US4 min(s) read
Published 08:04 19 May 2026 GMT
Donald Trump has announced a $1.776bn ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ after settling a huge lawsuit with the Internal Revenue Service, with taxpayer money set to be given to Trump allies and others.
As part of the settlement agreement, the Attorney General and the Justice Department confirmed that the fund would be established to ‘hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare’.
The US Department of Justice confirmed that the fund would be set up as part of the agreement to settle the case between the IRS and Trump over the leaking of the President’s tax returns.
Other facets of the settlement include that a formal apology will be made to Trump and his co-plaintiffs, Trump and the others will receive no cash payment directly, and the lawsuit will be completely dropped.
This is quite different to his promise to give most US citizens $2,000 - or $1745 maybe - although we probably haven't heard the last of that yet.
This new fund will contain exactly $1.776 billion, a number chosen to represent the year 1776, 250 years ago this year, when the US gained independence.
The fund will be paid out of the federal ‘Judgment Fund’ which is a pool of cash that the US government uses to pay settlements and legal claims.
This money comes from the US taxpayer, which has caused a bit of controversy.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said: “The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again.”
“As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”
“The use of government power to target individuals or entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, or ideological reasons should not be tolerated by any Administration", said Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter.
In short, anyone can apply for access to the fund so long as they believe that they were unfairly targeted by the government for political or ideological reasons.
They can apply for compensation, formal apologies, or other relief using the fund, and the DOJ has released other stipulations about how the monies are to be used.
The claims made are voluntary, there are ‘no partisan requirements’ and the fund will issue quarterly reports detailing what money has been used.
Any leftover money will then be returned to the government, with the fund set to expire in December 2028.
The Attorney General also confirmed that the fund will be overseen by a five-member commission.
Those who support the fund - and predominantly Donald Trump - argue that previous administrations have been politically biased with investigations and prosecutions being selective or abusive.
They argue that the government should compensate those who have been victim to this improper state action.
What’s more, they claim that the current system and methods of remedying such claims is slow and difficult to access, with this new fund bringing much-needed structure - much like some other funds that exist for other harms.
However, those against the fund argue that it essentially creates a politically-motivated compensation fund which will be used essentially to hand money to Trump supporters.
.jpg_KxNZRz?tr=cr-0.0.1024.683,f-webp,q-70,w-1024)
They argue that the criteria can be vague and subjective, and that taxpayer money is simply being handed over to supporters of the current administration, including many involved in the January 6th Capitol riots.
Others argue that the fund essentially normalizes the notion that criminal investigations are inherently partizan.
What’s more, some have accused Trump of indirectly guiding DOJ spending using his own personal grievances.
At the very least, this is an attempt by the Trump government to enshrine in law the idea that previous governments and law enforcement acted in politically biased fashion, and that those who were the ‘victims’ of this are entitled to compensation.
It will all depend on how the fund is operated, who gets paid by it, how the evidence is evaluated, and whether it operates on a properly non-partizan basis across the political spectrum.
