President Donald Trump observes a Cabinet meeting at the White House on May 27, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration’s nearly $1.8 billion “counter-gun” fund has drawn scrutiny for its corruption potential, even dividing Republicans in Congress who rarely oppose President Donald Trump’s decisions and policies.
Among the main concerns: Could riot defendants who assaulted police officers, pardoned on Jan. 6, 2021, claim a piece of the pie and essentially be rewarded for committing political violence?
Supporters also legally question the fund’s structure, which will hide details from the public, including the names of the plaintiffs and the amounts paid.
Nikhel Sus, general counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, also known as CREW, which filed the lawsuit against the fund, told States Newsroom that the administration’s order constitutes a “blatant power grab from Congress.”
The fund created by the Justice Department to settle Trump’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the IRS also complicated Senate Republicans’ plans to pass an immigration enforcement funding package with a plain majority. Some GOP senators are abstaining from voting unless the legislation includes guardrails for the fund.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Republican senators on Capitol Hill on May 21 to defend the fund, but many GOP lawmakers left without conviction and many questions remain.
Outgoing Senator Thom Tillis, R-N.C., he said reporters, the fund is “stupid on stilts” and resembles “tyranny.”
Others asked questions at town halls during congressional recess.
“I do not believe that a dime of any fund should ever be given to any January 6 insurrectionist who was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021… I want to be clear… I definitely believe that Congress needs to play an oversight role on this before I can sign or support this,” U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, the governor of Nebraska, said May 26 at a town hall in Norfolk, Nebraska.
The fund ran into difficulties on May 29 when it was temporarily blocked in the courts. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia issued the ruling in the lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs are represented by the advocacy groups Democracy Forward and Common Cause compact order Preventing the Department of Justice, the Treasury, and other high-level officials from taking additional action to create or make contributions from the fund.
Brinkema, who did not make any decisions on the merits of the case, set a hearing for June 12.
What is the Counter-Weapons Fund?
In exchange for Trump and his family dropping their $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of their 2019 tax returns, the Justice Department ordered the creation of settlement fund for $1.776 billion – a nod to the country’s founding.
As part of the agreement, Trump also agreed to drop an administrative lawsuit seeking damages over what Blanche described as an “unlawful” FBI raid on the president’s Mar-a-Lago residence, part of the Biden administration’s case against Trump for allegedly collecting secret documents after leaving office.
Trump also agreed to drop a 2019 Justice Department-related compensation claim inquiry for Russia’s interference in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Blanche launched the fund on May 18 as a way to compensate “victims of illegal crimes.”
(*6*) Blanche said in a news release.
The fund will be managed by five commissioners selected by the attorney general, one of whom in consultation with Congress. According to the Justice Department, the president has the power to remove any member.
The department maintains the fund is nonpartisan. In addition to the money, the Justice Department will also issue an apology to eligible applicants, officials said.
Who is trying to restrict or close the fund?
House Democrats tried to intervene in the president’s IRS case, but U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams dismissed the case on Trump’s terms. Williams was appointed to the bench in the Southern District of Florida in 2010 by President Barack Obama.
On May 27, nearly three dozen former federal judges urged Williams to reopen the case, arguing that the Trump administration “deceived” the court by not sharing details about the “counter-gun” fund with the judge.
Next, judges he arguedThe Justice Department also says the settlement permanently exempts Trump and his family from tax audits and any other claims by the federal agency.
“The parties in the case treat this lawsuit as a legal justification for their actions,” the judges argued.
Legislative proposals also appeared in the House and Senate.
Bipartisan Bill on behalf of MPs Tom Suozzi, DN.Y. and Brian Fitzpatrick, D-Pa., both running for re-election in swing districts, are proposing to prohibit the utilize of federal money to pay claims made to the “counter-gun” fund.
“The Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act ensures that federal funds cannot be used to support this fund without the transparency, oversight and legal protections the American people deserve. Taxpayer dollars will not become a discretionary payout fund. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is non-negotiable,” Fitzpatrick stated in a press release.
Suozzi characterized the deal as “a slush fund to pay off the January 6 criminals and other misfit minions!”
When pressed during a May 19 Senate hearing on whether defendants convicted on January 6 of assaulting police officers would be eligible for the fund, Blanche said that “anyone in this country can apply” and that final decisions would be made by the fund’s commissioners.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, R-Maryland, has announced plans to introduce painful amendments when and if the Senate GOP introduces an immigration enforcement funding bill.
Van Hollen said he would call for a vote on the amendment blocking the Jan. 6 payments to the defendants convicted violent crimes and sexual abuse of children.
The senator from Maryland also announced an amendment that would prohibit members of Congress from receiving payments.
“And as things stand, members of Congress have a chance to take advantage of this corrupt scheme. If Republicans don’t end this fund entirely, they should at least join us in preventing members of Congress from profiting from it,” Van Hollen said May 21 in a written statement.
Who’s suing?
Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the fund.
U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Washington Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, he argued in federal court that pardoned rioters could utilize the money from their paychecks to organize.
“In the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald J. Trump created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded fund to finance insurgents and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name,” they argued in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Legal groups including CREW, Democracy Forward and Common Cause also challenged the fund in court.
Under that provision, the administration gave itself “final, unaudited authority to distribute nearly $1.8 billion in money that Congress has not appropriated for this purpose to people it subjectively deems victims of so-called illegal activity or weapons use,” CREW’s Sus said in an interview.
Sus said the fund’s structure also disregards transparency regulations, which includes moving $1.776 billion from the government’s judgment fund in one transaction into a separate, unaccountable pot of money.
Under current law, the Department of the Treasury publishes information on its website at least once a month about the amount of judgments paid to plaintiffs by the U.S. government.
By withdrawing one lump sum, they are “completely circumventing the Disclosure Act, which Congress passed specifically for this purpose, requiring disclosure of every settlement,” said Sus, whose organization filed the request complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
CREW also argues that the Justice Department’s order is arbitrary and capricious.
“I think arbitrarily choosing 1,776 as the number to value (the fund) is the definition of an arbitrary, valuable stock — like they just did it because they thought it was cool,” he said.
“And that’s not how the government should act. It should actually consider the facts and have a reasoned explanation for why it’s doing it.”
In the Virginia case, another group of plaintiffs is represented by Democracy Forward and Common Cause.
The plaintiffs include Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor in the Jan. 6 case who was fired by the Justice Department in June 2025, and Joseph Caravello, a University of California professor charged with assaulting a federal officer after he protested an immigration raid last summer. Jury acquitted Caravello in April.
The nine-count lawsuit alleges that the fund, in part, violates the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights and violates Congress’s authority.
The fund “does not provide benefits to victims of ideological attacks by both Democrats and Republicans; instead, it offers benefits to those who held views that were or were perceived to be opposed to Democratic administrations, but not to those who held views that were or were perceived to be opposed to Republican administrations,” the Fund says. complaint filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Juan Salinas II of the Nebraska Examiner contributed to this report.
