Trump's Weaponization Slush Fund Is 'Completely Insane'

The Justice Department announced a plan for President Trump to settle a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service through an agreement creating a nearly $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund. The fund would use taxpayer dollars to pay alleged claims of lawfare, and concerns arose that claims could be filed by Trump allies and even January 6 rioters. Political pushback followed, including among Republican senators, contributing to derailment of a planned spending bill vote. Legal challenges emerged quickly, including a lawsuit by January 6 officers seeking to block the fund and an amicus brief by 93 House Democrats arguing the settlement is unconstitutional. The argument centers on Article III requirements for actual adversity and prohibits collusive suits where parties do not truly disagree.

"For people to get into court, there has to be an actual conflict between them. They actually have to disagree. Like, you can't call somebody up and say, "Hey, I'm going to sue you. You're going to settle this. Let's go in and do it together and it'll sort of work out for everyone." That's a collusive suit, which is illegal under our Constitution. So, in order for a court to have jurisdiction, there has to be actual adversity and, without that actual adversity, the Department of Justice can't just settle a suit."

"The deal mandates the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" intended to use taxpayer dollars to redress alleged claims of "lawfare." There is widespread concern that claims would likely be filed by Trump allies and even January 6 rioters, something the Justice Department did not rule out. The fund quickly prompted intense political pushback, including among Republican senators, to the point that it helped derail a planned vote on a spending bill on Thursday."

"On Wednesday, officers who fended off rioters on January 6 filed the first lawsuit to block the fund. And 93 House Democrats, represented by former New Jersey attorney general Matt Platkin and his firm, Platkin LLP, filed an amicus brief challenging the settlement as unconstitutional. But will this be enough to block payments from going out?"

"You are representing 93 House Democrats in a brief challenging the settlement, arguing that the lawsuit runs afoul of Article III of the U.S. Constitution and that Trump's "blatant self-dealing makes this matter a collusive suit." Could you walk me through your position?"

Read at Intelligencer