A crowd of Trump supporters gather in front of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. In May 2026, the Department of Justice established an “anti-gun” fund from which it could make payments to those who participated in the January 6 attack. (Photo: Jon Cherry/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump’s creation of a $1.776 billion emergency fund to pay back allies and others who say they were wronged by previous administrations has drawn widespread condemnation from opponents, including some Republicans, who characterize it as an act of brazen corruption.
But the Trump administration press to reward experts say his supporters also hark back to an earlier era of American cronyism while expanding the boundaries of political favoritism.
From the early days of the United States until the 19th century, the spoils system dominated the federal government. Presidents handed out jobs to supporters, filling the bureaucracy with workers who demonstrated loyalty to power.
For example, Trump’s political idol, President Andrew Jackson, replaced a enormous number of federal officials after his inauguration in 1829. One person appointed to a position at the Port of New York prepared from over $1 million, today valued at tens of millions.
The comparison is not exact. The spoils system involved the allocation of government positions to political allies, a practice called patronage. Instead, Trump’s fresh fund would funnel taxpayer dollars directly to favored individuals.
But scholars who have studied the spoils system and the presidency see parallels between the past and the present – at the heart of it all is the desire to reward allies and build loyalty.
“I think that might be the common element here,” said Sidney Shapiro, a law professor at Wake Forest University who wrote before the 2024 election, Trump wanted to restore the spoils system. “It appears that President Trump is considering using the fund to reward people who have been unfairly punished, but he believes it is unfairly punishing them because they tried to support him.”
The five-member board will be appointed by Trump
Department of Justice announced “anti-gun fund,” which critics call a “slush fund,” on May 18 as he moved to settle a lawsuit Trump had filed on his own behalf against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns by a former agency contractor.
The case put Trump in the highly unusual position of successfully negotiating with himself because he erased the post-Watergate tradition of the Justice Department’s independence from the White House.
Even before the settlement, the Justice Department under Trump took actions that were unheard of in any other recent administration. For example, federal prosecutors brought a case against former FBI Director James Comey and tried to bring criminal charges against Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The Justice Department also received an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, which often criticizes GOP politicians.
Trump’s settlement calls for the creation of a fund overseen by a five-member board selected by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s personal lawyer. Trump can fire members for any reason.
The fund’s management will have the right to make decisions regarding payouts, as well as to issue a formal apology. Claims submitted to the fund must be processed by December 1, 2028, before the end of Trump’s term.
On January 6, rioters line up
A group of Trump supporters and supporters said they plan to seek compensation. They include people who stormed the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, disrupting Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory. Trump earlier He pardoned the rioters when he took office in January 2025.
Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 22 years in prison before Trump pardoned him, predicted on a recent podcast that “many J6 users intend to spend their money on firearms.”
Trump hailed the creation of the fund as an act of magnanimity on his part because the settlement does not provide for any money to be paid to him.
However, Blanche also signed a document prohibiting any additional scrutiny of the president’s past tax history, protecting him from audits. The New York Times and ProPublica. reported in 2024. Trump could owe $100 million if he loses an audit battle over improper tax credits.
“I have sacrificed a lot of money allowing the just-announced Anti-Gun Fund to operate. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my tax returns and the equally illegal Mar-a-Lago Burglary, for an absolute fortune.” he wrote on Truth Social, referring to the FBI’s 2022 search of his Florida residence.
“Instead, I am helping others who have been so exploited by the evil, corrupt and armed Biden administration to finally receive JUSTICE!”
Trump has taken a “fatherly” approach to governing, James Pfiffner, a professor emeritus at George Mason University who has studied the presidency, wrote in an email to States Newsroom.
Benefits such as federal contracts go to those who are committed, Pfiffner wrote, and the government is treated as if it were a family business and the state’s resources were its personal property.
The “anti-gun fund” is an extension of that approach, Pfiffner wrote, but it also goes further than past presidents. He wrote that he couldn’t think of any past precedents in the current presidency for such blatant exploit of taxpayer money to potentially reward loyalists.
“At least under the spoils system, people employed by the government worked and probably did their job,” Pfiffner wrote. “The beneficiaries of this fund have done nothing to deserve their benefits, and it is likely that some will be rewarded for committing crimes intended to overturn the 2020 election.”
Congress began to restrict the spoils system after the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield by a rejected job seeker.
Over the next two decades, many federal positions were transferred to the civil service system. Although the federal government still covers about 4,000 among political appointees, the extensive majority of the bureaucracy consists of civil servants.
Critics and defenders in Congress
However, it is unclear whether Congress will block the Trump fund despite the backlash.
Anger among Republican senators has stalled action on budget legislation funding immigration enforcement, which Democrats would exploit to force a vote on amendments to block the fund. Democrats have introduced multiple bills to stop it.
“Congress cannot stand by while Trump turns the federal government into a political operation for the benefit of his friends and cronies,” Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Colorado, said in a statement.
There are obstacles to congressional action. Even if Republicans controlling both chambers voted with Democrats, Trump could veto passed bills imposing restrictions on the fund, which would require a two-thirds supermajority in the House and Senate to reject it.
Some GOP lawmakers defended the fund.
On May 21, Senator Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, opposed a unanimous motion by Senator Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, to pass a bill prohibiting payments to the January 6 rioters.
“Fortunately, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Trump Department of Justice have established a standard and lawful process for hearing from American citizens who have been harmed by law enforcement or gun violence under the Biden administration,” Tuberville said on the Senate floor.
Lawsuits have been filed challenging the fund and its structure. Two police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6 they suedwarning that rioters could exploit the money to organize.
Fund temporarily blocked
On Friday, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the Trump administration to do so stop work on the fund for at least two weeks, and then consider ordering a longer break.
The decision comes as a result of a lawsuit brought by a former federal prosecutor fired by the Justice Department and a California professor who was charged but acquitted of assaulting a federal officer after protesting an immigration raid.
Legal groups also argue that Congress did not intend to exploit federal money for these types of payments.
“Another common thread is that we, taxpayers, fund both,” Shapiro, the Wake Forest professor, said of the spoils system and the Trump fund. “We certainly fund the jobs that people have, and we are now funding this fund.”
