2026年5月18日 / 美国东部时间下午6:49 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻（CBS News）
作者：雅各布·罗森 司法部记者
杰克·罗森是负责报道美国司法部的记者。此前他曾担任竞选数字记者，报道特朗普总统2024年竞选活动，还曾担任《玛格丽特·布伦南直面国家》节vison助理制片人。
阅读完整简历
当地时间周一，特朗普总统与司法部就总统起诉国税局和财政部泄露其纳税申报单一案达成和解。代理司法部长托德·布兰奇宣布，作为和解协议的一部分，将设立一项17亿多美元的“反政治迫害基金”，他表示该基金将“提供一套系统性程序，受理和纠正那些遭受政治迫害和法律战的人的诉求”。
设立该基金是特朗普兑现其承诺的最新举措，他此前已赦免了约1500名在国会山骚乱期间犯罪的定罪者，剥夺了他眼中政治对手的安全许可，并要求司法部调查这些人。
在特朗普的第二任期内，司法部领导层解雇了数十名参与两项特别检察官调查的工作人员，这些调查分别涉及特朗普被指控不当处理机密文件，以及他在2020年总统大选后的行为。他们还成立了一个“政治迫害工作组”，审查拜登政府的执法政策。如今，司法部将掌握一笔前所未有的巨额纳税人资金，可酌情发放给那些它认定遭到不当调查或起诉的人。
特朗普法律团队的一位发言人在一份声明中表示，特朗普“达成这项和解完全是为了美国人民的利益，他将继续为那些伤害美国和美国人民的人追究责任而斗争”。
基金宣布设立后，伦理专家迅速提出质疑：任何针对该基金的索赔将如何处理？谁有资格获得和解金？谁来仲裁这些索赔？以下是目前已知的关于该基金的信息。
该基金是什么？将如何使用？
根据代理司法部长托德·布兰奇签署的备忘录（布兰奇此前也曾是特朗普的辩护律师之一），财政部将在60天内向一个“仅供‘反政治迫害基金’使用”的账户拨付17.76亿美元。
该基金将由司法部长任命的五人委员会监督，委员会有权正式道歉，并向索赔者发放应得的经济赔偿。司法部表示，其中一名委员会成员将“在与国会领导层协商后”选定。委员会成员可被罢免，但替补人选必须按照与原成员相同的方式选出。
司法部表示，该基金将于2028年12月15日停止受理索赔申请，距下一届总统就职仅一个多月。司法部称，基金中剩余的任何资金都将返还给联邦政府，并补充称，如果索赔者滥用资金，美国“不承担任何责任”。
这笔钱可能会给谁？
目前尚不清楚具体哪些人有资格获得该基金的资助。司法部在宣布和解的新闻稿中表示，“提交索赔申请没有党派要求”。
如果参考司法部过去的和解案例和行动来看，特朗普的一些最知名支持者和盟友很可能会从中获益。
1月6日国会山骚乱的参与者——包括那些在袭击中行为最暴力但后来被特朗普赦免的人——都有可能申请资金，那些曾与司法部打官司并最终达成和解的知名前特朗普政府官员和竞选团队官员也同样如此。
今年早些时候，司法部同意了结马克·豪克提起的诉讼。豪克是著名的反堕胎权利活动人士，2023年初在审判中被宣判无罪，罪名是违反《面部性别保护法》（FACE Act）。他的律师告诉CBS新闻，司法部已同意支付110万美元了结此案。
一位熟悉和解谈判消息的人士当时告诉CBS新闻，司法部最近还与前特朗普政府国家安全官员、右翼活动家迈克尔·弗林达成了两起索赔的和解，其中一起案件的和解金额至少为125万美元。
前白宫办公厅主任马克·梅多斯也要求司法部偿还他在2020年总统大选后多起联邦和州级调查中产生的法律费用。
会有监督机制吗？
伦理专家表示，除了未来可能的诉讼和立法之外，对该基金的监督似乎非常有限。布兰奇或未来的司法部长有权审计基金的使用情况。
司法部表示，该基金必须每季度向司法部长提交一份报告，详细说明哪些人获得了赔偿以及赔偿形式。
哥伦比亚大学法学院专攻政府伦理问题的教授理查德·布里福表示，促成这项和解的最初诉讼是一场“串通诉讼”，因为特朗普起诉了自己的政府，并在他所控制的两个实体——他的法律团队和司法部之间达成了和解。
“目前尚不清楚他们将采用何种筛选机制——如果有的话。他们如何决定谁能获得多少资金，”布里福说，“你被指控的罪名重要吗？你是否在接受调查重要吗？你是否被定罪重要吗？”
布里福表示，如果没有公开的指导方针和委员会运作细节，“这不过是一个没有上限的‘黑金账户’”。
“其中一些人可能有正当的索赔理由，但似乎没有要求他们说服法官或陪审团他们受到了不公正对待，这一点不太明确，”布里福说，“从目前披露的信息来看，这不过是一项纳税人出钱的基金，用于支付那些他认为在前政府时期受到不公正对待的人的索赔，而这些人无需在法庭上证明任何事情。”
伦理担忧与批评
该基金的设立已经引发了政府监督和伦理团体的一连串批评。
“在我看来，这是迄今为止历史上对法律体系最严重的滥用，”曾在司法部担任赦免律师的莉兹·奥耶在接受CBS新闻采访时表示。奥耶于2022年春季至特朗普政府最初几天期间负责赦免和减刑事务，之后辞职。
奥耶表示，她认为特朗普法律团队和司法部之间存在“刑事共谋”，他们允许用纳税人的钱设立该基金。
“没有透明度。基金的五名成员似乎拥有完全的自由裁量权，可以将钱发给他们选择的任何人。似乎没有任何监督机制，”奥耶说，并补充道，“没有公众参与的程序。这五个人似乎完全可以自由支配我们的钱，发给他们选择的任何人。”
非营利组织“公民责任与伦理华盛顿”（CREW）发表声明，谴责周一的和解协议是“总统任期历史上最厚颜无耻的自我交易行为”。
