WASHINGTON, D.C. — In late May, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced plans to create the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” — originally intended to compensate people who claim they were targeted or unfairly investigated by the government.
The fund received harsh criticism and legal roadblocks. Even though it appears the fund — as we knew it — is dead, the concept is still very appealing to the president.
The $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization” Fund was announced as part of a settlement between President Trump and the government over leaked tax returns during his first term. The concept was quick to face criticism by both parties, primarily because violent Jan. 6 offenders were not ruled out as potential claimants of the taxpayer-funded settlement fund.
“Trump says ripping Americans off to give kickbacks to convicted criminals who beat police officers to death on January 6 is a beautiful thing,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., last week.
Last week, following legal challenges to the fund, the DOJ said the program would be abandoned. But during an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, President Trump said he thinks, personally, the Anti-Weaponization Fund “is a great idea.”
“It won’t die until we permanently ban it by law, not by language, not by verbal promises which can just evaporate, but by law,” said Schumer.
Democrats — and some Republicans — are pushing for legislation to ensure the fund never sees the light of day.
“I don’t know why we just don’t codify it so Democrats are not raising the speculation that it come back at some point,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.
Pennsylvania’s senators both agree taxpayer dollars should not be given to anyone who has assaulted law enforcement officers.
“Well, I think that the Attorney General has pulled back the weaponization fund. One of the reasons was because when it was introduced, it wasn’t very clear on who would be eligible for that. And one of the things I’ve always said is that that money should not be eligible for any person that assaulted law enforcement,” said Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa.
“I’m not preoccupied by that,” said Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. “I certainly don’t support it. But overall, I think we have bigger fish to fry that’s in front of us right now.”
