2026-05-21T06:00:17-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-anti-weaponization-fund-legal-questions/
华盛顿讯—— 美国司法部新设的17.76亿美元基金，用于向声称司法系统“遭武器化”针对自己的人支付赔偿，该基金引发了即时审查，围绕其合法性、执法和实施的疑问接踵而至。
美国司法部表示，申请赔偿没有“党派要求”，但如果该机构过往的和解协议、行动，以及律师和传播专业人士的言论能作为参考的话，特朗普总统最知名的支持者和盟友很可能将从中获益。
该基金是特朗普先生与美国国税局和解协议的一部分，旨在了结他和儿子们今年1月提起的民事诉讼——该案缘于一名独立承包商泄露特朗普的纳税申报单。该项目被称为“反武器化基金”，旨在“建立一套系统化程序，受理并纠正那些遭受司法武器化和诉讼战的人的诉求”。
这项“反武器化”项目将从“判决基金”获得近18亿美元资金。该基金由美国国会于1956年设立，用于支付针对联邦政府的法院判决和和解款项。该基金最初设立时，仅适用于最高10万美元的索赔判决，但在20世纪70年代中期，国会取消了金额上限。
无论是美国司法部还是白宫，都未明确谁有资格申请该基金的拨款，也未说明是否会设定支付上限。特朗普先生与本届政府达成的和解协议条款显示，该基金将由五名成员组成，其中四名由代理司法部长托德·布兰奇任命，另一名经与国会领导层协商后选出。
布兰奇在周二的参议院听证会上表示，负责监督该基金理事会的五人委员会将公布谁可以获得救济，以及救济金额等相关信息。
该基金迅速招致伦理监督组织和国会山议员的谴责。政府问责组织“华盛顿问责公民”在一份声明中称，特朗普与本届政府达成的和解是“总统任期历史上最肆无忌惮的自我交易行为”，并认为这很可能违反了宪法的国内薪酬条款。
法律挑战与起诉资格
两名美国国会警察于周三提起诉讼，试图叫停该基金。他们声称，由于可能向2021年1月6日国会山骚乱参与者支付赔偿，他们面临“私刑暴力”风险上升，以及持续的骚扰和死亡威胁。
但这两名警官，以及其他可能希望在法庭上挑战该基金的人，都面临一个关键障碍，可能在诉讼早期阶段就使其夭折：证明他们拥有合法的起诉权，也就是所谓的“起诉资格”。
通常情况下，诉讼当事人不能以联邦纳税人的身份，来证明其有权质疑政府资金的使用方式。在1923年的一项判决中，最高法院称，纳税人对国库资金的利益“与数百万其他人共享”，且“相对而言微不足道且难以确定”。
“如果我们在十字路口与邮政卡车相撞，最终协商向某家庭支付500万美元和解金，有没有人能站出来说‘政府在这笔和解金里付得太多了’？”美国大学法学教授保罗·菲格利说道，“没有法院会受理这种诉求。而你现在面对的就是这种情况。”
“真正的问题在于，既然特朗普政府这么做了，我们几乎可以肯定，下一届民主党政府也会找到它认为应该获得同等特殊待遇的群体，”菲格利说。
国会与判决基金
菲格利曾撰文探讨判决基金及其被行政部门滥用的可能性，他表示特朗普政府的新项目看似合法，但他认为，行政部门在未获得国会明确指定资金来源、也未明确运作机制的情况下设立该举措，并非“良善政策”。
根据美国宪法，行政部门无权做出支出决策。但国会在设立判决基金时，授予了行政部门无需立法参与即可支付判决和和解款项的权力。
“我们的体制不允许行政部门自行设立项目并提供资金，这完全违背了体制设计，”菲格利说，“那这件事是否有可能，且合法呢？好吧，国会确实设立了这个基金，国会也对此睁一只眼闭一只眼。除非他们能意识到，这场斗争本质上是体制之争，而非政党之争，否则这种情况还会再次发生。”
国会设立的其他联邦和解项目
联邦政府曾监管过其他旨在替代诉讼的和解项目，比如9·11受害者赔偿基金、国家疫苗伤害赔偿计划，以及辐射暴露赔偿计划。但这些举措均由国会设立，并包含严格的保障措施。
“极不寻常的是，在尚未确立任何相关标准的情况下，就动用纳税人资金进行此类支付——既没有明确支付方式，也没有明确个人能获得多少金额。这极易引发滥用和腐败，”乔治城大学法学院宪法倡导与保护研究所法律主任鲁帕·巴塔查里亚说道。
巴塔查里亚曾是美国司法部官员，曾担任9·11恐怖袭击受害者赔偿基金的特别主事官，并参与分配其他经国会批准的和解基金款项。
她表示，在没有司法部或国会制定严格标准的情况下，就“以这种方式动用纳税人拨款资金，简直是疯了”。
司法部援引先例：美国原住民农业基金
在公告中，美国司法部表示此类项目有法律先例，并援引了2011年的一起集体诉讼和解案——该案由美国原住民农民和牧场主提起，他们指控美国农业部拒绝向其提供平等的信贷渠道。
在该案起诉十多年后，奥巴马政府于2011年达成7.6亿美元的和解协议，美国农业部同意向美国原住民支付6.8亿美元赔偿金。但最终仅从基金中拨付了约3亿美元，索赔流程结束后仍有超过3.8亿美元未发放。
剩余资金引发了多年谈判，2016年，华盛顿特区美国地区法院批准了修改后的和解方案，向索赔者提供额外补偿：3800万美元拨给服务于美国原住民农民和牧场主的非营利组织，约2.66亿美元用于设立名为“美国原住民农业基金”的信托基金。
曾担任原告首席律师的约瑟夫·塞勒斯指出，尽管特朗普政府将其反武器化基金与奥巴马政府与美国原住民农民和牧场主的和解方案相提并论，但两者存在关键区别：华盛顿初审法院的参与和监督。
“法院负责监督这些资金的拨付，确保其支付方式符合法律要求和诉讼和解所追求的利益，”他在接受CBS新闻采访时表示。
塞勒斯说，法院设立并批准了索赔流程，随后还批准了未使用和解资金的使用方式，包括美国原住民农业基金信托的条款。
“你必须服务于最初提起诉讼的个人和社区，”他说。
塞勒斯表示，他从未听说过其他案例，即与政府对簿公堂的双方，能在“没有透明度或司法监督”的情况下协商出资金拨付流程。
作为解决美国农业部歧视指控的一部分，奥巴马政府还同意从判决基金中拨出至少13亿美元，用于资助女性和西班牙裔农民及牧场主，其中包括未参与诉讼的人。
“这与我了解到的这个新项目的做法非常相似，”菲格利说，“现在，这是良善政策吗？不，不是。但之前也有人这么做过。奥巴马政府操纵判决基金这么做，而特朗普政府吸取了这个教训，也打算如法炮制。”
国会两党对特朗普政府基金表示担忧
国会两党议员都对特朗普政府的这项基金表示担忧。参议院多数党领袖约翰·图恩周二对记者表示，他“不太支持”该项目，并称“我看不到其目的所在”。这位南达科他州的共和党议员还表示，他预计拨款程序将对该基金进行“全面审查”。
缅因州共和党参议员苏珊·柯林斯告诉记者，该基金“引发了许多需要解答的重要问题”。
“这极不寻常，在没有经过大量审查的情况下，不应推行这种措施，”作为参议院拨款委员会主席的柯林斯说道。
巴塔查里亚表示，国会行动可能是管控美国司法部新基金的唯一途径。
“这是对政府决定资金使用方向的权力的极端干预，”她说，“尽管从技术上讲，从判决基金支付款项可能并不违法，但这显然违背了设立该基金的初衷。”
即便如此，即使由共和党掌控的参众两院通过立法设置监管护栏，特朗普先生也可能否决任何提交给他的法案。
为进一步了解该基金，曾任职于调查1月6日国会山骚乱的众议院特别委员会的马里兰州民主党众议员杰米·拉斯金，曾试图传唤美国司法部和财政部高级官员，就“这种肆无忌惮且腐败的交易”作证，但未成功。他还提出了一项法案，将修改判决基金法规，禁止支付与特定索赔相关的款项，包括与1月6日国会山骚乱案件相关的索赔，以及与2016年总统选举外国干预相关的索赔。
马里兰州民主党参议员克里斯·范·霍伦也宣布，他将在国会共和党正在推进的拨款法案中提出一项修正案，禁止暴力罪犯——包括袭击执法人员的定罪者和儿童猥亵犯——使用该基金。
Is Trump’s $1.7+ billion “anti-weaponization fund” legal? Experts weigh in.