“在美国民众正饱受经济负担危机之苦时，特朗普总统计划动用近18亿美元的纳税人资金，为他的朋友和盟友买单——其中可能包括在1月6日袭击国会大厦的暴力骚乱参与者，”CREW主席唐纳德·K·谢尔曼说，并补充称，这“极有可能”违反了宪法的国内薪酬条款。
Who could benefit from Trump’s $1.7+ billion “weaponization” fund?
May 18, 2026 / 6:49 PM EDT / CBS News
By Jacob Rosen Justice Department Reporter
Jake Rosen is a reporter covering the Department of Justice. He was previously a campaign digital reporter covering President Trump’s 2024 campaign and also served as an associate producer for “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”
Read Full Bio
When President Trump and the Justice Department settled the president’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department Monday over the leak of his tax returns, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced, as part of the agreement, the creation of a $1.7+ billion “anti-weaponization fund,” which he said would “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare.”
The fund’s creation is the latest step Mr. Trump has taken to enact his pledge to bring “retribution” for his supporters, after pardoning roughly 1,500 defendants who were convicted of crimes committed during the Capitol insurrection, stripping security clearances from his perceived political enemies and demanding his Justice Department to investigate them.
During Mr. Trump’s second administration, Justice Department leaders have fired dozens of staff who investigated Mr. Trump and his allies as part of two special counsel investigations, one related to his alleged mishandling of classified records and the other tied to his conduct following the 2020 presidential election. They have also created a “weaponization working group” to review Biden administration law enforcement policies. And now the Justice Department will control an unprecedented amount of taxpayer money to potentially dole out to those it deems wrongly investigated or prosecuted.
A spokesperson for the Trump legal team said in a statement that Mr. Trump “is entering into this settlement squarely for the benefit of the American people, and he will continue his fight to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable.”
After the fund was announced, ethics experts were quick to raise questions about how any claims against the fund would be processed — who’s eligible to receive a settlement, and who’s arbitrating the claims? Here’s what’s known about the fund.
