共和党就“反武器化”基金发难，将与特朗普爆发对抗

Republican defiance over ‘anti-weaponization’ fund sets up confrontation with Trump

2026-05-23T10:03:40.686Z / Reuters

WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) – Republicans in the U.S. Congress have revolted over President Donald Trump’s $1.776 billion fund for people he says ​were victims of government “weaponization,” setting the stage for a searing battle less than six months before midterm elections.

On Thursday, the Senate called timeout on a $72 billion spending bill on immigration enforcement, which ‌has become a battleground over the “anti-weaponization” fund, after many Republican senators demanded that it either be killed or subjected to tough guardrails.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Democrats, meanwhile, have also pledged to use the immigration bill to stage an attack on the fund.

Just one day earlier, Senate Majority Leader John Thune blocked $1 billion in federal funding for a lavish White House ballroom that Trump has already begun building. He said he did not have the Republican votes for it.

On Friday, Trump shot back.

“I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, ​corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!” the president wrote on his social media platform.

This battle of wills between the president and his party, stoked by recent primary election victories of Trump-endorsed ​challengers over sitting lawmakers, threatens to intensify when Congress returns from recess next month, and could reverberate into the November midterms.

“The American people are going to reject this ⁠out of hand,” Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said of the anti-weaponization fund, whose beneficiaries could include those convicted in connection with the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

While many Republican senators were uncharacteristically ​mum coming out of a Thursday meeting on the spending bill, Tillis and others were clear on just how politically unpalatable the president’s demands had become.

“(The fund) could potentially compensate someone who assaulted a police officer, admitted their guilt, ​got convicted, got pardoned and now we’re going to pay them for that? That’s absurd,” Tillis, who is not running for reelection, said in a Thursday interview with Spectrum News.

LAWMAKERS MANEUVER OVER ‘ANTI-WEAPONIZATION’ FUND

Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who faces a tough reelection battle this fall, teamed up with Democratic Representative Tom Suozzi of New York on legislation to prohibit the payment of any claims submitted to the fund.

Retiring Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska said the ballroom and anti-weaponization funds in the immigration spending bill had become “poison ​pills” for House Republicans who face tough reelection campaigns.

With Republicans holding only slim majorities in both houses of Congress, it would only take a handful of defiant lawmakers to defeat Trump’s proposals.

But skepticism runs deep that congressional Republicans, who ​until recently have been loyal to the president on matters from tariffs to spending cuts to the Iran war, were ready to break ranks.

“We’ve heard this talk for 10 years now of rebellion and cracks in the coalition. It has never ‌happened,” said Doug ⁠Heye, a longtime Republican strategist.

He said Republicans are “constantly capitulating” on matters important to Trump, and that any revolt would be “light years” away.

Many of Trump’s backers in Congress, including Republican Representatives Abraham Hamadeh of Arizona and John Rose of Tennessee, have stepped up to defend him.

“Not a single congressional Republican was elected to oppose President Trump,” Hamadeh posted on X, adding: “Yet an insurgency is already brewing” in the Senate. “STOP slamming the brakes on the America First agenda.”

Peter Ticktin, an attorney representing more than 400 January 6 defendants, said he was confident his clients will receive payouts despite congressional pushback.

“They’re fools if they think this is going to work,” Ticktin said of Senate Republicans who oppose the fund. “It’s still ​going to go through, and those opposing the fund ​will suffer in future elections.”

DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS WILL ⁠FORCE DIFFICULT VOTES

Meanwhile the Democrats, while largely powerless as the minority party in both houses of Congress, are seizing on what they see as the president’s politically tone-deaf proposals.

They have contrasted the plight of U.S. consumers struggling amid inflation to pay their bills, with Trump’s lavish ballroom plans and the large sums of government money he might direct to the ​January 6 rioters or other allies.

“Is it possible on May 21, 2026, Republicans finally found an ethical bridge too far?” Senator Dick Durbin, the second-highest-ranking member of ​the Democrats’ Senate leadership, said ⁠at a Thursday press conference.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday portrayed Republicans as being in the throes of a “meltdown” over the ballroom and what they call a Trump “slush fund.”

One possibility for congressional Republicans after they return from recess on June 1 is to seek some sort of middle ground.

One source familiar with the maneuverings, who asked not to be identified, said there are discussions about proposed guardrails on the fund, such as standards for who would serve on a commission overseeing ⁠it, or requiring ​judicial review of it.

At the very least, Democrats will likely do what they can to force their opponents to cast politically difficult ​votes on amendments to the spending bill.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware this week told reporters he had drafted 13 such amendments. One would bar payments to January 6 rioters who assaulted law enforcement at the Capitol, while others would prohibit the use of any taxpayer money ​to make payments, and require all payments to be made public if the fund survives, a spokesperson for the senator said.

Reporting by Nolan D. McCaskill, Richard Cowan, Jacob Bogage and David Morgan; Editing by Michael Learmonth and Edmund Klamann