Washington — On Thursday, a bipartisan duo of senators called upon a federal court to sustain its halt on the Justice Department’s controversial $1.7 billion “anti-weaponization fund.” They argue that this fund poses an “immediate and grave threat” to the constitutional framework, contending it is intended to offer payments to individuals linked with the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
Senators Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, and Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, voiced their concerns about the fund in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted to an eastern Virginia court. Last week, a judge there issued a temporary block on the Justice Department from proceeding with the program, including evaluating claims or distributing funds, as she deliberates on whether to impose a more extended injunction.
The senators’ brief urged the judge to uphold her decision and ultimately side with the plaintiffs opposing the fund, which includes a former federal prosecutor involved in cases related to January 6.
“The Anti-Weaponization Fund poses an immediate and severe threat to our constitutional order and Congressional authority,” Cassidy and Booker asserted. “In part, the Fund is intended to reward the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. Its very existence undermines Congressional power and the Constitutional order.”
They further claimed the fund breaches the Constitution’s Spending, Appropriations, and Appointments Clauses.
The senators emphasized in their brief, “We respectfully urge this Court to recognize that this litigation is far from a routine debate about executive spending authority or the limits of clemency power. It questions whether the democratic machinery of government can be deliberately turned against the democratic foundations it is meant to uphold.”
The Justice Department announced the anti-weaponization fund last month as part of a deal to settle a civil lawsuit President Trump filed against the IRS in January over the leak of his tax returns by a former government contractor. The $1.7 billion fund aims to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare,” according to the Justice Department.
The settlement gives five people who are appointed by the attorney general the authority to distribute payouts. The Justice Department did not specify who could benefit from the fund, but shortly after it was announced, several people convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack and Trump allies said they planned to apply for relief.
Republican and Democratic senators swiftly objected to the program, particularly because of concerns that people involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol assault could be awarded money. The fund threatened to derail a $70 billion package to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through a process known as reconciliation. The Senate on Thursday convened to move forward with the legislation, though Democrats and some Republicans are expected to force votes aimed at limiting the fund.
Cassidy, who recently lost his primary election to an opponent backed by Mr. Trump, is among the GOP senators who have expressed issues with the anti-weaponization fund.
Amid the backlash, the Justice Department said it would stop work on the program and comply with the court’s temporary decision. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche also told a House committee Tuesday that the administration is “not moving forward with the fund,” but would not commit to putting it in writing.
Still, Blanche’s assurances, particularly when coupled with Mr. Trump’s continued defense of the program, have done little to assuage skeptical senators.
In their court filing, Booker and Cassidy argued the “anti-weaponization” program is an “end-run” around Congress’s power of the purse and the Senate’s advise and consent role in presidential appointments. They said the fund “presents a threat to our constitutional democracy” by potentially providing payments to Jan. 6 rioters, many of whom were pardoned by Mr. Trump on his first day back in the White House.
“Regardless of the Executive Branch’s authority to extend clemency to those defendants, the further step of affirmatively compensating them from public funds transforms a decision not to punish into a declaration that the conduct itself was legitimate and deserving of remedy,” Cassidy and Booker wrote. “The gravity of that transformation cannot be overstated.”
The two senators framed the fund as part of a “scheme deliberately designed to recast insurrectionists” as victims and “legitimate prosecutions as persecution.”
“To deliberately deploy public funds, in violation of the Constitution and the laws of this nation, to compensate these perpetrators is to use the machinery of democratic government to subsidize an attack on that government’s most fundamental processes,” the senators said.
