2026-05-21T19:29:03.599Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
据两名知情人士向CNN透露，2023年末唐纳德·特朗普筹划重返白宫之际，他的一批竞选顾问开始着手制定一项计划，旨在赔偿那些他们认为遭到联邦政府不公平 targeting 的政治盟友。
该团队在特朗普当选前的数月里一直在完善这项提案，但遇到了一个重大障碍：他们找不到可行的资金来源来支付赔偿款。于是，顾问们暂时搁置了该计划。
随后，特朗普针对美国国税局（IRS）提起的100亿美元诉讼陷入困境，这项搁置已久的竞选构想突然被重新提起。作为该诉讼和解的一部分，本届政府推出了一项前所未有的法律举措，可将近18亿美元的纳税人资金拨付给特朗普的朋友和支持者。
“这个构想一直都在，但问题始终在于资金来源，”其中一名知情人士表示，“但这起诉讼出现后，我们就想，哎，等一下，资金不就有着落了吗。”
美国司法部的这笔基金现已准备好向那些被认定为“法律战和武器化”受害者的人发放巨额款项，对于合格申请人范围以及可认定的侵权行为，似乎几乎没有限制。该基金将从一个鲜为人知的账户中拨款，该账户最初由财政部官员设立，用于支付针对政府提起的诉讼和解金。
据熟悉筹划过程的消息人士透露，该举措已经引发了强烈反对，甚至来自共和党同僚——这一发展是政府官员未充分预料到的。
特朗普盟友可能获得巨额收益的可能性，已经在总统核心圈子里引发了争论，焦点在于谁应该优先获得赔偿——或是彻底被排除在外。在私下讨论中，一些顾问推动设置明确的资格限制，担心2021年1月6日国会大厦骚乱中被判袭击警察的骚乱者会获得赔偿。
但另一些人则主张扩大覆盖范围，将1月6日的骚乱者囊括进来，据熟悉讨论的消息人士透露，包括已故保守派活动家查理·柯克在内的人士持此观点，特朗普及其身边部分人士将这些骚乱者视为其“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）阵营的核心组成部分。代表众多因国会大厦骚乱被起诉者的律师、长期支持特朗普的彼得·蒂金表示，目前已有数百名参与国会大厦骚乱的特朗普支持者接到申请赔偿的通知。
特朗普的亲密顾问和助手也可能基于多年前针对俄罗斯干预2016年大选调查中受到的联邦审查而符合资格。周二，前特朗普官员迈克尔·卡普托援引该调查，提交了已知的首笔基金申请，他在信中写道，“政府机器显然被政治武器化，针对我的家人”。
“尽管如此，我们从未停止信任总统；我们知道他绝不会容忍这种不公，”卡普托在申请270万美元赔偿金的信中补充道。
特朗普的助手和盟友为该基金辩护，称这是一项迟来的努力，旨在弥补那些在他们看来出于政治动机的联邦调查中遭受个人和经济损失的人。他们坚称，无论政治派别如何，任何人都可以被纳入考虑范围。一些人还认为，这兑现了特朗普在竞选期间许下的誓言，即为“那些遭受不公和背叛的人”寻求“报复”。
尽管如此，该举措还是在政府内部一些部门引发了不安，尤其是随着反对声浪愈演愈烈。批评人士将其视为总统利用国家法律机构实现政治目的的最新且最大胆的尝试，就连国会山上的特朗普盟友也呼吁对赔偿款设置限制。
据一名知情人士透露，美国国税局从一开始就认为特朗普对该机构的诉讼站不住脚，可能在法庭上遭到质疑。该人士表示，国税局法律顾问办公室的律师起草了一份辩护备忘录，列出了该案的重大缺陷，包括诉讼时效和管辖权问题。
“司法部甚至都不想看这份备忘录或这些论点，”该人士说。目前尚不清楚司法部是拒绝接收该备忘录，还是在财政部发送后置之不理。
该人士补充说，该案原本不太可能在法庭上成立：“基本上，从一开始就被司法部操纵了。”美国国税局未回应置评请求。
随后匆忙设立该基金作为诉讼和解的一部分，引发了两党连日来的严密审查。这让一些政府官员担心，在选民自身经济困境加剧之际，这项可能让人脉广泛的特朗普盟友获利的举措会带来政治后果。
与此同时在国会山，多名共和党议员对该举措引发的越来越多的反对声感到震惊，他们公开反对该基金，或承诺在其付诸实施前将其彻底扼杀。由于在如何限制该基金的问题上存在激烈分歧，参议院周四突然取消了一项重大移民执法法案的投票并休会。
“我们必须彻底弄清这到底是什么、资金来源是什么，才能阻止或逆转它，”宾夕法尼亚州共和党众议员布莱恩·菲茨帕特里克周三表示。他随后在给代理司法部长托德·布兰奇的一封信中抨击该基金“严重削弱了我们机构的透明度，违背了对美国纳税人的承诺”。
白宫将有关该基金的问题转交司法部处理。司法部发言人拒绝就“特朗普总统可能或不可能讨论过的任何基金”置评，转而援引司法部的一份情况说明书，称该基金“旨在为所有遭受法律战和武器化伤害的美国人寻求问责”。