2026-05-21T06:00:17-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-anti-weaponization-fund-legal-questions/
Washington — The Justice Department’s new $1.776 billion fund to provide payouts to people alleging the legal system was “weaponized” against them was met with immediate scrutiny and questions surrounding its legality, enforcement and implementation.
The Justice Department has said that there are no “partisan requirements” to seek compensation, but if its past settlements and actions and statements from lawyers and communications professionals are any indication, it’s likely that President Trump’s highest-profile supporters and allies may stand to benefit.
The fund was established as part of a settlement agreement between Mr. Trump and the Internal Revenue Service to end a civil lawsuit he and his sons filed in January over the leak of his tax returns by an independent contractor. Dubbed the anti-weaponization fund, the program aims to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare.”
The “anti-weaponization” program is set to receive nearly $1.8 billion from the Judgment Fund, which was set up by Congress in 1956 to pay court judgments and settlements of lawsuits against the government. When the Judgment Fund was first created, it was limited to judgments for claims of up to $100,000, but in the mid-1970s, Congress removed the cap.
Neither the Justice Department nor the White House has specified the criteria for who would be eligible for an award from the new fund or whether there would be a cap on payouts. The terms of the settlement agreement between Mr. Trump and his administration state that the fund is to be composed of five members, with four members appointed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and one chosen in consultation with congressional leadership.
Blanche said at a Senate hearing Tuesday that the five-member commission overseeing the fund’s board would supply information on who can receive relief and how much.
The fund drew swift condemnation from ethics groups and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government accountability group, said in a statement that Mr. Trump’s settlement with his administration amounted to the “most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency,” and argued it likely violated the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause.
Legal challenges and standing to sue
A pair of U.S. Capitol Police officersfiled a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block the fund. They claimed that as a result of potential payouts to people involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, the officers faced an increased risk of “vigilante violence” against them and continued harassment and death threats.
But the officers, as well as others who may want to challenge the fund in court, face a key hurdle that could derail any lawsuit in its early stages: proving they have the legal right to sue, a concept known as standing.
Generally, litigantscannot rely on their status as federal taxpayers to establish standing to challenge how government dollars are spent. In a 1923 decision, the Supreme Court said that a taxpayer’s interest in money from the Treasury “is shared with millions of others” and is “comparatively minute and indeterminable.”
“If we have an intersection collision with a postal truck and a settlement is negotiated to give $5 million to a family, does anybody have standing to come in and say, ‘the government paid too much in that settlement?’” said Paul Figley, a law professor at American University. “No court is going to allow that. And that’s what you’re looking at.”
“The real problem is having seen the Trump administration do this, you can be pretty sure that the next Democratic administration is going to find a group that it feels should get the same kind of a special deal,” Figley said.
Congress and the Judgment Fund
Figley, who has written about the Judgment Fund and its potential for misuse by the executive branch, said the Trump administration’s new program appears to be legal, but he doesn’t believe it’s “good policy” for the executive to create the initiative without Congress explicitly designating the money for it and mechanisms for how it will work.
Under the Constitution, the executive branch does not have the power to make spending decisions. But Congress gave it the authority to pay judgments and settlements without legislative involvement when it created the Judgment Fund.
“It’s not part of our scheme to have the executive branch set up programs and fund them. That is just contrary to the scheme,” Figley said. “Now is it possible and is it legal? Well Congress set it up. Congress has turned a blind eye to it, and unless they get together and see that the real battle on this is institutional, not political party, then it’ll happen again.”
Other federal settlement programs created by Congress
The federal government has overseen other settlement programs that seek to serve as an alternative to litigation, like the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act program. But those initiatives were created by Congress and include rigorous safeguards.
“What is incredibly unusual is that taxpayer money would be paid out under circumstances like this without any criteria having been established for how that’s going to be — how that’s going to happen or how much people might get. It lends itself to abuse and corruption,” said Rupa Bhattacharyya, legal director for the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School.
Bhattacharyya, a former Justice Department official, served as special master for the fund for victims of the 9/11 terror attacks and worked to distribute money from other congressionally-approved settlement funds.
It is “insane for taxpayer-appropriated funding” to be used in this way without strict criteria set by the Justice Department or Congress, she said.
DOJ cites legal precedent for program: Native American Agriculture Fund
In its announcement, the Justice Department said there was legal precedent for such a program and cited a 2011 settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought by Native American farmers and ranchers who argued they were denied equal access to credit by the Department of Agriculture.
As part of the $760 million settlement, reached with the Obama administration more than a decade after the suit was first filed, the Agriculture Department agreed to pay $680 million in damages to Native Americans. But only roughly $300 million was paid from the fund, leaving more than $380 million undisbursed after the claims process.
The leftover money kicked off years of negotiations, and in 2016, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., approved a modified settlement under which claimants were given an additional award: $38 million was set aside for nonprofit organizations serving Native American farmers and ranchers, and roughly $266 million went to the creation of a trust called the Native American Agriculture Fund.
While the Trump administration has likened its anti-weaponization fund to the Obama administration’s settlement with Native American farmers and ranchers, there is a crucial distinction between the two, noted Joseph Sellers, who served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs: the involvement and oversight by the trial court in Washington.
“The court was controlling the disbursement of these funds to ensure they’re being paid out in a manner consistent with the requirements of the law and the interests advanced by the litigation being settled,” he told CBS News.
The court, Sellers said, set up and approved the claims process, and then approved how the unspent settlement money would be used, including the terms of the Native American Agriculture Fund trust.
“You have to serve the people and the communities that originally brought the case,” he said.
Sellers said he is unaware of other instances where the parties involved in a case against the government negotiated a process for disbursing funds “with no transparency or judicial oversight.”
As part of its efforts to address allegations of discrimination by the Agriculture Department, the Obama administration also agreed to provide at least $1.3 billion to female and Hispanic farmers and ranchers out of the Judgment Fund, including those who were not involved in litigation.
“That’s very similar to what I understand this new program is doing,” Figley said. “Now, is that good policy? No, it’s not good policy. But it’s been done before. The Obama administration manipulated the Judgment Fund to do that and the Trump administration is taking that lesson and is doing the same thing.”
Bipartisan concern in Congress about Trump administration fund
Republican and Democratic members of Congress have expressed concern about the Trump administration’s fund. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Tuesday that he was “not a big fan” of the program and said, “I don’t see a purpose.” The South Dakota Republican also said he expects there will be a “full vetting” of the fund during the appropriations process.
Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins told reporters that the fund “raises a lot of important questions that need to be answered.”
“It is highly irregular, and this is not something that should be put in place without a lot more scrutiny,” Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, said.
Congressional action may be the only means of controlling the Justice Department’s new fund, Bhattacharyya said.
“This is an extraordinary intrusion into their powers to decide where the government’s funds get spent,” she said. “While the payment from the Judgment Fund may not be technically illegal, it certainly violates the purposes for which the Judgment Fund was created.”
Still, even if the GOP-led House and Senate approved legislation to set guardrails, Mr. Trump could veto any bill that crosses his desk.
In an effort to learn more about the fund, Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat who served on the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack, unsuccessfully attempted to subpoena top Justice Department and Treasury officials about “this brazen and corrupt transaction.” He also introduced legislation that would amend the Judgment Fund statute to prohibit payments tied to certain claims, including those arising from cases related to the Jan. 6 attack and foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, also announced that he would be introducing an amendment to the funding bill Republicans are moving forward with in Congress to bar violent criminals — including those convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers, and child molesters — from accessing the funds.