A federal judge halted the Trump administration’s creation of a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund on Friday, established as part of President Donald Trump’s settlement with the IRS, blocking the government from giving any money to those who apply for funds while litigation proceeds—though it’s still possible the fund could move forward in the future.
President Donald Trump looks on during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on May 21.
Getty Images
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema temporarily blocked the $1.776 billion fund from moving forward while briefing takes place in a lawsuit against it, keeping the fund on pause for at least the next few weeks until a hearing takes place on June 12.
The government is barred from taking any further action regarding the fund, including transferring money to it, considering any claims for relief, and giving out any money through the fund.
The ruling was in response to a lawsuit brought by a coalition of parties who claim they were wronged by Trump’s Justice Department—including multiple left-leaning organizations, a former DOJ prosecutor, an immigration advocate who was arrested by the Trump administration and the city of New Haven, Connecticut—who all argued the fund was created unlawfully and discriminates against them by only allowing claims against Democratic presidential administrations.
The $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund was created as a condition of Trump settling his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, with the Trump administration establishing the fund for those who feel they’ve had the judicial system “weaponized” against them—including Jan. 6 rioters and other controversial Trump allies.
Brinkema’s ruling did not include any reasoning for why the fund was being temporarily blocked, and it’s unclear if the judge could reverse her decision next month and allow the fund to disburse money as the case keeps moving forward.
The White House and DOJ have not yet responded to requests for comment.
In addition to the creation of the $1.8 billion fund, Trump’s settlement with the IRS also included a provision giving him and his eldest sons—who were also plaintiffs in the case—widespread legal immunity from prosecution or civil cases based on conduct that took place before the settlement. That includes barring the IRS from auditing any of the president’s existing tax returns. That provision of the settlement was not at issue in this lawsuit, so Brinkema’s ruling does not have any impact on any IRS audits or other investigations into Trump and his family.
Briefing in the lawsuit is moving forward, with Brinkema ordering the government and plaintiffs to file arguments for why there should be a more lasting pause in the case before the June 12 hearing. This case is one of several lawsuits now pending against the $1.8 billion fund, which means there could still be more rulings blocking the fund, even if Brinkema changes her mind in the future and lifts the current pause. It’s possible the issue could ultimately be brought to the Supreme Court to determine, and it remains to be seen how long the litigation could take to play out or if any money could be distributed through the fund in the meantime.
Trump controversially settled his IRS lawsuit on May 18 as it faced the imminent possibility of being thrown out entirely, reaching an agreement with his administration as the judge overseeing the case was determining whether the president and the IRS were actually opposing parties who could be in litigation against each other. The settlement has drawn widespread opposition from Democrats and ethics experts who have painted the “anti-weaponization” fund as a “slush fund” designed to reward the president’s political supporters, and even many Republicans have expressed concerns about the arrangement. In addition to the lawsuits challenging it, lawmakers in Congress have also introduced legislation designed to thwart it, while politicians in Democratic-led states have floated proposals like levying a 100% tax on any funds received through it. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s personal attorney, has defended the fund and claimed the president had no involvement with establishing it.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。