Trump’s Taxpayer-Funded Revenge Plan

Summary

The Daily: “Trump’s Taxpayer-Funded Plan” (May 20, 2026)

Host: Rachel Abrams
Guest: Andy Duran (NYT Reporter)
Main Theme:
This episode investigates the Trump administration's unprecedented creation of a $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded pool meant to compensate those claiming to be victims of federal "weaponization" and "lawfare"—with a particular eye on January 6th Capitol rioters and Trump allies. The episode lays out how this fund came to be, who might benefit, bipartisan concerns about corruption, and the extraordinary political and ethical implications.

---

Episode Structure and Key Discussion Points

1. How Did the Fund Originate?

• Background on Trump and Tax Returns

  • Trump famously broke with tradition by refusing to release his tax returns in 2016, leading to major public interest and eventual leaks.
  • [02:11] Andy Duran: “He did not release his tax returns. It was standard practice … Trump didn’t do that.”

• IRS Data Leak by Contractor

  • Leaks of Trump’s and other wealthy Americans’ tax info in 2020–2021 (by the NYT, then ProPublica).
  • Charles Littlejohn, an IRS contractor, pleads guilty to being the source and sentenced to prison in early 2024.
  • [04:09] Rachel Abrams: “It became clear that the IRS had a leaker.”
  • [04:13] Andy Duran: “Yes. There was somebody in their systems providing this information to the press ... A man named Charles Littlejohn ... pled guilty ... and was sentenced to prison.”

• Trump Sues the IRS

  • In January, Trump, his sons, and his business sue for $10 million in damages over the leak.
  • [05:22] Rachel Abrams: “The difference here, though, is that he’s not just a private citizen. He is suing a government that he oversees.”

• Unprecedented Conflicts of Interest

  • Trump both sues and oversees the departments meant to oppose him in court, creating profound legal and ethical conflicts.
  • Todd Blanche, former Trump personal attorney, is now acting attorney general.
  • [07:10] Andy Duran: “There are two sides to the case, but Donald Trump sits on top of both parties in this lawsuit.”

• Potential Lawsuit Collapse

  • Judge questions whether the case is even real—as both sides are essentially controlled by Trump.
  • [09:00] Rachel Abrams: “It was looking like this was not going in the President’s favor, in other words.”
  • [09:29] Andy Duran: “...folks within the administration were working feverishly ... what they arrived at was that President Trump would drop his lawsuit entirely. And in exchange, the Justice Department would create this unprecedented, gigantic pot of taxpayer money.”

---

2. How the Fund Works and Who Might Benefit

• Details of the Fund

  • Officially $1,776,000,000 (alluding to 1776, the year of US independence).
  • Money comes from the Judgment Fund—typically used to pay legal settlements, but never for anything like this.
  • Five appointees (chosen by the Attorney General) will decide on payouts; rules for “weaponization” claims remain vague.
  • [11:59] Andy Duran: “...this will be $1,776,000,000.”
  • [12:11] Andy Duran: “This is a huge amount of money ... will be controlled by five people appointed by the attorney general ... a lot that we still don’t know ... including exactly how claims for payment will be evaluated ...”

• Likely Recipients

  • January 6th rioters (some already pardoned by Trump) are expected to benefit.
  • Trump supporters who believe they were wrongly investigated under previous administrations.
  • Uncertainty whether payouts will simply reimburse legal expenses or confer larger windfall profits.
  • [14:00] Andy Duran: “One of the main groups we’ve heard from so far are people who were convicted on January 6 ...”
  • [15:36] Andy Duran: “That is certainly the scenario that people are asking a lot of questions about. And that certainly seems possible under the way that this fund has been set up. For sure.”

---

3. Bipartisan Outrage and Congressional Reaction

• Democratic Backlash

  • Democrats slam the fund as a “slush fund” for Trump’s allies and express outrage that convicted Capitol rioters could get compensated.
  • At a Senate budget hearing, Attorney General Blanche faces heated questioning.
  • [17:04] Senator Chris Van Hollen: “This is an outrageous, unprecedented slush fund.”
  • [17:38] Senator Chris Van Hollen: “That is pure theft of public funds and rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene. Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self-dealing scheme.”

