Trump administration abandons $1.8 billion payout fund after revolt by GOP

Trump administration abandons $1.8 billion payout fund after revolt by GOP. All right. Welcome back. And back. Now, to a major twist in the controversy over President Trump's IRS settlement that

created a. Nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund. Now, the Justice Department says it.

will comply with a court order to pause providing any possible compensation to people who feel they were politically persecuted

during the Biden administration. However, there were a lot of questions and uncertainty about what happens next. So joining us

 Now is Josh Gerstein, POLITICO's senior legal affairs reporter.

 Josh, thank you so much for taking the time to be with us. Hey Megan, good to be with you.

And let's just start with why the Trump administration may have made this decision. What are you hearing? Well, I mean, it seems fairly clear to me that.

They made the decision because of their political backlash.


They were getting to this, uh, somewhat from the public. But the real pressure point here seemed to be, uh, Senate Republicans, as there was a


meeting, uh, about a week and a half ago between, uh, Senate Republicans, a sort of closed-door caucus where the acting attorney general, Todd Blanch,


went up there to Capitol Hill, and to say he got an earful would be an understatement. Um, we're told again, by some ver.y

 conservative members of the Republican caucus, like, um, Senator Ted Cruz, that about half the caucus was angry about


This idea of the weaponization fund and that there was, in fact , in this closed door meeting, uh, screaming like people were yelling at, uh, Blanch. They

We were so upset about it, uh, both because they thought it was a mistake to potentially compensate people that had assaulted police during the


January 6th, uh, attack on the Capitol, but also just politically, uh, given some of the economic challenges the country is facing at the moment,


 The idea that money is being handed out, uh, to people that have been accused of criminal, uh, offenses, I think a lot of the Republicans thought it was


politically tone deaf and a big, uh, a big rock that they would have to carry into the fall midterms. Obviously heated moments and a big split there.


So then what happens next for this fund? Is the fund dead? Uh, so it's really not clear. Um, we

uh, spoke to a source yesterday who said, um, it's really not clear how dead it is . Um, it's dead for now, Megan.

And, you know, this is simply because, uh, a judge here in the DC area and Alexandria, uh, federal Judge Leonie Brinkema.

issued an order that basically tells the Justice Department not only they can't, uh, you know, disperse the money, they can't move the money into this fund.


 But basically, they can't take any steps to set it up until, um, there's further court action. There have been


something like 4 or 5 lawsuits filed, uh, over this. And so all those things are still pending.


It's really not clear what the Justice Department statements yesterday mean, that they'll abide by the court order. I think most people would hope that they would abide by a court.t


order if they don't like it. Um, they can appeal it. But it's unclear whether that means they're sort of throwing in the towel on this. And it's kind of


interesting, too. We haven't seen, as we so often do, some kind of a truth Social post or a direct statement from the president where he says that this is either on or off. Yeah.


Let's talk about that. What that says, uh, about the president and his willingness to fight.


You know, given you mentioned the number of challenges here, what does that say to you as you're watching this play out?


Well, to me, it says that the president's sort of politically in a different place than he was. Say uh, a year ago. The fact that you would have Senate


Republicans stand up to him, um, as they did through this meeting with Todd Blanch. Um, there's also been, you know, the senators that are now basically


lame ducks, in part because Trump supported their, uh, opponents in primary campaigns.


So we've got a few of those, um , and they don't really have much of an incentive to go along, uh, with the president.


And then, you know, lurking in the background here is just the overall poll numbers where we see the president's approval.


Um, in the mid 30s, in some polls down in the low 30s. Um, he may just not have the leverage that he usually has.


And it seems like somebody in the white House or the Justice Department kind of misjudged, um , you know, how much gas they


would get out of this, uh, fund ? Uh, it seems like they thought it would be a good way to appeal to the MAGA base or to Trump.


supporters, but it seems to have taken more flack and caused more political heat than any benefit . They could have ultimately gotten out of it. And


Technically, another question for you, Josh, you know, what does this mean in terms of the president's lawsuit with the IRS? Can he now try to get the


money for him? Self Um, I think that'd be difficult. I mean, the lawsuit is still officially dismissed, although, um, the


judge, there is now asking questions about this settlement and whether the lawsuit was essentially some kind of sham, where maybe the administration had decided they wanted to set


up this fund, and then had the president file the suit so that they could set it up as a settlement to the suit. That's what the judge is kind of


inquiring into. I think the notion that it's going to come to some kind of result where he gets a large payout from the government, um, is highly unlikely. That would probably


also provoked a very negative reaction on Capitol Hill. And even if they drop the fund, I do think there's going to be some.


senators on the Republican side, maybe some other Republican lawmakers, and certainly a lot of Democrats who are going to be looking to sort of tie the president's hands on this issue


, um, maybe put some limits on the broader right that the Justice Department has to settle , uh, litigation. It used to be


that they had to get approval from Congress, I think for any settlement of over $100,000. Um that went away, I think a deca.deOr

or two ago. But Congress may now be interested in bringing some version of that back. Um so they have a little more control, uh,


over the Justice Department's ability to hand out money, uh, particularly when it's not a judgment against the, um, U.S government, but in fact, just an

An 
effort to settle a suit that hasn't even been litigated. Many layers to this. Josh Gerstein, POLITICO's senior legal affairs


reporter with so much insight for us this afternoon, thank you for taking the time again, Josh. 

READ MORE: Sherrill, Newark mayor back partial curfew in New Jersey’s largest city

Trump's DOJ backs down from the "anti-weaponization" fund that enraged Republicans and Democrats

In a rare reversal, the Trump administration appears to be backing down from its nearly $ 1.8 billion.

 so-called anti-weaponization fund. Now, you'll recall the plan sparked bipartisan backlash and was temporarily

 blocked by a judge. Critics worried it could lead to the payments uh heading to rioters who stormed the capital on

 January 6. In a social media post, the DOJ wrote that it disagrees strongly with the judge's decision. It also said

The fund was open to anybody, whether they were a Democrat, a Republican, a conservative, an independent, or otherwise.

 However, the department has pledged to abide by the ruling. But that may not be enough for some GOP lawmakers. According

to Politico, Iowa's Chuck Grassley says President Trump needs to quote say very explicitly that there's not going to be

a weaponization fund. And later today, acting Attorney General Todd Blanch will take questions from the House Appropriations Justice Subcommittee.

He's expected to face scrutiny over this fund. CBS News political reporter Katherine Watson joins us live from our DC bureau with more on all of this.

 Katherine, good morning. Great to have you with us today. So, where do things stand on this fund right now?

Yeah, well, an interesting turn of events yesterday. Certainly, sources told CBS News shortly before the DOJ made that statement that the

The administration planned to scrap the fund. Uh, there has been a tremendous amount of pressure from Republicans to get rid of this fund, and disagreement.

 This DOJ fund is holding up key legislation on Capitol Hill. U,m, you can see that as being kind of one of the pivotal reasons for why we're seeing.ng

 what we're seeing now. Um, the DOJ statement also came hours after House Speaker Mike Johnson met with President Trump about the anti-weaponization fund.

 And acting attorney general, uh, Todd Blanc,m met with GOP senators recently.

And Ted Cruz, after that meeting, said that Republicans, uh, Republican senators, uh, were screaming in the meeting. Uh

 Obviously, a very tense situation. So just to give kind of the backstory to what we are seeing now, uh, now of course

As mentioned, with uh Senator Chuck Grassley's uh comments um in Politico, we are seeing even increasing um

comments from Republicans and certainly from Democrats to make this more formal.

Errol, it's irritating some Republicans. It's holding up, uh, legislation. Any indication that the administration might

Seek to revive this fund later down the road? It says it's abiding by this ruling for now?

 Yeah. Well, there aren't any indications of that currently. Um, as we talked about, there's certainly pressure from Republicans for that not to happen.

 Another thing that we have to mention, aside from uh it the legislation being held up on Capitol Hill, it's a midterm.

Republicans do not want anything that is going to uh distract from their prospects, anything that is going to be particularly controversial.

 Let's listen to what Democratic senators are trying to do to ban this kind of fund more permanently.

Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again

 Trump's word is nowhere near enough. This should not be a partisan issue.

 and I understand many of our Republican colleagues have concerns about this slush fund,d too.

So we'll see if that legislation goes anywhere. Errol. All right, Katherine Watson in our DC bureau. Thank you..

FAQ US

How did Donald Trump trade the Republican celebration?

AI assessment

The Republican birthday party has transformed from an institution targeted on unfastened-marketplace capitalism, hawkish overseas coverage, and traditional conservatism right into a populist, nationalist motion described through protectionism, "the united states First" isolationism, and excessive non-public loyalty to Donald Trump.

What policy changes did Trump make?

AI evaluation

President Donald Trump’s second administration has carried out aggressive government and legislative actions focusing at the economic system, energy dominance, and strict immigration enforcement. Key coverage shifts consist of extensive-ranging price lists on overseas imports, essential rollbacks to environmental and financial policies, regulations on gender-asserting care, and the advent of a directive forcing many inexperienced card candidates to use from outside the usa. 

How did the Republicans hope to alternate america authorities?

AI overview

Republicans hope to alternate the U.S. government by and large via shrinking its size, reducing federal spending, and decentralizing electricity to the states. Their overarching dreams consist of: