参议院共和党人在特朗普“反政治迫害”基金问题上面临政治险境

Senate Republicans face a political knife-edge over Trump’s ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

2026-05-30T10:02:15.671Z / Reuters

• Summary

• Republicans divided over fund’s potential for self-dealing and payouts to January 6 participants
• Lawmakers demand written guardrails and congressional oversight before supporting fund
• Strategists warn fund could hurt GOP in midterms, with many lawmakers reluctant to back it

WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) – Senate Republicans face a stark choice when they return from recess next week: back President Donald Trump’s controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund to benefit his political allies or defy a commander-in-chief who just ended the careers of two Republican senators.

Nearly half of the 53-member Republican Senate majority balked at the issue during a heated two-hour meeting with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche before the week-long Memorial Day break, forcing leadership to suspend plans to pass a $72 billion partisan bill to fund Trump’s immigration crackdown through the end of his presidency.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

With Republican leaders now poised to vote on the measure to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, the party is pressing Trump’s Justice Department to agree on guardrails that could defuse Democratic plans to force repeated votes on amendments to derail the fund and embarrass the president.

“I would hope that Senate leadership is working with the administration and the Department of Justice to design something that’s going to work,” said Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin conservative who says he fully supports the fund. “My suggestion was, come up with an overriding amendment that will render all their amendments moot.”

The fund, which would compensate victims of political “weaponization” with taxpayer money, emerged from a legal settlement between Trump’s Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service to resolve an unprecedented lawsuit in which the president had sought $10 billion over the alleged mishandling of his tax records.

‘NO ONE THINKS THIS IS A WINNING ISSUE’

The announcement set off a firestorm of criticism, with lawmakers raising concerns about potential self-dealing by Trump, and the prospect of payouts to violent Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol and assaulted police on January 6, 2021.

On Friday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from moving forward with the fund.

Blanche told lawmakers behind closed doors that the fund would not pay out money to members of the Trump family or anyone convicted of a violent crime, according to people in the room. But lawmakers want those assurances in writing, along with eligibility requirements, greater congressional control in selecting fund commissioners, and some form of judicial oversight.

“What will dictate the next step is whether or not there are 51 Republican senators who believe that it is a satisfactory outcome,” a senior Republican aide said. “I don’t think every member necessarily is going to find equal satisfaction.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has called on the Justice Department and the White House to provide clarity to members about what guardrails they will accept. Aides say there has been only silence so far.

“The administration appreciated last week’s conversation and feedback,” a White House official said on Friday. “We look forward to additional conversations as needed.” The Justice Department did not respond to Reuters queries seeking comment.

Even with restrictions, Republican strategists say the fund could become a political albatross heading into the November midterm elections, where the party already faces headwinds from soaring prices for consumer goods, an unpopular war with Iran and Trump’s declining approval ratings – even among Republicans.

“No one thinks this is a winning issue, even those in safe Republican House and Senate seats that don’t usually have to worry about an election. Even those folks want no part of this,” said a Republican strategist who requested anonymity because he is involved in key congressional races.

BITTERNESS IN THE SENATE

Lawmakers have also shown little appetite to confront the issue after Trump oversaw the primary defeats of Republican Senators John Cornyn and Bill Cassidy.

Johnson blamed the Justice Department for making a public announcement about the fund, and doing so just as the Senate was preparing to consider the ICE funding bill.

“To me, this whole thing was completely blown by announcing it. These things are better just done using the authority that Congress has given,” Johnson said. “The timing was atrocious.”

The controversy has already revived grievances about the 2020 presidential election.

James Troupis, a former Trump campaign attorney who faces felony charges for his alleged role in a false 2020 elector scheme in Wisconsin, applied this week for $3.2 million in compensation, saying he has lost his reputation and faces $1.7 million in costs after representing Trump.

Vice President JD Vance suggested that former Colorado elections clerk Tina Peters could be a prime candidate for compensation after being convicted of illegally tampering with voting machines in pursuit of false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

DEMANDS FOR OVERSIGHT

Some Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives have called for congressional oversight, echoing comments to reporters by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley.

“Congress needs to have an oversight role in this before I can sign off or support this,” Republican Representative Mike Flood told constituents this week at a town hall meeting in Norfolk, Nebraska.

“I have concerns about the weaponization fund,” Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, one of the most vulnerable House Republicans, told the Des Moines Register.

“We need to know more information. We need to have oversight. We need to know who determines it, where it goes,” the Iowa Republican said. “Right now, I have more questions than I have answers.”

Reporting by David Morgan; Additional reporting by Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff; Editing by Michael Learmonth and Andrea Ricci