarah Longwell, [16:13]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• JVL [08:01]: “No accountability and also no visibility.”
• Sarah [06:27]: “…now he’s starting the slush fund that is specifically so he can give out money to the January 6th perpetrators.”
• JVL [12:57]: “It’s all in shittified. Like the whole system is broken and can’t be fixed.”
• Sarah [16:13]: “I’m begging people to live in the world that we live in, not the fantasy politics world…”

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• [02:27 – 08:33]: Explaining the function, structure, and dangers of Trump’s proposed fund.
• [08:33 – 10:47]: Legal (in)adequacies and thoughts on reform following Trump-era precedents.
• [10:48 – 15:40]: Deep-dive into Supreme Court reform, filibuster, and political obstacles.
• [15:41 – 19:49]: Practical politics: the challenge of building enough electoral power for meaningful reform.

---

Tone and Style

Throughout the episode, the tone is exasperated, incredulous, and deeply skeptical—balancing grim humor (e.g., “ten fucking years, Sarah, I have said… we were going to need a truth and reconciliation commission… and it turns out we’re going to get one and it’s going to be against us.” [04:40]) and passionate insistence on realism in political discourse.

---

Summary Takeaway

The hosts present the Trump compensation fund as a symptom of America’s eroding political norms and legal safeguards, a vivid case of “corruption projection” by the MAGA movement. Their discussion underscores both the urgency and difficulty of achieving reform in a polarized, structurally inhospitable environment—and highlights their conviction that only massive “real world” political mobilization, not legal or procedural gambits, can close the breach.

Transcript

[A]

Hello, everyone. This is JVL here with my best friend Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark, coming to you live. Not quite zero dark 30, but earlier than normal.

[B]

So early.

[A]

We have to talk about an amazing development since. Since Wednesday. So on Wednesday we sat and we talked about Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit which was nearing settlement with the IRS.

[B]

You mean in person? When I was putting my hands on you, do you know how many people were shocked by A, how tall you are and B, what you look like in a button down shirt?

[A]

I mean, I understand the first or the second part. Not the first part. I've always been this, this tall. I do not often wear button down shirts.

[B]

I do think I got done dirty by the angle because I've. Did you watch it? I just like looked at the setup, but I look like a tiny little pocket person in the corner while you and Tim look like these giant.

[A]

Yeah, you're having you in the middle. I did, I did think. Because I only saw a still from it and I thought, do we have to raise her her seat up or put some, some phone books?

[B]

I do need to sit on some phone books because otherwise I look like I sit in the land of giants. You are both tall guys and I am not a tall person. But I. It's not that bad, kind of, that

[A]

you're much, much shorter than we are. All right, I just want to catch people up here on. We all knew that Trump had filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Justice Department and the IRS for having leaked the tax returns which he should have actually released because before him, every person who had run for president had released their tax returns. Donald Trump has never wanted to do that. He filed a lawsuit and was in the position of being the person to benefit from the payout of the lawsuit and also being the person who would direct the Department of Justice employees to determine whether or not to settle the lawsuit or fight it. We have new reporting this morning, mere moments before we sat down to tape from ABC News about what the new proposed settlement is.

[B]

It was last night. I'm just gonna. It was last night.

[A]

Oh, it was the last night.

[B]

It broke last night. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[A]

Okay. Well, I was already in bed because it's. It took me a full 36 hours to recover from being down in person with everybody.

[B]

No, that was hard for you, buddy.

[A]

I just want to read this to people. Okay, so I'm reading from ABC News. It's going to take a minute because I want everybody to really bask in the full majesty President Donald Trump is expected to drop his $10 billion lawsuit, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate allies who claim they were wrong targeted by the Biden administration. The commission overseeing the compensation fund would have the total authority to hand out approximately $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to settle claims brought by anyone who alleges they were harmed by the Biden administration's weaponization of the legal system, including the nearly 1600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6th Capitol attack, as well as, potentially, entities associated with President Trump himself. The settlement terms are expected to prohibit Trump from directly receiving payments related to those legal claims. However, entities associated with Trump are not explicitly barred from filing additional claims. Sources say under the terms of the potential settlement agreement, President Trump would have the authority to remove members of the commission running the fund without cause, and the commission would be under no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision making process for awarding more than a billion dollars. Hold on, it gets worse. Trump's proposed commission is expected to be composed of five members which, remember, he can remove any of them that he wants without cause, who would issue monetary awards based on a majority vote and the process for awarding money. And the identities of the recip hints could be kept private. Any remaining funds would be turned back over to the government shortly before Trump leaves office because it would be important for this fund not to exist when a different president could hand things out. Here's the part which this all sounds terrible, but this is the part which made me want to jam a pencil into my eye. While the exact terms of the settlement are still being finalized, sources have described the proposed compensation fund as a hybrid between a victim compensation fund similar to the civil claims process that followed the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and a truth and reconciliation style commission for ten fucking years. Sarah, I have said that when this was over, we were going to need a truth and reconciliation commission. And it turns out we're going to get one and it's going to be against us.

[B]

Yeah. So I keep sitting here being like, is there a different word that that means more than corruption, your hands on your face. Here's the way that they do this. It's. We've always talked about this. This has always been their MO Projection, right. They project. But this, they do it now in such a way that it's almost like the irony is too deep to contemplate where J.D. vance right now is on a fraud tour they, they have launched at the same time that he's Trying to take a billion dollars for his ballroom, that making $1.7 billion of taxpayer money. In both cases, taxpayer dollars lied about the ballroom being privately funded. Okay. Even then it was corrupt because people were just buying favors anyway. Right.

[A]

It seems like he's going to keep that.

[B]

It'll be some blend of the two. Right. He'll get the corruption and the taxpayer dollars for his stupid ballroom. And then on top and his arch and his reflecting pool. I mean, while Americans gas prices are going up, while their food prices are going up, while the inflation continues to beat people and make the money that they're earning worth less and unable to keep up with the economy, this guy is spending taxpayer dollars, all this stuff, and now he's starting the slush fund that is specifically so he can give out money to the January 6th perpetrators. By the way, I don't know if you've been following the trajectory of these January 6th fine people, many of whom have been picked up for subsequent crimes, many of them sex crimes against children. Because as you can imagine, people who are trying to overturn our election are not very fine people.

[A]

Oh, I thought they were all going to turn out to, you know, a couple of them become nuns, some others have become priests. They were working in soup kitchens and they'd know.

[B]

No, we let them out and it's like the number of sort of subsequent crimes and again, just many of them sex crimes of the January six prisoners. We're going to pay those people out with our taxpayer dollars. All of this at the same time. And this is the contrast that I. It's not just that that prices are going up for all Americans while they fraudulently steal tax dollars for their own pet stuff to bribe their friends or give out. I mean, this weaponization stuff. Right. This is basically so Donald Trump himself. Right. Will of course claim weaponization from the Biden administration.

[A]

This is about organization. I'm sure we'll cover.

[B]

Yeah. The Trump organization.

[A]

But Don Jr. Can.

[B]

Don Jr. That's right. Right, totally. This is it. Will absolutely. He will find a way into the family's pockets.

[A]

No accountability and also no visibility. Again, the idea that this is going to be done like he personally can name the members of the board who do the voting and that the identities of the people who get the money get kept secret. The process and the votes are kept secret and the whole thing gets wound down before he leaves office. Because God forbid another president had the discretion to hand out some of this money. It's unbelievable.

[B]

It is unbelievable in the fact.

[A]

And it's Legal.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Well, that's the thing.

[B]

This is the one. Well, this is the election has consequences side of it. Right. Which is. He is. He is. It's funny. This is again, I am living in this conversation right now that we are having about what comes next in the, in the, in the deep hope that we have a Democrat for president in 2028. And you're thinking about what can be done about this because, you know, I, I don't know why something resurfaced from you the other day, but it was the, when we were doing the live show and you were like, we need to put all these in jail. And you know me in my process, loving institution, loving self. But part of the institution has to be accountability. Right. And so like I am somewhere, you know, I think sometimes you're like full Nuremberg for everybody. And I'm always, you know, I'm always calibrating to jbl. I'd like to do more of making

[A]

you calibrated my attention with this Nuremberg talk.

[B]

Yeah, I know. The thing is, is they cannot be able to get away with this. And I don't, don't say that they will. I can see you, I can see your cynical wheel going, oh, yeah, I'll let you finish.

[A]

I'm going to let you finish. I'm going to let you finish, Taylor.

[B]

But like, this is the stuff I want accountability for. This is the stuff I want. I want them to have to personally pay it back. I want to be able to, I want to go claw it back. The idea when you say perfectly legal and this is, this is the, then the norms and the cracks that Trump exposes, because I've been having a parallel conversation with Andrew Weissman because he's got this new book out, Liars Kingdom, which is really about making it so that presidents cannot lie about elections being stolen. Do you know that in many other democracies it is illegal to lie about saying an election that you want an election that you didn't win. Like in Germany, in France, in Brazil.

[A]

Question.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Sidebar. Let's pretend that it's 2029.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Congress passes a law to do what Andrew proposes. A Democratic president signs that bill into law.

[B]

I know where you're going with this.

[A]

And the Supreme Court 6:3 then says, no, sorry, can't do this First Amendment violation. Where are you then on expansion of the Supreme Court? Just out of curiosity.

[B]

I don't the part of this, the court thing, if we're going to keep returning to this over and over again,

[A]

well, we're going to Return to it until you break.

[B]

No, I just, I think there are a lot of ways to get done what we want to get done. That doesn't also tell me how you're going to expand the court. I. So this is part of, part of what gets frustrating for me in these conversations. Then, like, people yell at me in the comments. And it's not that I, I, I recognize fully the problem we have with this court. I recognize it. I recognize all of the things that was dirty pool that Mitch McConnell played to get us this court. I'm as mad as anybody else about that.

[A]

Sure. Totally.

[B]

Tell me how you. Tell me how you get. Tell me how you're expanding the court, buddy.

[A]

You add one justice so that there's a justice from each circuit.

[B]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

[A]

Well, you got to kill the filibuster to get it. You got to kill the filibuster to get it. Right.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Without killing the filibuster. Killing the filibuster comes first.

[B]

Okay, so hold on. Quick question. So you're saying that first you need to win enough elections that Democrats control the Senate?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

If you don't, you can't.

[B]

When does that happen?

[A]

I mean, if it doesn't happen in 2028, it ain't going to happen.

[B]

Well, I will tell you, this map is getting harder and harder. This is, this is just more, more. My point is that I actually, the scenario in which you have the opportunity to even expand the court is much less likely. And frankly. So right now, this is what, this is the jbl.

[A]

It's all in shittified. Like the whole system is broken and can't be fixed.

[B]

But there are.

[A]

I'm saying, in the unlikely event that you wind up with the opportunity to fix the system, you, you better take it.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

And you're not going to get the chance.

[B]

But let's prioritize what the reforms are. Right. And for me, that. Or not even prioritize the reforms, prioritize which reforms are likely to be able to get done. Right. Like, I'm trying to, I keep trying to move us out of the space where. Because we're all so angry. Right. This is, you know, this is me, this is me thinking, okay, okay, we can't rage without a plan. Doesn't get us anywhere. So we need a real plan for how you get these reforms instituted. And the. You are much more likely. Like, I'm with you. Let's. Let's make D.C. a state. All right? D.C. statehood.

[A]

That's can't do that without killing the filibuster. Can't do it without killing the filibuster. So if you want to do that, you got to kill the filibuster.

[B]

Are you sure about. Also.

[A]

Yes, also. By the way, all of this is academic because I am telling you, I'm sorry, Democratic friends, if you get a Democratic president and a Democratic House and even a Democratic Senate, they're not going to do any of this shit. They're going to be like, we got to do Medicare for all. We got to focus on kitchen. That's what they're going to spend all their political energy on. Right or wrong. That's what they're going to do.

[B]

Again, I'm not even sure about that. I do think you can get a mandate for reforms. And I. And here's where. Here's where you. You do get me JBL after years. Okay. I'm watching Mike Lee walk around talking about how they have to kill the filibuster right now. I hope Republicans kill the filibuster.

[A]

Same.

[B]

I hope they do it so that I can spend the rest of my time blaming them for all of them.

[A]

Please do it.

[B]

But, like, you know, people will see that that is. That that brings with it its own insidifications. Different insidifications, but new ones. Okay, but. So let's say you kill the filibuster. I do think Democrats need to play constitutional hardball. I'm ready for constitutional hardball. And I think that a lot of it is. You're gonna have to figure out places for it to be done at the state level where the states can do something about it. And so that's why. That's why I wish I looked at this. And so we have secret POD rules where we're not sure.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But like.

[A]

But go back to your. I'm sorry I derailed us. You were. You were in the midst of talking about the reforms that need to be done, and I derailed you with Supreme Court talk. And I'm sorry.

[B]

That's okay.

[A]

I can't help myself.

[B]

Well, it's just. It's. I understand. I. Sometimes I. I don't know what to do when people are like, sarah's wrong. We have to do the Supreme Court. And I'm like, all right, give me a. Give me a path for that. Because I think there's a lot of other things we can do that are much more likely. Now, if Republicans kill the filibuster and Democrats take over the Senate, that would be good, but that has to Happen first. Like, everything for me comes back to, you need political power first before you can do any of the reforms. And so when you say it's academic, it also, you not only have to win it, you have to win it by enough. Like, even if you, even if the Democrats won the Senate this time, you'd still have John Fetterman sitting there. Who wouldn't vote for this? It's not even enough to win it this time. And so I'm just sort of begging people to live in the world that we live in, not the fantasy politics world, and think, okay, if you were so lucky to get a Democratic president in 2028, the chances that a Senate, because the map gets harder and harder for Democrats, until Democrats figure out how to start winning and in redder places, you're not going to be able to get these majorities that you need to do these reforms. And so that is why I am 100% focused on the things that we can do to drive down Trump's approval rating to the point where people are so just, they're so mad at Trump, they're so mad at Republicans that you can build and then that Democrats nominate some people that do inspire enough, not just hatred of the other side, but active. Like, I want this person, I like this person, so that they can get a mandate to do something.

[A]

Not possible, I don't think.

[B]

Okay, well, we'll find out. I disagree.

[A]

I really, I, I really think it's not possible. I think, I think the absolute ceiling where you have the best possible, whoever you think the single best Democratic candidate is against the worst Republican candidate is probably like seven points. Yeah, maybe you can't do you, you can't. That. It's just not a big enough mandate. We're too polarized. This is the, this is the JVL and certification of all of it.

[B]

This. But can I just say, like, this is why the, the grant we got. You know, sometimes we, we fall into the traps that we know we shouldn't. And one of them has been, like, really dissecting Graham Platners. The question of, you know, how do we grapple with our. How. And I'm like, I, I, I was thinking about the other day and I was like, you know what? I don't care actually about the Graham Platner. Like, I care about candidates. I care. But, like, for me, Susan Collins has been on a descent from the Susan Collins who used to buck her party on gay marriage. That made me a Susan Collins fan over the years. She was always somebody that was the kind of Republican that I liked, the super moderate sort of socially liberal Republican. And she has, over the last decade, enabled Trump's fascism. And not only. And like, so, like, then there's these key moments, right, where she does vote for impeachment. I'm like, okay, you know, at least you got this. It's important to have people like Susan Collins. There's. But actually, no, I want to beat Susan Collins. I want Susan Collins out of the Senate because all she's going to do is rubber stamp what Trump is doing. She, she and Cassidy and even the people who voted for impeachment all tried to find a way to get the Republican Party back onside to, to, to endear themselves to the MAGA movement. Uh, they did just vote against the War Powers Act. But guess what, guess what then John Fetterman voted for it. So this is where we are with the Senate. So just. I am. I'm begging people to think about the cadence before we have a fight where everyone wants to yell at me about packing the Supreme Court or expanding the court. We're so far from that. We have to figure out how to build the political power necessary to do

[A]

any of these things. We should be so lucky.

[B]

We should be so lucky to get to have that argument.

[A]

Believe me, when I say expand the court. That is me doing fantasy politics, because I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think Democrats are likely to accumulate the power to be able to do it. And if they did, I don't think they would spend their capital in that place. And maybe that would be right as a political matter. Right. Maybe. If your choice is Medicare for.