• Republican Concerns and Internal Dissent

  • Even GOP leaders appear wary. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others express discomfort, signaling oversight.
  • Treasury Department’s top lawyer resigns, apparently in protest.
  • [18:26] Andy Duran: “...there are also signs that Republicans ... are a little squeamish about this whole idea.”

---

4. Will Trump Himself Gain from This?

• Personal Benefit for Trump
  • Trump and immediate family barred from receiving money directly—but the IRS will drop any audits of Trump, his family, and businesses, which could be worth tens or hundreds of millions to him.
  • [19:51] Andy Duran: “The President himself and his two sons and the Trump Organization ... will not be paid out of the fund themselves. That said ... IRS will drop any audits ... which ... could deliver him tens of millions of dollars in direct financial benefit ...”

---

5. Can Congress Stop This?

• Some Democrats tried to intervene in the initial lawsuit, but it’s now too late.
• Congress could, in theory, pass legislation to restrict such settlements or the use of the Judgment Fund.
• [21:44] Andy Duran: “...the question now is whether Congress takes any steps to change how money can be spent ... But it's unclear if that will actually happen.”

---

6. Ethical and Political Implications

• Move is seen as the next step in Trump’s “campaign of retribution,” expanding from punishing enemies to directly rewarding loyalists with taxpayer money.
• Ethics watchdogs call it possibly “the most corrupt act in American history.”
• [22:49] Andy Duran: “I think we should think about this in the broader context of what President Trump has hoped to accomplish in his return to office ... now the Trump administration is making that next step from revenge to compensation for President Trump’s allies.”
• [23:27] Rachel Abrams: “What this represents is also not just using the DOJ to punish enemies, but using it to reward allies.”
• [23:37] Andy Duran: “Yes, exactly ... There are almost no limits or controls on how this money will be used ... this is a very aggressive and extraordinary use of the money that we, the American public, all pay on our taxes ...”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "There are two sides to the case, but Donald Trump sits on top of both parties in this lawsuit."
  — Andy Duran [07:10]

• "That is pure theft of public funds and rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene. Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self dealing scheme."
  — Senator Chris Van Hollen [17:38]

• "Some ethics experts and watchdogs are calling this the most corrupt act in American history."
  — Andy Duran [23:15]

• "Directly paying people of essentially the President's choosing with taxpayer dollars ... is just a really radical and striking situation."
  — Andy Duran [24:15]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:11–05:22] — How the tax information leaks occurred and the legal aftermath
• [05:36–09:00] — The lawsuit’s legal conundrum: Trump sues his own administration
• [09:29–11:59] — The dropped lawsuit; emergence of the $1.7 billion fund
• [11:59–15:36] — How the fund works and who could benefit, focusing on January 6th rioters
• [15:46–19:41] — Bipartisan outrage, Congressional hearing reactions, and administrative fallout
• [19:41–20:59] — Will Trump personally profit? IRS drops audits
• [21:44–24:15] — Can Congress intervene? Ethical analysis of the move

---

Summary Takeaway

The episode exposes the creation of a massive, almost wholly unregulated, taxpayer fund in response to Trump’s failed lawsuit against the IRS for his own tax info leak. The arrangement is not only historically unique, but is seen by experts and lawmakers as a brazen case of using public money to reward the president's political loyalists and suppress scrutiny of his own finances. The podcast leaves open whether Congress will act to rein in this power, highlighting the democratically perilous direction of using government resources for presidential retribution and patronage.

Transcript

[Commercial Announcer]

This message is brought to you by Apple Card. For a limited time, when you get a new Apple card and purchase AirPods Pro 3 at Apple, you can earn back the cost up to 250 daily cash. New AirPods Pro and up to $250 daily cash back. Now that's music to my ears. Subject to credit approval, limitations and spend requirements apply. Apple Card is issued by Goldman Sachs bank usa, Salt Lake City Branch Terms and more at Apple Co AirPods from

[Rachel Abrams]

the new York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams, and this is the Daily In a move that shocked lawmakers on both sides

[Commentator/Analyst]

of the aisle, President Trump is dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. The Democrats and others are crying foul over what his administration plans to do.

[Rachel Abrams]

Instead, the Justice Department announced an almost $2 billion fund of taxpayer money to compensate people that the administration claims have been victims of, quote, weaponization and lawfare. Among those who could apply for payouts, the nearly 1600 rioters charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol insurrection.

[Commentator/Analyst]

This is reimbursing people that were horribly treated. Horribly treated. It's anti weaponization.

[Rachel Abrams]

Today, my colleague Andy Duran on the story of how this came about, who might get the money and the bipartisan outrage that has ensued.

[Commentator/Analyst]

He's setting up a $1.7 billion political slush fund for the proud boys and the Oath Keepers and his other political lieutenants and hangers on.

[Andy Duran]

I think that there are a lot

[Senator Chris Van Hollen]

of questions that the administration is going to have to answer.

[Rachel Abrams]

It's Wednesday, May 20th. So we have talked a lot on the Daily about President Trump's campaign of retribution against his enemies in his second term, how he's wielded the federal government to do that. And, and this week it feels like we entered into a new chapter of that story with the creation of this enormous fund. We're going to talk about how the fund works and who's likely to benefit. But before we get into that, you, Andy, have been covering all of this. And I just want to start with you explaining where did this fund even come from?

[Andy Duran]

So, yeah, this story really starts the first time that President Trump ran for office in 2016. He was unique among presidential candidates at that time, and this was something of a scandal in that he did not release his tax returns. It was standard practice for presidential candidates to put out some of their tax information as a way to understand their finances, and Trump didn't do that. And this was a topic of wide interest throughout his first term. There were various attempts to see his tax returns, and that didn't happen until the New York Times in 2020 published a series of stories describing what Trump had been doing on his taxes and revealing that for many years, Trump had been paying little in federal income taxes.

[Rachel Abrams]

Right. And to be clear, those stories relied on leaked tax returns. I remember this.

[Andy Duran]

Yes. It wasn't clear how. It wasn't clear where this information came from. It could have maybe come from accountants or lawyers who worked for President Trump or had worked for President Trump or the Trump Organization. It wasn't clear what the source of this information was. But reporters for the Times had gotten their hands on and reviewed President Trump's tax returns. Fast forward about six months to a year after that, and ProPublica, a separate news organization, they start releasing a series of stories about the tax strategies and tax situations of some of the world's wealthiest people. You know, looking at the tax situations of people like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, the positions they were taking on their taxes in a lot of detail. And so at that point, it became clear that given the tax information of so many different people, I mean, eventually it's been disclosed that thousands of individuals and entities had their information released that somebody within the IRS and with access to internal IRS records must have been the source of these stories.

[Rachel Abrams]

Put another way, it became clear that the IRS had a leaker.

[Andy Duran]

Yes. That there was somebody in their systems who was providing this information to the press. And in the fall of 2023, somebody was eventually caught. A man named Charles LittleJohn, a former IRS. He had been a contractor for the IRS, and he pled guilty to having provided this information about Trump and then all of these other wealthy individuals to the Times and ProPublica. And then he was sentenced to prison in the beginning of 2024.

[Rachel Abrams]

Obviously, leaking somebody's tax information is a crime.

[Andy Duran]

Yes, it is a crime. And it's also something that people can sue the IRS for. So there is a civil lawsuit process that exists for people who think that their tax information has been improperly released by the irs. They can sue the IRS and potentially get damages for that. And so in January, President Trump, two of his sons in the family business, demanded at least $10 million from the IRS for the leak of this information, basically arguing that the IRS should have stopped Charles Littlejohn from being able to do this.

[Rachel Abrams]

And as you said, people can sue the IRS when their personal tax information is compromised, is leaked. That is what he did. The difference here, though, is that he's not just a private citizen. He is suing a government that he oversees.

[Andy Duran]

Yes. I mean, this was and is an extremely unusual situation, if not unprecedented entirely. I mean, not only does the president control the leader of the Internal Revenue Service, the agency that he is suing, and the Treasury Department, which was also named in the suit, you know, he chooses many of the people who lead those agencies and is involved in their decision making. He has also played an enormous role in reshaping the Justice Department and kind of holding it in his image in a variety of ways. And the Justice Department is supposed to be the IRS's lawyer in this case, but, you know, there have been all sorts of things that the Justice Department has done in Trump's second term that are far beyond what an historically independent Justice Department would do. And so. Right.

[Rachel Abrams]

He's publicly called on the Justice Department to prosecute those that he considers his political enemies. Democratic lawmakers have faced federal investigation under his administration.

[Andy Duran]

Exactly. And the idea that this Justice Department, which is now led by Todd Blanche, the acting Attorney general, who was also President Trump's personal lawyer before he returned to the White House, would be making decisions about how to defend a lawsuit that the president had brought immediately just raised all sorts of questions about the conflict of interest inherent in such a situation, where President Trump is obviously controlling the private lawyers that he hired to bring this suit against the government, but he is also, to a very unusual degree, controlling the lawyers who are supposed to respond to this suit.

[Rachel Abrams]

I feel like you almost need a whiteboard to, like, map out all of these conflicts.

[Andy Duran]

Yeah. I mean, it's just there are two sides to the case, but Donald Trump sits on top of both parties in this lawsuit. And so, in that sense, while federal law does allow for people to bring these types of lawsuits against the irs, this case raises profound questions about what the outcome would be and whether there would be a real defense of this suit and whether the Justice Department would contest what President Trump was claiming in his lawsuit against the irs.

[Rachel Abrams]

So how does all this play out in court?

[Andy Duran]

Basically, given all of these tangled web of conflicts between President Trump and the Justice Department and the conflict of interest between lawyers who are working for the president in a private capacity and the lawyers who are working for him under the federal government, the judge starts to worry that this lawsuit can't proceed. There's a legal principle that the two sides in a lawsuit have to actually be in conflict with each other, that you can't sue yourself or sue your friend and hope to go manufacture a favorable legal ruling from a judge that will benefit both sides, that there has to be a genuine tension between the two parties in a lawsuit or else the judge has to throw it out. The judge can say, I can't rule on this because it's not a real lawsuit, essentially. And so the judge was questioning whether a real lawsuit even existed here. And so she asked the Justice Department and President Trump's lawyers to write briefs. They were supposed to be due today. Explaining themselves and telling her, are you actually fighting with each other or is this kind of all a charade? And you have filed this lawsuit essentially under false pretenses, in which case the judge could have dismissed it and she was indicating that she was certainly considering just throwing it out entirely.

[Rachel Abrams]

It was looking like this was not going in the President's favor. In other words.

[Andy Duran]

Yeah. Yes. And the Justice Department was going to have to explain that in doing so would have potentially been very awkward because for them to say that this lawsuit should exist, they would have had to show their face in this case and say, here I am. To oppose the President's claims, which people at the Justice Department, especially this Justice Department, didn't want to do.

[Rachel Abrams]

Where people have gotten fired for opposing the President.

[Andy Duran]

Yes, exactly. And so folks within the administration were working feverishly last week to avoid that scenario and to avoid potentially embarrassing ruling from the judge. And what they arrived at was that President Trump would drop his lawsuit entirely. And in exchange, the Justice Department would create this unprecedented, gigantic pot of taxpayer money that the Justice Department will control to compensate victims of quote, unquote, weaponization.

[Rachel Abrams]

We'll be right back.

[American Petroleum Institute Representative]

This podcast is supported by the American Petroleum Institute. Energy demand is rising and the infrastructure we build today will power generations to come. We can deliver affordable, reliable and innovative energy solutions for all Americans. But we need to overhaul our broken permitting process to make that happen. It's time to modernize and build. Because when America builds, America wins. Read API's plan to secure America's future at permitting. Reformnow.org Protecting your home shouldn't be a headache.

[SimpliSafe Advertiser]

Most security companies make it one, trapping you in expensive multi year contracts and requiring service appointments. SimpliSafe is better with comprehensive 24. 7 professional monitoring for a fraction of the cost. Customize your system online in minutes and set it up in under an hour. No drilling stress and no long term contracts. SimpliSafe award winning security that earns your business every day. Right now, get 50% off your [e-mail] the daily that's half [e-mail] Thedaily there's no safe like SimpliSafe.

[Lauren Dragan]

Hey, it's Lauren Dragan from Wirecutter, the product recommendation service from the New York Times, and I test headphones. We basically make our own fake sweat and spray it over and over on these headphones to see what happens to them over time. We're gonna put on some noise canceling headphones and see how well they actually block out the sound. I have 3,136 entries in my database. Kids workout. What version of Bluetooth? At Wirecutter, we do the work so you don't have to. For independent product reviews and recommendations for the real world, come Visit [e-mail] Wirecutter

[Rachel Abrams]

okay, so, Andy, talk to us about this gigantic pot of money. What do we know about it? How is it supposed to work?

[Andy Duran]

Yeah, so we don't know everything yet, but what we do know is that this will be $1,776,000,000.

[Rachel Abrams]

1776 year of our nation's founding.

[Andy Duran]

Exactly. Which I do not think is a coincidence, obviously, but, yeah, this is a huge amount of money that will be drawn from an account called the Judgment Fund, which is basically a pot of money that the Justice Department can use to settle legal claims against the United States. So anytime the government is sued and they want to settle, they can use money from this fund. It's not usually quite this much that's taken out of it at a time, but they will be withdrawing money from that account, depositing it in a separate account which will be controlled by five people appointed by the Attorney general. And they will consider claims from people who say that they have been victimized by the federal government and pay them for it. You know, there's a lot that we still don't know and are hoping to find out about this money, including exactly how claims for payment will be evaluated, what weaponization means, exactly when the Justice Department says that, and how they'll decide how much money they should be paid. We still don't even know who these five people are that will be controlling this money and making these decisions. And obviously, they'll play a huge role in all of this. So there are a lot of questions across Washington right now about what this could ultimately look like.

[Rachel Abrams]

Has something like this ever happened before?

[Andy Duran]

I mean, I think it's safe to say that while the Justice Department does settle other lawsuits, they've never done something quite like this before.

[Rachel Abrams]

Can you just talk a little bit, Andy, about the types of people that theoretically could be eligible to apply for this fund? Like, who are we talking about here?

[Andy Duran]

Yeah. So all the Justice Department themselves have said about this are people who are victims of, quote, unquote, weaponization and quote, unquote, lawfare. But in terms of people who believe that they'll be eligible and people who are excited about this, I mean, one of the main groups we've heard from so far are people who were convicted on January 6, 2021, for storming the Capitol and who President Trump previously pardoned. And there are other similar supporters and political allies of the president who say that under President Obama, the Justice Department, the FBI, improperly investigated them, basically because they were Trump supporters. And now this is their opportunity to get money, to make them whole from that experience. But again, there are all sorts of questions swirling around this, and we don't know if these payments would be specifically to pay back any sort of legal fees they may have incurred, or if there will just be payments beyond that where they could basically profit from the experience overall. So there's not necessarily going to be clear receipts about who's receiving this money and how much money they're receiving.

[Commentator/Analyst]

Wow.

[Andy Duran]

And so, based on what we know right now, this entire operation might be very hidden from public view. But obviously, you know, that's a live question.

[Rachel Abrams]

I think, to a lot of people, though, the idea that somebody who stormed The Capitol on January 6 could get paid by the government would be shocking, to put it mildly. Like, we are talking about, in some cases, convicted criminals who could theoretically get money from a government that they attacked. Is that right?

[Andy Duran]

That is certainly the scenario that people are asking a lot of questions about. And that certainly seems possible under the way that this fund has been set up. For sure.

[Rachel Abrams]

It would also, by the way, explain some of the reaction that we have heard to this announcement about this money that we've seen from both sides of the aisle.

[Andy Duran]

Yeah. So the acting Attorney General, Todd Blanch, happened to be scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to discuss appropriations, the Justice Department's budget.

[Commentator/Analyst]

Good morning to all of you. Ranking member Van Hollen, Senator Collins, Senator Moran, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget.

[Andy Duran]

During the hearing, Blanche defended the arrangement by saying that the judgment fund, this pot of money, had been used in similar ways in the past.

[Commentator/Analyst]

It is true that this is unusual. That is true. But it is not unprecedented. And it was done.

[Andy Duran]

And he told the committee that anyone could get money out of the fund, regardless of their politics.

[Commentator/Analyst]

It's not limited to Republicans. It's not limited to. It's not limited to the Biden weaponization. It's not limited to. In any way, scope or form to January 6th or to Jack Smith. There's no limitation on the, on the claims.

[Andy Duran]

But that hearing quickly became basically an opportunity for lawmakers and particularly Democrats to really push him on this arrangement.

[Senator Chris Van Hollen]

Mr. Attorney General, this is an outrageous, unprecedented slush fund.

[Andy Duran]

And push him on what they call the slush fund that the administration had set up to pay the president's political allies.

[Senator Chris Van Hollen]

Will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund?

[Commentator/Analyst]

Well, as it makes plain, anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they're a victim weaponization.

[Senator Chris Van Hollen]

Mr. Let me ask you this.

[Andy Duran]

And they in particular these Democrats, wanted to know whether people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th would be beneficiary of these funds.

[Senator Chris Van Hollen]

That is pure theft of public funds and rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene. Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self dealing scheme.

[Andy Duran]

Senator Chris Van Hollen accused Blanche of public theft of this money and said that it was part of President Trump's broader revenge tour during his second term in office.

[Senator Chris Van Hollen]

Mr. Blanch, the record is crystal clear. You are still acting as the president's personal lawyer, not as acting attorney general. It is hard to justify giving you any funds that will enable this pattern of wrongdoing to Continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Andy Duran]

But there are also signs that Republicans on Capitol Hill are a little squeamish about this whole idea. You started to see some questions from them about what this money could be for and how it could be used. And even the Senate Majority leader, John Thune, outside of the hearing, made some comments to reporters on Tuesday, essentially suggesting that Congress will be taking a close look at this pot of money.

[Rachel Abrams]

Do you believe this is a legitimate fund and do you believe those terms are fair?

[Senator Chris Van Hollen]

I think that there are and will be continue to be a lot of questions around that that the administration is going to have to answer.

[Andy Duran]

And so even some of the mild discontent that we're seeing right now publicly from top Republican lawmakers is, I think, an indication that this is not something, again, that even people in President Trump's party are excited about or proud of. And it sounds like there are concerns, too, even within the Trump administration. The top lawyer at the Treasury Department, which will play a role in creating this fund, suddenly resigned on Monday, just hours after its creation. And my initial reporting is that this resignation was in part because of, at least in part because of the creation of this fund.

[Rachel Abrams]

I want to ask about President Trump himself and whether he is going to benefit from this. He's obviously the one who sued the irs. Right. So can he apply for this fund?

[Andy Duran]

So the Justice Department has said that the President himself and his two sons and the Trump Organization, which, again, are the people who. And the entities that brought the suit in the first place, will not be paid out of the fund themselves. That said, we learned on Tuesday that another provision in this agreement between Trump and the Justice Department is that the IRS will drop any audits it has of Trump, his family members, and any related business entities, which is itself very unusual and extraordinary concession to make to the President and is also one that could directly benefit him financially. I mean, it's unclear what sort of audits the president himself may be facing right now, but it's potentially a protection that could deliver him tens of millions of dollars in direct financial benefit if. If the IRS was planning to charge him more in taxes, and now they are not going to be able to under this agreement. That is something that could go directly into his pockets.

[Rachel Abrams]

He might avoid giant tax bills to the tunes of tens of millions of dollars, is what you're saying.

[Andy Duran]

I mean, essentially, again, the Times has reported, and it's been publicly reported that the President has faced audits in the past in which, if the IRS won, essentially the president would owe more than $100 million in additional taxes. And so we don't know what the situation is now, what oddities he and his family members may be facing. But this has robbed the IRS of the opportunity to demand that the Trumps pay the taxes that the IRS says that they may owe under the law. And this could deliver a sizable financial benefit to him.

[Rachel Abrams]

Is there anything that anybody in Congress, or anybody for that matter, can do to stop this? If they find it objectionable, we'll find out.

[Andy Duran]

So I think on one level, there was an attempt by some House Democrats to intervene in the original lawsuit that President Trump filed and can further try and convince the judge to put a stop to it. Obviously, that ship has now sailed. So I think the question now is whether Congress takes any steps to change how money can be spent on legal settlements generally, or specifically trying to address this situation. So, under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse. That's a power that's certainly been eroded under this presidency and that the Trump administration has tried to kind of pull back into the executive branch. But it is something that, at least theoretically, Congress could take some steps and pass some laws to address. But it's unclear if that will actually happen.

[Rachel Abrams]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that most people probably did not even know that this pot of money existed for the DOJ to use until this week, probably. So you are in a good position to kind of help us make sense of this. Like, what should we make of the fact that this money is now being used in this way?

[Andy Duran]

I think we should think about this in the broader context of what President Trump has hope to accomplish in his return to office. And one of his main goals was obviously retribution against people and agencies that he saw as having been opposed to him the first time he was in office and while he was out of it. And I think what this usage of the fund indicates is that now the Trump administration is making that next step from revenge to compensation for President Trump's allies. And some ethics experts and watchdogs are calling this the most corrupt act in American history just to bring it back

[Rachel Abrams]

to where we started. What this represents is also not just using the DOJ to punish enemies, but using it to reward allies.

[Andy Duran]

Yes, exactly. But I think there is a significant difference and advancement of that agenda in this prospect of directly paying people of essentially the President's choosing with taxpayer dollars. There are almost no limits or controls on how this money will be used. These people who will be selected by Todd Blanche, the President's former defense lawyer, will have seemingly total freedom to give money to whoever they deem is worthy of it and to give them as much money as they want. And so this is a very aggressive and extraordinary use of the money that we, the American public, all pay on our taxes and that the government borrows on our behalf. And, and it could go to simply whoever has been loyal to the President. They could be cashing out to the tunes of thousands or tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. And so it is just a really radical and striking situation.

[Rachel Abrams]

Andy Duran, thank you so much.

[Andy Duran]

Thanks for having me.

[Rachel Abrams]

Foreign. We'll be right back. Hi, New York Times. I would be very interested in having separate logins for a shared subscription. I'm 35 years old. I still share my parents New York Times subscription.

[Commentator/Analyst]

I think if my teenagers were to

[Andy Duran]

have their own logins, we could share articles. It doesn't let us play the same game since each other.

[Rachel Abrams]

I play the stoku, I do the crossword. I do the spelling bee.

[Andy Duran]

I do the wordle.

[Commentator/Analyst]

Please help.

[Rachel Abrams]

Having our own accounts would be amazing. My mom could save her own recipes. My friends could save their recipes. I want to get the weekly newsletter, but they seem to always go to my husband and then he doesn't forward them to me. We both love cooking. I'm a 30 minute and under dinner girly. My boyfriend is very elaborate. I think him having his own profile would be great. We love the New York Times and we would love to love it individually.

[Commentator/Analyst]

Listeners, we heard you. It's why we created the New York Times. Family Subscription One subscription, up to four separate logins for anyone in your life. Find out [e-mail] family

[Rachel Abrams]

here's what else you need to know. Today, in a closely watched Republican primary, seven turned congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky was defeated by President Trump's handpicked challenger, Ed Gal Ryan.

[Senator Chris Van Hollen]

I want to thank President Trump for his support, his endorsement and his counsel as I navigated this campaign, which is a journey.

[Rachel Abrams]

Massie's loss caps a remarkable demonstration across three states of Trump's power to exile his opponents from the Republican Party. In a matter of weeks, Trump ousted five Republican state lawmakers in Indiana who opposed his plan to redraw election maps there, a US Senator from Louisiana who voted to impeach Trump, and now Massie who broke with Trump on several key issues, including Jeffrey Epstein.

[Senator Chris Van Hollen]

For 14 years, those SOBs in Washington

[Andy Duran]

tried to buy my vote.

[Senator Chris Van Hollen]

They couldn't buy it.

[Rachel Abrams]

And the Senate agreed to take up a measure to force President Trump to either end the war in Iran or secure approval from Congress to continue it. The move comes after a handful of Republicans join Democrats in pushing forward with a resolution that the GOP has managed to block for months. Today's episode was produced by Lexi Diao and Stella Tam. It was edited by Rachel Quester and Liz o' Ballin and contains music by Diane Wong, Alicia Beitup, Marian Lozano and Dan Powell. Our theme music is by Wonderly. This episode was engineered by Chris Wood. Special thanks to Alan Foy. That's it for the Daily I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.

[Commercial Announcer]

Your gut isn't just about digestion. It's the command center of your whole body. New Olly precise probiotics are made with clinically studied strains to provide targeted benefits beyond digestive health. By supporting your metabolism, skin health or stress response, start giving your body what it needs. Shop precise probiotics with skin, stress or metabolism support at your nearest Walmart. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.