What is the fund, and how will it be used?
According to a memorandum signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was also previously one of Mr. Trump’s defense attorneys, within 60 days, the Treasury will move $1.776 billion to an account “for the sole use” of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”
The fund will be overseen by a commission of five members appointed by the attorney general, which will have the power to issue formal apologies and issue monetary relief owed to claimants. One member will be chosen “in consultation with congressional leadership,” the department said. A member may be removed from the commission, but a replacement must be chosen the same way the member was selected.
The department said the fund will stop processing claims on Dec. 15, 2028, just over a month before the next president is inaugurated. Any money remaining in the fund will revert back to the federal government, the department said, adding that the U.S. “has no liability” if funds are misused by the claimants.
Who could the money go to?
It’s unclear who specifically is eligible to access the funds. The Justice Department said in a press release announcing the settlement that there are “no partisan requirements to file a claim.”
If past settlements and actions by the Justice Department provide any insight, it’s likely that some of Mr. Trump’s highest-profile supporters and allies will benefit.
Jan. 6 rioters — including those convicted of the most violent behavior during the attack but later pardoned by Mr. Trump — could likely apply for money, as could high-profile former Trump administration and campaign officials who were litigating against the Justice Department before coming to their own settlement agreements.
Earlier this year, the Justice Department also agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by Mark Houck, a prominent anti-abortion rights opponent who was acquitted at trial in early 2023 on FACE Act charges. His lawyer told CBS News that the Justice Department had agreed to pay him $1.1 million to settle the suit.
The Justice Department also recently settled two claims by former Trump national security official and right-wing activist Michael Flynn, with one case settling for at least $1.25 million, a source familiar with the settlement negotiations told CBS News at the time.
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is also asking the Justice Department to reimburse him for legal fees he incurred in multiple federal and state investigations in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.
Will there be oversight?
Outside of potential future litigation and legislation, there appears to be limited oversight of the fund, ethics experts said. Blanche or a future attorney general are authorized to audit the use of the fund.
The Justice Department said that the fund must send a report to the attorney general once a quarter with details on who has received relief and what form of relief was granted.
Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia University Law School who specializes in government ethics, said the initial lawsuit that led to the settlement was a “collusive suit” because Mr. Trump sued his own government and settled the case between two entities he controls, his legal team and the Justice Department.
“It’s not clear what — if any — kind of screening mechanism they’re going to use. How they can decide who’s going to get how much money,” Briffault said. “Does it matter what you were charged with? Does it matter whether you were under investigation? Does it matter whether you were convicted?”
Briffault said that without public guidelines and details of how the commission will work, “it’s just kind of an open-ended slush fund.”
“It’s possible some of them might have legitimate claims, but there doesn’t seem to be any requirement that they persuade a judge that they were mistreated or they persuade a jury they were mistreated, it’s not quite clear,” Briffault said. “Based on what’s come out so far, it’s just a fund that the taxpayers are going to pay for to cover claims by people who he thinks were mistreated by the prior administration, without them having to prove anything in court.”
Ethical concerns and criticism
The fund’s creation has already sparked a litany of criticism from government watchdog and ethics groups.
“This is the greatest abuse of the legal system in history, so far as I’m concerned,” Liz Oyer, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department, said in an interview with CBS News. Oyer oversaw the handling of pardons and clemency from spring 2022 through the first days of the Trump administration before resigning.
Oyer said she believes there is a “criminal conspiracy” between the Trump legal team and the Justice Department by allowing the fund to be created with taxpayer dollars.
“There’s no transparency. The five members of the fund appear to have total discretion to award money to whomever they choose. There does not appear to be any oversight mechanism,” Oyer said, adding, “There’s no process for public input. It appears that these five people have complete discretion to give away our money to whomever they choose.”
The nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington issued a statement condemning Monday’s settlement as “the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency.”
“While Americans are struggling with an affordability crisis, President Trump plans to use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to pay off his friends and allies — including potentially the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th,” CREW president Donald K. Sherman said, adding that it “quite likely” violates the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause.