SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
democracy forward
Trump's Insurrectionist Slush Fund 'Dead for Now' Amid Furious Public Backlash
"If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law," said US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Jun 01, 2026
President Donald Trump is reportedly dropping his effort to get Congress to sign off on creating a $1.8 billion slush fund for political allies amid furious public backlash.
A source described as a senior Trump administration official told Axios on Monday that the fund is "dead for now" after two federal judges last week weighed in against it, with one blocking any funds from being dispersed.
One source told Axios that the fund—which was set up to pay out allies who were allegedly unfairly prosecuted during former President Joe Biden's tenure, including potentially hundreds of rioters who violently stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021—had "become a distraction" that was threatening the president's broader legislative agenda.
"The president believes government was weaponized against people—it wasn't just him," the source claimed. "But this isn't the time and vehicle for it."
According to NOTUS politics reporter Reese Gorman, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) "helped convince" Trump to drop the fund for now during a conversation on Monday.
"The fund received significant backlash from Hill Republicans," reported Gorman, "and a number of House Republicans were looking for ways to stop this fund from happening."
The decision to drop the fund came as Democratic lawmakers have been lining legislation and amendments to derail it.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Monday that his caucus wasn't satisfied just with killing the current Trump slush fund, but wanted to bar him from trying to create another one in the future.
"If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law," Schumer wrote in a social media post. "This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump’s word is nowhere near enough."
Schumer's comments were echoed by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who also cast doubt on whether Trump had truly dropped his scheme.
"I don’t trust Trump’s word, and neither do the American people," wrote Coons. "I'm looking forward to working with my Senate Democratic colleagues to permanently ban this slush fund. If Republicans in Congress are as opposed to this fund as they claim, they should have no problem joining us."
The press office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential candidate who last week proposed a 100% tax on any California residents who received money from the Trump fund, celebrated its apparent demise.
"Days after Gavin Newsom challenged Trump’s J6 criminal slush fund and proposed a 100% tax on profits, Axios reports Trump pulled the plug," the press office wrote. "Bullies fold when you hit back!"
Sens. Elisa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) on Monday introduced a new bill called the "Drain the Slush Fund Act," which would bar taxpayer money from being paid to the "president, his associates, individuals convicted of crimes, or those involved in the January 6, 2021 insurrection."
In announcing the legislation, Slotkin said the fund was the latest example of Trump using the government "as a piggy bank for himself and his allies."
"This so-called... anti-weaponization fund is an unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money, and it must be stopped," said Slotkin. "Our bill does just that. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are crying out for the president to focus on the economy and lowering their costs."
In the House of Representatives, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) teamed with Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced similar legislation aimed at blocking the fund.
"Congress must call out what we know is morally wrong," Suozzi wrote in a social media post announcing the legislation. "The checks and balances of our democracy and the will of the American public hold us accountable to that standard."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that the reported decision to drop the fund was good news, but warned against overlooking other toxic policies being pushed by the president and his GOP allies in a new budget reconciliation package.
"As important as taking out this disgusting policy is," said Gilbert, "we must not let it be an excuse to green light the massive increases to [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] funding embedded in the reconciliation bill."
Legal advocacy group Democracy Forward, which has filed lawsuits aimed at blocking the fund's implementation, said it would continue pressing its case until it was sure that the president's plan was truly dead.
"Until the administration fully abandons the scheme, it's beyond dispute that it will not recur, and our clients’ harm is remedied, we will be in court challenging it," said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. "We look forward to the government’s response to the courts and to our filings, and to prevailing on behalf of our clients."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blatant Abuse of Power' Blocked as Judge Puts Temporary Halt on Trump's $1.8 Billion Slush Fund
"Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician," said the head of one advocacy group.
May 29, 2026
A federal judge in Virginia on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from moving to create a so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that would use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to reward supporters, including people convicted of seditious and violent felonies during the January 6 insurrection.
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a 2-page order barring any action “pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.”
Brinkema—a nominee of former President Bill Clinton—set a June 12 hearing date for arguments on whether she should extend the pause amid numerous legal challenges to what critics have called a "felon-to-felon slush fund," a reference to President Donald Trump's 34 felony convictions and the serious crimes, including violent assaults on police officers with dangerous weapons, committed by January 6 insurrectionists who were later pardoned by the president.
In January, Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns by a former IRS contractor. Trump’s own Justice Department settled the case earlier this month by agreeing to create the roughly $1.776 billion settlement slush fund for people claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government.
January 6 insurrectionists are expected to be among the fund's beneficiaries. Trump was accused of rewarding political violence by granting clemency to roughly 1,500 Capitol attackers, dozens of whom have since been charged or convicted for serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.
Brinkema's decision came less than 24 hours after plaintiffs in one of the legal challenges to the fund, who are represented by Democracy Forward, filed a motion for emergency relief. Plaintiffs' attorneys told Brinkema that they’re “already being irreparably harmed by the unconstitutional and unlawful creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund," and that such harm "will be permanent if the administration takes action, including by irreversibly disbursing funds, before this court can act."
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said following Friday's ruling, "Today, a federal court recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme before the legality of that program can be fully reviewed by the court."
“This is a victory for transparency, the rule of law, and the American people," Perryman added. "No administration has the authority to spend public money through a political rewards program that Congress never authorized. We look forward to the next stages in this case.”
Case plaintiffs issued a statement following Brinkema's order:
We are pleased that the court granted our request to ensure the administration does not distribute taxpayer funds until our motion has been considered. The court acted quickly to stop this unlawful scheme before money could start flowing out the door. The Trump-Vance administration attempted to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded program that rewards political allies, operates without oversight, and evades the constitutional safeguards that protect our democracy. We are grateful that the court recognized the urgency of the situation and acted to preserve the status quo before further irreparable harm occurred.
Democratic lawmakers welcomed Brinkema's order, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling it "an important win."
"Of all Trump’s corrupt schemes, his insurrectionist slush fund is one of the most depraved," said Schumer, who acknowledged the battle over Trump's fund is far from over. "We’ll keep fighting in the courts and in Congress to make sure this $2 billion giveaway to cop beaters, criminals, and MAGA cronies never sees the light of day."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) posted on social media: "I’ve said from the start that this is an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars. This needs to be stopped permanently."
Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said in a statement that “today’s ruling is a critical reminder that no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States."
"Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund for his friends and diehard loyalists—including those who tried to overthrow our democracy on January 6—is a blatant abuse of power, and the court rightly blocked it," Harvey added. "Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Latest Blow to Trump's Mass Deportation Plan, Judge Blocks Overhaul of Immigration Appeals
"Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency," said an immigrant rights advocate who sued the federal government.
Mar 10, 2026
Immigrant rights advocates on Monday hailed a federal judge's ruling that blocked significant portions of President Donald Trump's proposed policy changes regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had been scheduled to go into effect this week and would have "eviscerated noncitizens’ right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases," according to rights groups.
In the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Randolph Moss issued a late-night order on Sunday calling Trump's rule titled “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” which was proposed last month, “a fast-track mechanism for disposing of the vast majority” of immigration court appeals.
The proposed rule would have reduced the time immigrants have to file appeals from 30 days to just 10 days; required summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) 15 permanent members voted to accept the case for review within 10 days; and permitted case dismissals before records were transmitted to the board.
Moss said the administration had violated the legal requirement for the government to notify the public of its proposed changes to a federal rule and provide an opportunity for public comment. The Trump administration could potentially try again to change the immigration appeals process.
Laura St. John, legal director for the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, said the ruling "keeps in place a basic, yet critical, protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case."
"Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated, all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda."
"As the administration continues to try to deport as many people as they can quickly and often without a fair day in court, it is critical for everyone to have the opportunity to file an appeal," said St. John. "Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency.”
The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project is one of several groups that sued the administration over the proposed rule, with Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, and the National Immigrant Justice Center representing the plaintiffs.
St. John argued in court that it can take at least a week for advocacy groups to prepare materials and file an appeal to the BIA after it has determined a noncitizen can be deported. Forcing immigrants and their legal teams to file an appeal within 10 days would leave many without any "meaningful review" of their cases, St. John said.
While the Executive Office for Immigration Review claimed the new policy would swiftly reduce the backlog of cases before the BIA, Moss wrote in his opinion, the plaintiffs argued that the provisions would "operate in combination to deprive almost all affected parties of the administrative appellate review 'that they were previously entitled to.'"
Erez Reuveni, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, said the decision "makes it clear that the Trump-Vance administration cannot play games with the immigration appeals system to eliminate basic due process and fast-track deportations."
Reuveni is a former Department of Justice lawyer who revealed in a whistleblower complaint last year that DOJ staffers had been advised by the Trump administration to ignore court orders in order to swiftly carry out Trump's mass deportation agenda.
“Once again, no matter how hard this administration tries to hide its cruel and unlawful actions behind an ‘immigration policy,’ a federal court has made clear that the government must follow the law and cannot strip people of their basic rights," he said. "We will continue representing our plaintiffs in court to defend their rights and hold this administration accountable.”
The Department of Homeland Security has not regularly disclosed the number of people it is deporting under the Trump administration; internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement data showed last year that more than 10,000 people were being deported per month.
Moss' ruling came less than a month after US District Judge Sunshine Sykes in the Central District of California threw out a BIA decision that endorsed the administration's policy of denying bond hearings to immigrants with no criminal records who have been detained. A federal appeals court issued a temporary pause on that ruling last Friday after the White House appealed.
Mary Georgevich, a senior litigation attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said Moss' ruling was "an important win in the face of an administration that is intent on dismantling our immigration system at any cost, including betraying our country’s shared values of the importance of due process and access to counsel."
"Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated," she said, "all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular