Trump creates $1.8 billion ‘anti-weaponization fund’

Summary

NPR Politics Podcast: Trump Creates $1.8 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’

Date: May 19, 2026
Hosts: Myles Parks, Carrie Johnson, Domenico Montanaro

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the Justice Department’s announcement of a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” established to compensate individuals—primarily Trump allies and January 6th defendants—who claim to have been harmed by “government weaponization.” The hosts explore the political, legal, and historical context, discuss reactions across the political spectrum, and analyze the implications for transparency, precedent, and future elections.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Is the Anti-Weaponization Fund?

• Announcement:
  The Department of Justice announced the creation of a $1.77 billion fund (picked intentionally to invoke “1776”) to “compensate people who have suffered from government weaponization.” The fund will be managed by a five-person commission appointed by the (acting) Attorney General, who is a former Trump personal lawyer.
  [00:50] Carrie Johnson: “The president will have the power to remove those commissioners without any cause given.”
• Details:
  The fund is open for applications now, although precise eligibility criteria remain “murky.”

2. How Did We Get Here?

• Trump’s IRS Lawsuit:
  Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in January over the 2019 leak of his tax returns. Legal questions arose over whether the president can sue a government agency he leads.
  • The case was voluntarily dismissed by Trump’s lawyers right as the DOJ announced the fund, linking the two events.
    [02:55] Carrie Johnson: “Instead of responding [to the judge], Trump’s lawyers filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss the case...the Justice Department announced the creation of this huge, nearly $2 billion fund.”

3. Who’s Eligible For Payouts?

• Broad but Vague Eligibility:
  Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch said “anyone’s eligible to apply,” not just January 6th defendants or those prosecuted during the Biden administration.
• Trump’s Justification:
  [03:44] Trump quote via Domenico Montanaro: “This is reimbursing people that were horribly treated. Horribly treated. It's anti weaponization. They've been weaponized. They've been, in some cases, imprisoned wrongly.”

4. Public Opinion & Political Divide

• Polling Data:
  Domenico Montanaro discussed how public opinion on January 6th and “weaponization” divides sharply along party lines.
  • 61% of Republicans: January 6th was “a protest by patriots to stop a stolen election.”
  • 59% overall (including 61% of Independents, 84% of Democrats): January 6th was “an insurrection.”
  • 62% overall disapprove of pardoning January 6th defendants, but 64% of Republicans approve. [04:16] Domenico Montanaro: “This split that we continue to see...Democrats and Independents are aligned overwhelmingly...versus Republicans who see things a completely, wholly different way.”

5. Legal and Ethical Reactions

• Reaction from Legal Experts:
  Broad consensus: this fund is “unprecedented.”
  [06:02] Carrie Johnson: “Donald Sherman...basically said this is among the most corrupt acts in American history.”
• Concerns About Corruption & Precedent:
  • The acting Attorney General and another approving DOJ lawyer both have strong Trump ties.
  • Congress was sidelined; 100 Democrats tried to intervene, but too late.
• Historical Comparison—Obama Era Fund:
  DOJ compared this fund to an Obama-era class action settlement with Native American farmers.
  [07:35] Carrie Johnson: “But...people had actually sued as part of a big class...and...a judge reviewed that settlement for fairness... In this new fund, there was no judicial oversight and people were not really suing individually.”
• Even Some Conservatives Object:
  Ed Whelan (ex-Bush DOJ): “It’s a safe bet this new fund is going to generate some outrage, abuses.” [08:42]

6. Norm-Shattering & Political Context

• Breaking with Precedent:
  [09:03] Domenico Montanaro: “This is...just a shattering of norms that we've continued to see by Trump...Justice departments have traditionally had a degree of independence from the White House...and this administration...just doesn't care about any of that stuff.”

---

Accountability & Oversight

• Transparency Questions:
  The fund’s oversight commission reports to the AG quarterly, but it’s unclear what (if any) information will be public. [11:48] Carrie Johnson: “Because of privacy concerns, [Blanch]’s not sure exactly what will become available for public scrutiny.”

• Legal & Legislative Obstacles:
  Challenges are unlikely, as standing will be hard to establish in court. The most direct remedy would be legislative—but Republican opposition to Trump is waning. [12:34] Carrie Johnson: “It's going to be really hard to find somebody who has standing to sue...the simplest way...is for Congress to stand up and pass legislation.” [13:32] Domenico Montanaro: “A lot of Republicans just are not gonna go along with something that puts them in jeopardy of coming under fire from Trump.”

• Concrete Political Consequences:
  Recent primaries illustrate Trump’s dominance—GOP politicians challenging him have lost support and elections. [13:32] Domenico Montanaro: “We’ve seen it just in the elections in these past few days... Senator Bill Cassidy...wound up going down in his primary...Massie...targeted for going against Trump...This is all part of Trump’s continued, really, retribution campaign.”

---

Why It Matters & What’s Next

• Political Strategy:
  The fund aligns squarely with Trump’s “anti-weaponization” campaign message, further mobilizing his base. [15:08] Domenico Montanaro: “I wouldn't say it's surprising, but it's still shocking...this is not something we've ever seen before from a president...to use the full weight and force of the federal government...Now Trump would say that he's the one who was targeted...but most people don't believe that.”

• What to Watch:

  • Who serves on the commission.
  • Who gets payouts (likely to be publicized by vocal recipients, particularly pardoned January 6th defendants).
  • Future lawsuits or congressional actions. [15:53] Carrie Johnson: “Some of these people are not really very quiet, and I expect some of them to be crowing in public about the money they're receiving.”

• Implications for Future Elections:
  The panelists anticipate this development will fuel new disputes over the legitimacy of future elections. [16:56] Domenico Montanaro: “Trump is clearly going to undermine elections that don't go his way. He's already shown that he's not only willing to do it, he does it.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Domenico Montanaro, on party divides:
  “It's really quite something to see, especially the further we've gotten away from this.” [04:16]
• Carrie Johnson, on legal pushback:
  “Really, no one has ever seen anything like this.” [06:02]
• Carrie Johnson, on ethical concerns:
  “It’s just a bit of a mess at this point.” [07:01]
• Domenico Montanaro, on norm-shattering:
  “Presidents have gone through pains to show they are not putting a thumb on the scale...this administration...just doesn’t care about any of that stuff.” [09:03]
• Ed Martin, former pardon attorney (via social media, paraphrased):
  “Never stop fighting, never stand down, never disarm and follow the lead of President Trump.” [16:32]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:32] Episode introduction & episode theme
• [00:50] DOJ fund announcement & structure
• [01:43] The legal/political path to the fund’s creation
• [03:15] Who is eligible for payouts
• [03:44] Trump’s public justification
• [04:16] Partisan divides and polling data
• [06:02] Legal/ethical backlash
• [07:35] “Precedent” claims vs. reality
• [09:03] Breaking presidential norms
• [11:48] Transparency and oversight concerns
• [12:34] Congressional responses & obstacles
• [13:32] Political consequences for Trump critics
• [15:08] Unprecedented use of federal power
• [15:53] What to watch going forward
• [16:56] Election implications

---

Conclusion

The newly created “anti-weaponization fund” stands as an unprecedented move—politically, legally, and ethically—by the Trump administration, aimed at compensating allies allegedly “wronged” by the government. The fund’s murky criteria, questionable oversight, and the political maneuvering surrounding its creation all point to deeper divisions in American politics and signal further instability for future governance and elections.

Transcript

[A]

Support for this podcast and the following message come from Ollie Gut Health on the mind. Ollie can help. Ollie has science backed supplements for you and the family, from daily probiotics to fiber gummies for the kiddos. Find the full [e-mail] that's O L-L-Y.com.

[B]

Hey there. It's the NPR Politics podcast. I'm Myles Parks. I cover voting.

[C]

I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department and Supreme Court.

[D]

And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent.

[B]

And today on the show, we're talking about a new Justice Department fund that could send more than a billion dollars of taxpayer money to January 6th defendants and other Trump allies. Kerry, this pot of money is being called an anti weaponization fund. Tell us more about exactly what's happening here.

[C]

The Justice Department announced this week that it was creating a fund of $1.7 $776 billion. That's 1776, the year the country was founded to compensate people who have suffered from government weaponization. And this fund is going to be overseen by five commissioners that the acting attorney general, a former personal lawyer to President Trump, will appoint. What we understand at this point, the president will have the power to remove those commissioners without any cause given. So the details are a little murky at present, but we now know we have a PO of almost $2 billion of taxpayer funds waiting for people to apply.

[B]

Okay, that's a lot of money. And as you mentioned, this was announced this week. But how did we actually get to this point? I know this isn't the first development here.

[C]

Yeah, it's kind of been a slow roll all year. What happened was in January, President Trump filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns by a federal contractor back in 2019. And the President asked for 10 billion DOL from the government. It created an ethical outcry. The case had been kind of moving slowly through the courts. And then the judge, the federal judge in Florida, started to ask some tough questions about whether there was really a controversy if President Trump was suing the same government he leads, wasn't he, in other words, the plaintiff and the defendant in this case? And if so, it really wasn't something she could manage as a case. The judge set a deadline for Wednesday of this week for the Trump legal team to respond to some of those questions about whether there was really a division or a separation between the president and the IRS in this case. And instead of responding, Trump's lawyers filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss the case. And in connection with that dismissal, a few hours later, the Justice Department announced the creation of this huge, nearly $2 billion fund to compensate people who suffered harm, they say, as a result of government weaponization.

[B]

Okay, do we know anything more about specifically who's eligible for money under this $1.7 billion fund? Is it just anyone who feels the government has wronged them in some way? Are there any specifics that we know?

[C]

The acting Attorney General, Todd Blanch, has been on Capitol Hill today, and he got asked a lot of questions from Democratic senators about who would be eligible to apply for this weaponization fund. He basically said anyone's eligible to apply. He. He said it wasn't limited to people who were prosecuted under the Biden administration or prosecuted by the former special counsel, Jack Smith, or even the January 6th defendants who stormed the Capitol. President Trump got asked a question about this, too, earlier in the week.

[D]

This is reimbursing people that were horribly treated. Horribly treated. It's anti weaponization. They've been weaponized. They've been, in some cases, imprisoned wrongly.

[B]

I mean, Domenico, I'm curious about how Americans perceive this idea that President Trump talks about a lot, that the Justice Department has been weaponized against Americans, that it is weaponized under the Biden administration, and specifically that it was weaponized to prosecute people who entered the Capitol on January 6th. Do people agree with him? Because I do feel like that is going to define a little bit how people feel about a fund like this.

[D]

You know, we've been pulling on this with Marist since January 6, 2021. And what we've seen is the further away that we've gotten from the event itself, from the siege at the Capitol. You've seen Republicans soften and listen to, kind of take in what Trump has said, really use that as their talking points in many respects. You know, in our latest survey from last year, 61% of Republicans said that what happened on January 6 was a protest by patriots to stop a stolen election. On the other hand, though, 59% overall said it was an insurrection to overthrow a free and fair election. And that included 61% of independents, 84% of Democrats. So this split that we continue to see, where Democrats and Independents are aligned overwhelmingly on any rapid draft of topics versus Republicans who see things a completely, wholly different way. It's really quite something to see, especially the further we've gotten away from this. And when it comes to Trump pardoning January six defendants, 62% of people said that they disapprove of Trump's pardons. And again, though very similar split. Democrats, 89% disapprove. Independents, 62% disapprove. Republicans, 64% approve. And it's really amazing considering that you had a handful of Republicans in the Senate, in the House, who did vote for Trump's impeachment over January 6th. And then given Trump's strength with the Republican base, a lot of them have retreated, especially considering a lot of those members are no longer in Congress because they spoke out against the president.

[B]

Well, I'm curious, Kerry, how the rest of the legal world is also responding to a fund like this. Has anyone come out with thoughts?

[C]

A lot of thoughts, Miles. Almost too many to mention, but really, no one has ever seen anything like this. Even the acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, said today it's true that this is unusual, and it is unusual. Donald Sherman, who leads the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington watchdog group, basically said this is among the most corrupt acts in American history. Almost 100 Democrats in Congress tried to intervene in this Florida IRS lawsuit at the last minute, basically arguing that the deal was usurping power of Congress to appropriate funds. But it was too late in the game for them to weigh in here. And many other experts are talking about how this appears to be an ethical morass for the Trump administration. The acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, of course, was a personal lawyer to President Trump. One of the other lawyers who signed off on this in the Justice Department, Stanley Woodward, actually represented multiple defendants charged in connection with the Capitol riot five years ago. And so they were both appointed by President Trump into their current jobs. And it's just a. It's just a bit of a mess

[B]

at this point, getting to this idea of exactly how unprecedented this actually is. In the press release announcing this new fund, the Department of Justice pointed to a Obama era program as something comparable. Can you explain that?

[C]

Yeah. The Justice Department says that there is precedent for creating this kind of massive fund. And they pointed to a settlement in the Obama years involving a class action lawsuit filed by Native American farmers who said they had been suffering discrimination for decades. Those people had actually sued as part of a big class A judge, reviewed that settlement for fairness, and ultimately approved that pot of money, which is much less than this pot of money in this anti weaponization fund. And of course, in this new fund, there was no judicial oversight and people were not really suing individually. The way this case came about, of course, was the President's own lawsuit against the government he's leading. And so Democrats and many others are saying this is not really a comparable situation. Moreover, even some conservative voices are speaking out about it. People like Ed Whelan, who worked in the George W. Bush Justice Department and clerked for the conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. He's been raising questions about this all along, wondering why you couldn't just pause this lawsuit until Trump left the White House. Last night, he posted on social media, it's a safe bet this new fund is going to generate some outrage abuses.

[D]

You know, this is, though, Miles, just a shattering of norms that we've continued to see by Trump in this second term, despite the false whataboutism that he's trying to do with comparing to this Obama administration settlement. You know, again, Trump here taking a shortcut. No judge reviewed this. As Kerry said, Justice departments have traditionally had a degree of independence from the White House. Presidents have gone through pains to show that they are not putting a thumb on the scale, especially after Nixon and Watergate. And this administration with Trump at the helm, just doesn't care about any of that stuff because he feels he can get away with it with his base. And certainly the polling bears that out. But the rest of the country just doesn't buy any of that.

[B]

Okay, well, we can leave it there for now. Let's take a quick break and more in just a moment.

[A]

Support for NPR and the following message come from Washington Wise decisions made in Washington can affect your portfolio every day. Washington Wise from Charles Schwab is an original podcast that unpacks the stories making news in Washington. [e-mail] Washingtonwise this message comes from Ali thinking more about gut health lately, Ali offers a range of science backed supplements designed to support you and your family's daily wellness. From probiotics that help support digestive and immune health to fiber gummies made with kids in mind, Ollie makes it easier to build simple habits into your routine. With options for different needs and lifestyles, finding the right fit can feel more manageable. Explore the full lineup at o l

[E]

l y.com this message comes from Mint Mobile if you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees and free perks, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop [e-mail] Switch taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. Support for this podcast and the following message come from Strawberry Me. Be honest. Are you happy with your job? Are you stuck in a job you've outgrown or never wanted in the first place? Are your reasons for staying really just excuses for not leaving? Let a career coach from Strawberry Me help you get Unstuck. Discover the benefits of having a dedicated career coach in your corner and get 50% off your first coaching session at Strawberry Me.

[B]

And we're back. So I want to talk now about accountability for this giant fund of money. Kerry, do we know exactly how this is going to be spent, or will there be transparency into where this $1.7 billion is actually going?

[C]

The Justice Department guidelines that they issued this week basically say that every fiscal quarter, the commission that's going to oversee this pot of money is going to send a report to Attorney General. But there's no way to be sure that that information will make its way to the public. And in fact, the acting attorney general said today that because of privacy concerns, he's not sure exactly what will become available for public scrutiny. And that's raising another host of questions about how this pot of money is going to be used and the ways in which people or organizations are going to get access to the money.

[B]

I mean, is this all a done deal? Are there any potential challenges left for people who are angry or worried about where this is headed?

[C]

It's going to be really hard to find somebody who has standing to sue, who suffered a real injury as a result of the way this all went down? The simplest way to stop this from happening is for members of Congress to stand up and pass legislation or pass a resolution or refuse to take some action to dole out money to the Justice Department or other parts of the Trump administration. And I've enlisted, listening really closely this morning to the reaction on Capitol Hill to Todd Blanche's testimony. And while Democrats have raised some serious questions about the creation of this fund and the transparency surrounding it, not very many Republicans so far are raising tough questions. And so, as a result, it's not clear that there'll be enough votes, simple math, in Congress to stop this in its tracks.

[B]

Yeah, Domenico, I feel like anytime we talk about the potential for congressional oversight right now, that it just doesn't feel very likely, does it?

[D]

No, because a lot of Republicans just are not gonna go along with something that puts them in jeopardy of coming under fire from Trump. I mean, we've seen it just in the elections in these past few days. I mean, you know, Senator Bill Cassidy, an incumbent who voted for Trump's impeachment and has stood up against some of what Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Has wanted to do as it relates to vaccines in, like, grilling him and all of that. You know, he wound up going down in his primary in Louisiana after Trump opened up challenge to him back to challenger in his race. He didn't even make it to the runoff. Somebody who's, you know, been an incumbent senator. It's super rare for that to happen. And then tonight, we've got a primary in Kentucky where more than $30 million has been spent in a House primary, the most ever on TV ads to target Thomas Massie, a Republican in Kentuck, Kentucky, because Massie had tried to force the release of the Epstein files and has gone against Trump on a lot of other things and been a real thorn in Trump's side. And this is just really all part of Trump's continued, really retribution campaign against a lot of people and entities.

[B]

Well, that's what I guess there's some part of me that is surprised. I've never heard of a fund like this. But at the same time, Domenico, this does kind of align with Trump's campaign message in 2024 in terms of anti weaponization of government, what he perceived as weaponization of government. So I guess in that sense, is there some aspect of this that isn't surprising?

[D]

Well, I wouldn't say it's surprising, but it's still shocking, right, in some respects to the system, because this is not something we've ever seen before from a president to use the full weight and force of the federal government to go and really weaponize the government to go after, whether it's media members, law firms, universities, political opponents. That's not something that we've seen in this kind of coordinated way with millions of dollars spent to try and go after them. Now, Trump would say that he's the one who was targeted, and that's why he's going after people for, quote, unquote, justice. But most people don't believe that.

[B]

Where do you think this goes from here, Kerry? What else are you watching?

[C]

You know, I'm going to watch and see who gets appointed on this commission to oversee this fund and whether we begin to hear from the recipients of the fund who's getting money and how much, because we already know that some of the January 6th defendants who have received pardons have been talking about suing the government or making administrative claims against the government in connection with their incarceration or their legal bills. And so some of these people are not really very quiet, and I expect some of them to be crowing in public about the money they're receiving. Interestingly enough, the former pardon attorney at the Justice Department, Ed Martin, who's been a supporter of some of these January 6th defendants, posted on social media just in the last several hours, the lesson of the last few days is to never stop fighting, never stand down, never disarm and follow the lead of President Trump.

[B]

I mean, if that is the lesson, Domenico, doesn't that immediately raise questions about future elections?

[D]

Of course it does. You know, Trump is clearly going to undermine elections that don't go his way. He's already shown that he's not only willing to do it, he does it. And a lot of people who have run and lost have done the same thing. And in fact, it was funny because Cassidy, in losing his primary, kind of took a dig, subtle dig at Trump in saying that, you know, when you lose, you don't pout and whine. You admit the fact that you suffered a defeat.

[B]

All right. Well, we can leave it there for today. I'm Myles Parks. I cover voting.

[C]

I'm Gary Johnson. I cover the Justice Department in the Supreme Court.

[D]

And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent.

[B]

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.

[A]

Support for NPR and the following message come from Washington Wise decisions made in Washington can affect your portfolio every day. Washington Wise from Charles Schwab is an original podcast that unpacks the stories making news in Washington. [e-mail] Washingtonwise this message comes from BetterHelp. May is mental Health Awareness Month. Having a licensed therapist with you by video phone or chat can make a difference. And BetterHelp makes it easy. Sign up now and get 10% [e-mail]

[E]

NPR this message comes from Midi Health introducing AgeWell Longevity Care, designed by women for women. Women can feel overlooked by the healthcare industry, especially when it comes to aging. Midi Health offers personalized services conveniently accessible through telehealth visits and covered by major insurance providers. Your health is worth it. Book your virtual visit today at joinmidi. Com. That's joinmidi. Com.