Democracy Forward has filed a lawsuit on behalf of multiple plaintiffs seeking to block a nearly $1.8 billion slush fund President Donald Trump created to reimburse ideological allies who claim to be victims of politically motivated litigation and prosecutions.
The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” stems from a settlement Trump reached after suing the Internal Revenue Service for disclosing his tax returns during his first term in office. The privately arranged fund allows payments without oversight by Congress, the courts or watchdog groups.
Those eligible to apply for payouts from the account include January 6 insurrectionists and other administration supporters it considers victims of “lawfare,” its term for those who have been investigated, indicted or sued for civil or criminal acts. Only those who claim to have been victimized by Democrats are eligible.
“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,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is charged with appointing five commissioners to administer the fund. “As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”
Skye Perryman
Plaintiffs in the litigation include individuals, organizations and one municipality that have been targets of the administration or would be harmed by those paid from the fund. The lawsuit said Trump’s arrangement includes numerous constitutional violations, exceeds executive branch authority, violates the Administrative Procedure Act and abuses taxpayer money by allowing confidential claims and payments.
The action followed a lawsuit previously filed by two U.S. Capitol police officers attempting to block implementation of the fund.
“Although Trump and his cronies have been secretive about the fund’s ends, reporting leaves no doubt that it will be used, among other purposes, to pay the nearly 1,600 people charged with attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021,” according to that lawsuit.
“This latest attempt by the Trump-Vance administration to make grift great again is profoundly unlawful and will not withstand judicial scrutiny.”
“This latest attempt by the Trump-Vance administration to make grift great again is profoundly unlawful and will not withstand judicial scrutiny,” Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman said. “The administration cannot use taxpayer dollars to create a secretive, politically driven compensation scheme that rewards allies and punishes perceived opponents.”
Plaintiff Andrew Floyd, a former U.S. attorney and January 6 prosecutor fired by the administration, said the administration seeks to distribute taxpayer dollars to those who sought to undermine American democracy.
“First, hundreds of people attacked the foundation of an ordered society by trying to stop the results of a free and fair election — committing serious assaults on law enforcement and other crimes as they did so,” he said. “Then, this administration pardoned them — removing the accountability that had been hard earned by victims, witnesses, law enforcement and prosecutors and imposed by impartial jurors and judges. Now they are asking taxpayers to illegally reward them for their crimes.”
Jonathan Caravello
Plaintiff Jonathan Caravello, a California professor arrested and later acquitted of assaulting federal agents during an immigration raid, described the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” as an effort to further turn the federal government against Americans.
“Unconstitutional on its face, it serves a nefarious purpose: namely, to further divide a working class who, regardless of political affiliation, have legitimate grievances against a government that has failed to provide its people with what is necessary to survive and flourish.”
The National Abortion Federation joined Andrew Floyd v. U.S. Department of Justice out of concern the fund will embolden those already intimidating abortion providers.
“Abortion providers and clinic staff already face escalating threats, harassment, stalking and violence simply for providing essential health care,” NAF President Brittany Fonteno said. “The Trump-Vance administration has made that danger worse by pardoning anti-abortion extremists, walking away from meaningful FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act enforcement, and now attempting to create a taxpayer-funded slush fund that could reward the very people who target abortion providers and patients, including NAF members.”
The City of New Haven, Conn., a target of administration efforts to punish “sanctuary” cities, became a plaintiff to keep its citizens’ tax dollars from being used to pay off President Trump’s “political cronies and criminals,” Mayor Justin Elicker explained.
“This so-called ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ is … the latest example of how President Trump is weaponizing every part of our federal government to advance his own personal interests and the personal interests of those who politically support him.
“This so-called ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ is just the opposite: It’s the latest example of how President Trump is weaponizing every part of our federal government to advance his own personal interests and the personal interests of those who politically support him. The residents of New Haven want their hard-earned tax dollars to be used to fund critical public safety initiatives and infrastructure projects — like the ones the Trump administration is attempting to illegally terminate.”
Common Cause joined as a plaintiff because its mission includes tracking abusive government spending. “We’re suing to protect hardworking Americans and ensure public money goes towards making our lives more affordable, not paying out the president’s political allies,” President Virginia Kase Solomon said.
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia says the fund is an affront to the U.S. Constitution in multiple ways.
“It violates core constitutional requirements, including the First Amendment, the guarantee of equal protection, and the separation of powers, and the more obscure, but once again relevant, express constitutional prohibition on paying ‘any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.’”
It’s also unfair because only those who claim to be persecuted by Democrats may apply, meaning plaintiffs harmed by the Trump administration cannot apply. They “incurred significant costs as a result of this targeting, including legal fees, loss of income, diversion of critical resources, and reputational damage. Each of these plaintiffs would be entitled to, and would pursue, redress for these harms through a fair and lawful process,” the suit contends.