布兰奇在周三接受CNN采访时驳斥了对该举措的批评。
“没有什么值得愤怒的，”他说，“愤怒是因为我们做了一件完全合法、符合法律规定且以前也曾做过的事情。”
尽管如此，据知情人士透露，即便在司法部内部，该基金的起源也仍是一个谜，大多数工作人员都被排除在流程之外，直到该计划被公开报道后才得知此事。
关于1月6日骚乱者的资格问题并非唯一悬而未决的争议。另一名知情人士表示，其他人质疑负责该基金的五人委员会将由谁来任命，以及他们可以在多大程度上独立运作。司法部的协议条款允许特朗普随时解雇委员会成员。
本周，该基金的其他不寻常细节和潜在利益冲突也在华盛顿法律辩护界引发了关注。设立该基金的文件由副司法部长斯坦利·伍德沃德签署，他此前曾代表多名1月6日骚乱被告以及因阻碍国会定罪入狱的白宫顾问彼得·纳瓦罗。
一些曾代理可能符合该基金资格的被告的律师表示，他们不明白该基金如何能通过法律审查。但他们也质疑，鉴于司法部的设立结构，寻求废除该基金的联邦诉讼是否可行——该基金完全属于行政部门管辖范围，委员会的决定没有额外的复审途径。
不过，一些人还是发起了挑战：两名在1月6日保卫国会大厦的执法人员周三就该基金提起诉讼。他们要求华盛顿联邦法院阻止司法部设立该基金，阻止财政部将联邦资金用于该基金，并禁止任何赔偿款支付。该诉讼仍处于最初阶段。
为换取特朗普撤回对国税局的100亿美元诉讼而匆忙设立该基金的决定，也引发了内部警报；负责该案的法官已经质疑该诉讼的合法性，并暗示她计划做出不利于总统的裁决。据报道，财政部首席律师布莱恩·莫里西在该基金宣布当天辞职，但他未就辞职原因公开置评。
布兰奇周三坚称，索赔申请将受到严格审查，并明确表示，寻求赔偿的1月6日骚乱者的行为将被纳入考量。
“这不是一个‘你会发财’的流程，”他说。
尽管如此，特朗普官员还是拒绝阻止哪怕是国会大厦骚乱中的暴力参与者提出申请。总统本人本周为该基金辩护，尽管他声称对该基金知之甚少，并再次抱怨拜登政府，这也是他广泛的报复运动的核心诉求。
特朗普去年采取的多项行动，是由竞选顾问与他们的赔偿基金提案共同制定的，当时他们正在制定一项“反武器化”议程。其中包括：特朗普赦免数千名1月6日骚乱者，以及对一系列政治对手展开调查，这些调查涉及过去对俄罗斯干预大选的调查以及特朗普本人试图推翻2020年大选的行为。
蒂金表示，尽管如此，为受助者争取赔偿的呼声仍作为一项首要目标在特朗普盟友中不断升温。过去一年里，蒂金和其他代表1月6日骚乱支持者的律师经常向官员们提出这一想法。现任美国赦免律师埃德·马丁在竞选期间也在基金讨论中发挥了核心作用，他在入职司法部后仍在推动此事。
就职典礼前几天在海湖庄园的一次活动中，由已故保守派活动家柯克领导的一群盟友直接向特朗普提出了这一诉求。据一名熟悉讨论的人士透露，柯克表示，那些听从他的呼吁在1月6日前往华盛顿的支持者受到了虐待，权利遭到侵犯，现在他们理应获得“赔偿”。
参会的其他人也对这一想法表示支持。特朗普没有立即表明态度，但到那时，盟友们已经就该基金的具体细节思考了数月。两名知情人士透露，一些保守派律师甚至找到了一项奥巴马时期的先例，他们认为这可以使该想法合法化并赋予其法律地位。
近一年半后，司法部高级官员在起草这项18亿美元基金的细节时，援引了同一先例——即“凯普西格尔案和解协议”。批评人士表示，这两项基金完全不同，指出针对部落组织的凯普西格尔基金源于更传统的集体诉讼和解，处于法官监督之下。
尽管如此，据熟悉讨论的人士透露，特朗普政府官员认为这项举措比凯普西格尔案更完善，因为条款规定任何剩余资金都将返还给纳税人。凯普西格尔案和解协议涉及针对美国政府歧视原住民农民的指控，并没有这样的条款。最初6.8亿美元和解金中的3.8亿美元未被提起诉讼的农民群体认领，于是为第三方组织设立了一项基金。
据消息人士透露，特朗普政府官员对反武器化基金引发的反对声感到措手不及。布兰奇周三坚称，向那些“武器化”受害者——可能失去工作或支付了高昂律师费的人——支付赔偿的想法应该会广泛受到纳税人的欢迎。
“我认为美国民众对此没有意见，”他说，“恰恰相反，我认为他们确实希望将税款用于这类事情。”
CNN记者勒内·马什、凯特琳·波兰茨和蒂尔尼·斯尼德为本报道撰稿。
How the anti-weaponization fund evolved from a 2024 Trump campaign idea into a reality
2026-05-21T19:29:03.599Z / CNN
