Trump administration scraps controversial 'anti-weaponization' justice fund

The Trump administration has officially withdrawn its controversial plan to establish an "anti-weaponization" fund, designed to compensate individuals who claimed to be victims of justice system "weaponization." The decision comes shortly after an interim judicial order temporarily halted the fund's creation, which had drawn sharp criticism from political opponents.

“

We are not pursuing the creation of this fund.

Interim Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the administration's decision, stating, "We are not pursuing the creation of this fund." He clarified that the fund had not yet been established, no members had been appointed, and no compensation claims had been filed. Blanche emphasized that this withdrawal does not require any formal written documentation.

“

The fund had not been established, none of its members had been appointed, and no compensation claims had yet been submitted to it.

The proposed fund, reportedly valued at nearly $1.8 billion, was intended to provide redress for those allegedly targeted or persecuted by the justice system, regardless of their political affiliation. However, Democrats and some Republican lawmakers denounced it as a "slush fund" potentially aimed at rewarding Trump loyalists, including individuals convicted in connection with the January 6th Capitol attack.

“

This fund was open to anyone who had been a victim of the weaponization of justice, targeted or persecuted, whether they were Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, independents, or others.

The legal challenge against the fund was initiated by several parties, including a former federal prosecutor involved in cases against January 6th defendants. A judge in Alexandria, Virginia, partially granted their request, issuing an order that prohibited the government from taking any action related to the fund, including financial contributions or processing claims, until further review. A subsequent hearing is scheduled for June 12th to address a potential extension of this freeze. The administration had previously expressed "profound disagreement" with the court's decision but pledged to respect it.

“

Profound disagreement.