The Trump administration has signaled to Republican congressional leaders that it plans to drop the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, though it was unclear how firm or permanent that plan is, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
President Donald Trump has not committed publicly to terminating the controversial pot of money, and a third source familiar with the discussions indicated the administration was merely pausing efforts to pursue the fund — not dropping those plans altogether.
That characterization more closely matches a public statement from the Department of Justice Monday, which said that it would “abide by” a federal court ruling that paused the fund until at least June 12. A fourth source familiar with the matter said Trump himself still believes in the fund, even as he acknowledges vehement pushback to the concept.
Trump himself told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl in a phone call, “We are subject to the courts.”
“At this moment, that’s what it is,” Trump said, adding, “If a court doesn’t allow it, and right now a court has it held up, what can you do?”
The plan to back off the fund for now came after Trump held a lengthy meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson, where the “anti-weaponization” fund was among the topics the two discussed. But it’s unclear if the Trump administration’s message will satisfy GOP lawmakers as fury over the fund has stalled the GOP’s broader agenda.
Republican leaders have been struggling to pass additional funding for immigration enforcement. And on Monday, even Senate Majority Leader John Thune called for the administration to “shut it down themselves,” in regards to the fund. Continued efforts to get that spending legislation over the finish line will almost certainly involve more attempts to kill the “anti-weaponization” fund permanently.
Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida confirmed to reporters Monday evening that a White House official told him the fund would be “dropped.” He did not say who he spoke to or if the decision to stop pursuing the fund was temporary or permanent.
“I have talked to the White House. What they told me is they’re dropping it,” Scott said.
But other GOP senators weren’t convinced, with some saying they needed more specific and concrete assurances the fund was gone for good.
“If the administration has changed its position on the weaponization fund, it should say so definitively, definitively,” said Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana. “But just saying, ‘We’re going to abide by the court order,’ I mean, I can’t speak for my colleagues, but speaking personally, you’re not talking to Bambi’s baby brother here. Saying you’re going to follow a court order doesn’t tell me anything. You have to follow the court order.”
The federal judge set a hearing for June 12 to hear arguments over whether she should issue a longer pause. Until then, she barred the Justice Department from allocating money to create the fund, considering any claims or distributing any money to applicants.
It’s unclear if the Trump administration will continue fighting for the fund in that hearing.
The controversial fund was created to settle an unprecedented lawsuit Trump brought against the IRS over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax returns years ago. But since its announcement, the fund has faced weeks of unrelenting push back from the president’s own party both in public and in private, with some saying it’s essentially a slush fund to pay out Trump’s allies.
At first, senior Justice Department officials insisted that they wouldn’t change the details of the fund despite pushback from within the GOP, sources told CNN. But congressional Republicans have remained furious, with some allies encouraging the president to scrap it entirely.
And the pause by the Virginia judge wasn’t the only court setback for the fund. A second judge in Florida who oversaw Trump’s initial suit against the IRS ordered the president and others to respond to allegations that he worked in a collusive manner with Justice Department lawyers representing the IRS to reach an out-of-court settlement — in other words, that he defrauded the court.