As Donald Trump plotted his return to the White House in late 2023, a group of campaign advisers began working on a plan to compensate political allies they believed were unfairly targeted by the federal government, two people familiar with the deliberations told CNN.
The team spent months on the proposal in the lead-up to Trump’s election. But there was a major roadblock: they couldn’t find a viable funding source for the payouts. So, the advisers shelved the plan.
Then Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against his own IRS started to flounder and the long-dormant campaign idea was suddenly revived. As part of the settlement of that suit, the administration created an unprecedented legal initiative that could funnel nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to Trump friends and supporters.
“The concept was always there, but the question mark was the funding,” said one of the people familiar with the deliberations. “But along comes this case and it’s like, hey wait a minute, there it is.”
The Justice Department’s fund is now poised to dole out hefty sums to those deemed victims of “lawfare and weaponization,” with few apparent limits on who is eligible and for what perceived offenses. It will draw on money from an obscure account that officials located within the Treasury Department originally meant for settling lawsuits filed against the government.
The initiative has already sparked fierce blowback, even from fellow Republicans — a development administration officials had not adequately anticipated, sources familiar with the planning said.
The potential for Trump allies to reap significant windfalls has already touched off wrangling within the president’s circle over who should be first in line — or be cut out completely. In private discussions, some advisers have pushed for clear eligibility limits, over fears that rioters in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack who were convicted of assaulting police officers will secure payouts.
But others — including conservative activist Charlie Kirk before his death last year, according to a source familiar with the discussions — have pushed for casting a wide net that includes the January 6 rioters who Trump and some around him view as an essential element of his MAGA base. Now, hundreds of Trump supporters who participated in the Capitol attack have already been advised to apply for compensation, said Peter Ticktin, a lawyer and longtime Trump ally who represents many of those who were prosecuted for their roles in the riot.
Close advisers and aides to Trump may also qualify based on federal scrutiny they received as part of a years-old investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. On Tuesday, former Trump official Michael Caputo cited that probe in filing the first known claim to the fund, writing that “the machinery of government was clearly politically weaponized against my family.”
“Despite this, we never stopped trusting the President; we knew he would never let this injustice stand,” Caputo added in a letter seeking $2.7 million in restitution.
Trump aides and allies have defended the fund as a long-overdue effort to make amends with people who suffered personally and financially from federal investigations they view as politically motivated. They’ve insisted that anyone can be considered, regardless of their political affiliation. And, some argued, it’s the fulfillment of Trump’s campaign-trail vow to seek “retribution” for “those who have been wronged and betrayed.”
Still, it’s sparked unease within some corners of the administration, especially as the backlash has grown more severe. Critics view it as the president’s latest and most audacious attempt to use the nation’s legal apparatus to accomplish his political aims, and even Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill are calling for guardrails on the payouts.
The IRS believed from the outset that the president’s lawsuit against the agency was weak and could be challenged in court, according to a source with knowledge of the matter. Lawyers in the IRS counsel’s office prepared a defense memorandum outlining significant flaws in the case, including statute of limitations and jurisdictional issues, that person said.
“DOJ didn’t even want to see the memo or the arguments,” the source said. It’s unclear whether DOJ declined to receive the memo or ignored it after Treasury sent it.
The case likely would not have held up in court, that person added: “Basically, it was fixed from the start by DOJ.” The IRS did not respond to a request for comment.
The subsequent rush to create the fund as a settlement to that lawsuit has prompted days of intense scrutiny on both sides of the aisle. That’s left some administration officials bracing for political fallout over an initiative that could enrich well-connected Trump allies at the same time voters’ own financial struggles are intensifying.
On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, several Republican lawmakers alarmed by the widening blowback over the initiative are publicly opposing the fund or pledging to simply kill it before it can get off the ground. The Senate abruptly canceled votes on a major immigration enforcement package and recessed Thursday due to heated disagreements over how to rein in the fund.
“We gotta unpack exactly what it is, what the source of the funding is, in order to stop it and/or reverse it,” GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania said Wednesday. He later blasted the fund in a letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche as “a dangerous backsliding in the transparency of our institutions and our commitment to the American taxpayer.”
The White House referred questions about the fund to the Justice Department. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on “any discussions President Trump may or may not have had about any fund,” pointing instead to a DOJ fact sheet that described the fund as “about seeking accountability for all Americans who were victims of lawfare and weaponization.”
In a CNN interview on Wednesday, Blanche dismissed criticism of the initiative.
“There’s nothing to be outraged about,” he said. “The outrage is [over] us doing something that is completely legal, allowed under our laws, and has been done before.”
Still, the fund’s origins remained a mystery on Thursday even to staffers within the Justice Department, most of whom were cut out of the process and only learned about the scheme when it was publicly reported, sources familiar with the matter said.
The disagreement over the eligibility of certain January 6 rioters isn’t the only unsettled issue. Others have questioned who will staff the five-member commission in charge of the fund and how independently they’ll be allowed to run it, a source familiar with the matter said. The terms of the Justice Department’s deal allow Trump to fire commission members at any time.
And other unusual details and potential conflicts of interest surrounding the fund have also raised eyebrows across Washington’s legal defense community this week. Documents creating the fund were signed by associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who previously represented both several former January 6 riot defendants and White House adviser Peter Navarro, who was convicted of obstruction of Congress and served time in prison.
Some attorneys who had represented defendants who might be eligible for the fund said they didn’t understand how it could pass legal muster. But they also questioned whether federal lawsuits seeking to dismantle the fund could be viable given how DOJ structured it — it falls solely under the jurisdiction of the executive branch and the commission’s decisions have no avenue for additional review.
Some are mounting challenges anyway: Two law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol on January 6 sued over the fund on Wednesday. They asked the federal court in Washington to block the Justice Department from establishing the fund, prevent the Treasury Department from allowing federal money to be used for it and prohibit any payments. The lawsuit is in its earliest stage.
The hasty decision to create the fund in exchange for Trump dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS has also raised internal alarms; the judge in the case had already questioned the suit’s validity and signaled she planned to rule against the president. And Brian Morrissey, the Treasury Department’s top lawyer, reportedly resigned the day the fund was announced, though he has not publicly commented on his reasoning.
Blanche on Wednesday insisted that claims would be closely scrutinized — and specified that the conduct of Jan. 6 rioters seeking compensation would be taken into consideration.
“This is not a ‘you’re going to get rich’ process,” he said.
Trump officials have nevertheless declined to discourage even violent participants in the Capitol attack from applying. The president himself defended the fund this week even as he claimed to know little about it, reiterating complaints about the Biden administration that have driven his wide-ranging retribution campaign.
Several actions Trump has taken in the last year were developed by campaign advisers alongside their proposal for a compensation fund as they built out an “anti-weaponization” agenda. Among them: Trump’s pardoning of thousands of Jan. 6 rioters and investigations into a range of political foes related to past probes into Russian election interference and Trump’s own attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
Through it all, though, the push for payouts continued to percolate among Trump’s allies as a top objective. Ticktin and other lawyers representing January 6 supporters had frequently raised the idea with officials over the last year, Ticktin said. Ed Martin, the current US pardon attorney, also played a central role in discussions on the fund during the campaign. He continued pushing for it once installed within the Justice Department.
In one episode at Mar-a-Lago just days before inauguration, a group of allies led by Kirk, the assassinated conservative activist, brought the pitch directly to Trump. The supporters who heeded his call to come to Washington on Jan. 6 had had been mistreated and had their rights abused — and now they deserved “reparations,” as Kirk put it, according to a person familiar with their discussion.
Others at the table also expressed support for the idea. Trump didn’t immediately indicate how he felt, but by that time allies had ruminated on the specifics of such a fund for months. Some conservative lawyers even identified an Obama-era precedent they believed could legitimize the idea and give it legal standing, two people familiar with the matter said.
Nearly a year-and-a-half later, top Justice Department officials cited the same precedent, known as the Keepseagle settlement, as they drew up details of the $1.8 billion fund. Critics have said the two funds are completely different, noting that the Keepseagle fund for tribal organizations sprung out of a more traditional settlement for a class action suit that fell under a judge’s oversight.
Still, Trump administration officials thought this effort had improved on Keepseagle because the terms stated any extra money would be sent back to the taxpayers, according to a source familiar with the discussions. The settlement in the Keepseagle case — which concerned allegations of government discrimination against Native American farmers — had no such terms. Instead, a fund was created for third-party organizations when $380 million of the original $680 million settlement went unclaimed by the class of farmers that brought the suit.
Trump administration officials were largely caught off guard by the blowback to the anti-weaponization fund, sources said. Blanche insisted Wednesday that the idea of payouts to people who were “victims” of “weaponization” — who might have lost a job or had to pay exorbitant legal fees — should be broadly popular with taxpayers.
“I don’t think the American people have an issue with that,” he said. “To the contrary, I think they do want their tax dollars spent on things like that.”
CNN’s Rene Marsh, Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.