Beans Talk | I'm Suing Over The Slush Fund

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Podcast: The Daily Beans
Episode: Beans Talk | I'm Suing Over The Slush Fund
Date: May 29, 2026
Host: Allison Gill (MSW Media)
Guest/Co-host Update: Dana Goldberg returns Monday

---

Overview of the Episode

In this episode of The Daily Beans, Allison Gill shares breaking news: she is personally filing a lawsuit against Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to halt the controversial $1.8 billion "Anti Weaponization Fund." Gill—backed pro bono by Public Citizen Litigation Group—explains the constitutional, legal, and ethical reasons behind her lawsuit, the potential ramifications of the fund, and what broader abuses it represents. The episode provides listeners with a detailed walkthrough of the suit, why it matters, and empowers listeners to get involved in the legal process.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Context and Announcement of Lawsuit

• Allison Gill announces her lawsuit against Todd Blanche, DOJ, the United States, and the so-called Anti Weaponization Fund.
• Motivated by what Gill sees as a legally dubious fund, she emphasizes its establishment without adherence to proper administrative law (“slush fund”).
• Suit filed in the Southern District of California with Public Citizen Litigation Group handling the case.

“I am suing Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice to stop the $1.8 billion slush fund.”
— Allison Gill [00:40]

---

2. Breaking Down the Lawsuit: Legal and Procedural Concerns

• Gill reads directly from the lawsuit, stating it seeks to vacate the fund’s establishment and block its operation until the DOJ complies with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• Explains the APA as the "Constitution of administrative law," requiring agencies to propose new rules publicly, with notice-and-comment periods for public participation.

“If you’re going to establish a rule, you have to give notice by publishing it on the Federal Register and giving we the people a chance to comment on it.”
— Allison Gill [02:09]

• Emphasizes how the fund’s creation violated these requirements.
• She would have participated in the comment process, highlighting her standing as someone directly affected by “weaponization” (reference to the DOJ investigation into her previous podcast and job loss at the VA), illustrating how the process was skirted.

---

3. Concerns About the Fund’s Purpose and Legality

• Inclusivity: Questions whether the fund is restricted only to those harmed by Biden administration abuses or is open to all, including those harmed under Trump.
• Eligibility: Expresses concern about paying “constitutionally ineligible claimants,” like those who participated in an insurrection.
• Cap on Fund: Critiques the arbitrary $1.776 billion cap, noting lack of supporting evidence.
• Legality of Fund Administration: Points out that the five commissioners overseeing the fund are appointed by Todd Blanche without Congressional authority, possibly violating the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2).

“If the members of the funds are not lawfully appointed, then everything the fund does is legally suspect.”
— Allison Gill [05:33]

• Argues that these flaws would have come to light with a proper APA notice and comment process.

---

4. Standing to Sue and the Harm Incurred

• Explains how the failure of proper rulemaking has directly harmed her by depriving her of an opportunity to comment and potentially protect her interests.

“Plaintiff believes that she has incurred harm from lawfare and weaponization… Plaintiff therefore has an interest in participating in a rulemaking… But we were all deprived of that because they skirted the law.”
— Allison Gill quoting from the lawsuit [06:59]

• Calls the fund "an insult to those of us who have faced actual weaponization at the hands of the president and his allies" and labels it "pure theft."

---

5. What the Lawsuit Seeks

• Requests that the court:
  • Vacate the fund's establishment
  • Enjoin DOJ from operating or reestablishing the fund without APA compliance
  • Provide temporary relief to prevent the depletion of the fund's corpus while litigation is pending.

“This is not a legitimate fund. It’s pure theft and it cannot go unanswered. So that’s why I’m suing.”
— Allison Gill [07:46]

---

6. Audience Engagement and Call to Action

• Encourages listeners to read the full complaint and consider supporting the legal challenge by making a tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen through their website.

“You can do it by making a tax deductible donation directly to the lawyers by going to citizen.org/beans.”
— Allison Gill [08:21]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the fund's structure:
  “The fund that Todd Blanch has created sits on a legal house of cards.” [05:15]

• On the Trump administration’s motives:
  “The Trump administration circumvented the law because it’s inconvenient to their goal, which is to basically redirect $1.8 billion in taxpayer money into the pockets of Trump’s criminal co conspirators and political allies.” [05:44]

• On personal resolve:
  "I'm not going to sit idly by while the government prevents actual victims of lawfare from having our voices heard on the matter." [07:22]

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:35: Allison Gill introduces the lawsuit against DOJ and Todd Blanche
• 02:10–04:50: Overview of the APA, flaws in the creation of the fund, and personal conflicts of interest
• 05:10–06:10: Constitutional and legal problems with fund governance
• 06:59: Direct reading on standing and harm
• 08:21: Call to action for listener support

---

Final Takeaways

Allison Gill’s solo episode spotlights her new legal challenge to the Anti Weaponization Fund, critiquing its legality, transparency, and political intent. The episode delivers detailed legal analysis with Gill’s characteristic snark and resolve, combining news, activism, and a call for listener action.

Resources:

• Read the complaint: muellershewrote.com
• Support the lawsuit: citizen.org/beans

Transcript

[A]

History is messy. It's weird, wild, and anything but boring. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that make you stop and ask, wait, is this real life? From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales, we explore the moments where people behave badly and sometimes beautifully. We've got naughty politicians, cultural chaos, and a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot. It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious, and always entertaining. Let's fall down the rabbit hole.

[B]

MSW Media. Hey, everybody. It's Friday, may 29, 2026. I'm alison gill, and this is be. Hey, everybody. Ah, it's Friday. I'm so glad it's Friday. We're about to head into a weekend. Dana's gonna be back on Monday, so you may rejoice. You don't have to sit here with me all by myself anymore. So I'm looking forward to her return. So here's the latest. I am suing Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice to stop the $1.8 billion slush fund. Now, Public Citizen Litigation Group has filed on my behalf in the Southern District of California. And I thought I'd take a few minutes to break down this lawsuit for you. Quote, Plaintiff Allison M. Gill brings this action against defendants United States Department of Justice, doj, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch, the Anti Weaponization Fund and the United States of America, seeking a judgment setting aside the defendant's establishment of a $1.776 billion program referred to as the Anti Weaponization Fund, with the power to issue apologies and pay compensation to claimants who present claims of lawfare and weaponization. And. And an injunction to prevent the defendants from reestablishing the fund without complying with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure act or the apa. So what is the Administrative Procedure Act? It is basically what they call the Constitution of administrative law. It's a federal statute that dictates how government agencies propose and establish regulations. And the establishment of this slush fund constitutes a rule. And by law, if you're going to establish a rule, you have to give notice by publishing it on the Federal Register and giving we the people a chance to comment on it. Now, According to the APA, Title 5, United States Code, Section 553B and C, General Notice of proposed rulemaking shall be published in the Federal Register unless persons subject thereto are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with the law. And after notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons. An opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments, with or without opportunity for oral presentation interested persons is important there. Now, had the government followed the law, followed the Administrative Procedure Act, I would have submitted comments as an interested person raising a number of issues about the proposal to create the fund. First, it's important that the fund be equitable and therefore open to anyone who has suffered abuse from governmental authority. Now I have an interest. I'm an interested person and I want to provide comment on whether the fund is available to those harmed by Trump administration abuses, not just Biden administration abuses like the ones I experienced when the government investigated my podcast in 2019. Muller she wrote, and then I was fired from my job after over a decade of exemplary service at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Second, I have questions about whether the fund will reward constitutionally ineligible claimants, like those who are barred by payouts from the government because they participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, and that would leave less money available to pay eligible claims. Now. Third, I would probably have questions about why the fund is capped at $1.776 billion. Now, the government says it's based on projected valuation of future claims, but they offer no evidence to support that. And it's also important that the fund be legally sound because if not, a future administration could deem some of these payouts unlawful and claw the money back, demand the return of the payments because the fund was unlawful to begin with. But the fund that Todd Blanch has created sits on a legal house of cards. Okay, first of all, the fact that the fund is going to be run by five commissioners appointed by Blanche without legal authority from Congress is a problem because that's required by Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Because unless Congress says otherwise, only the President can appoint government officers and the Senate has to confirm those government officers. And if the members of the funds are not lawfully appointed, then everything the fund does is legally suspect. The notice and comment process as required by the Administrative Procedure act would have exposed this flaw. Now these are just a couple of the problems with this fund. Identifying and fixing those kinds of problems is why agencies are required by law to go through the notice and comment processes required by the apa. But the Trump administration circumvented the law because it's inconvenient to their goal, which is to basically redirect $1.8 billion in taxpayer money into the pockets of Trump's criminal co conspirators and political allies. So I'm asking for the following. Quote, Plaintiff accordingly requests that this court vacate defendants actions establishing the fund and enjoin the defendants from implementing the provisions of the Trump settlement relating to the fund or otherwise operating the fund until such time as the defendants comply with the APA's requirements to the extent needed. The plaintiff also requests that the court award temporary or preliminary relief to prevent the irreparable harm that would be caused by the processing of claims and depletion of the fund's corpus while this litigation is pending. Now, the fund in the treasury that pays out these kinds of claims is like a bottomless fund, but they've gone ahead here and capped it at $1.776 billion, which means it's a finite amount of money. So I, you know, I have some questions. Now. Many have asked about standing, and here's what the lawsuit says about that.

[C]

Quote.

[B]

Plaintiff believes that she has incurred harm from lawfare and weaponization, as those terms are defined in the settlement agreement and for purposes of the fund. Plaintiff therefore has an interest in participating in a rulemaking to implement the terms of the Trump settlement that relate to the fund, including through the submission of written comments. But we were all deprived of that because they skirted the law. Quote, Defendants failure to undertake notice and comment rulemaking prior to issuing the fund establishment Order and the DOJ notice has deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to provide comments to protect her financial and due process interests in the fund's evaluation of her claim. So, long story short, this whole thing, this fund, is an insult to those of us who have faced actual weaponization at the hands of the president and his allies. And I'm not going to sit idly by while the government prevents actual victims of lawfare from having our voices heard on the matter. This is not a legitimate fund. It's pure theft and it cannot go unanswered. So that's why I'm suing. Now. You can read the [e-mail] and thanks to public Citizen Litigation Group, they're doing this pro bono. And a lot of you have asked, like, how we can support this lawsuit. And you can do it by making a tax deductible donation directly to the lawyers by going to citizen.org beans so thanks, y'. All. Hope you have a great weekend. Keep fighting. Okay, Dana and I will see you Monday. I'm Alison Gill, and you've been watching Beans.

[C]

Talking about Sailor Beans.

[B]

Daily Beans.

[C]

It's no surprise that newsmakers try to manipulate the audience. They want you to believe that they are the one holding the line, and they'll use any trick they can to get you there.

[B]

But don't let them fool you.

[C]

Get Unspun. I'm Amanda Sturgill. I've been a reporter, and today I teach future reporters to cut the spin and think critically about what newsmakers say. My podcast, Unspun, shows you how to know when you're being manipulated by the news, learn to spot the tricks, and how to make up your own mind about what's true. So if you're tired of being fooled by the news, subscribe to Unspun today. Unspun because you deserve the truth.