President Trump’s Justice Department ‘legal affairs’ fund targeted in new lawsuit

Two new lawsuits challenging the Justice Department’s controversial creation of a $1.8 billion “legal fees” fund were filed Friday in federal courts in Washington, D.C., and Virginia.

The civil suit comes as multiple lawmakers have introduced legislation to block the fund, and President Donald Trump and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche are defending it.

Both lawsuits allege that the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund, established as part of President Trump’s $10 billion settlement of a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act. One says it violates the U.S. Constitution, the other says it violates the Freedom of Information Act.

Trump did not receive any settlement money. But the fund is intended to compensate many advocates who say they were victims of prosecutorial overreach by the Justice Department under the Biden administration. Under the settlement, Mr. Trump and his family will be immune from IRS enforcement actions related to their tax returns.

The civil complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, alleges that “the fund, created pursuant to a collusive agreement between the President and his own administration, has no Congressional authorization, no legal basis, and no accountability.”

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Andrew Floyd, is a former federal prosecutor who said he was fired last year for his job prosecuting cases against Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The other plaintiffs are Jonathan Carabello, a professor at California State University, Channel Islands, and the city of New Haven, Connecticut.

Caravello was arrested in 2025 while protesting immigration raids in California and was later acquitted in April of baseless charges of felony assault on a federal officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon.

New Haven is being sued by the Trump administration for its role as a so-called sanctuary city for immigrants.

The other complaint was filed in D.C. federal court by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a Washington advocacy group known as CREW.

“The confidentiality provisions of the slush funds order allow defendants to circumvent the public disclosure requirements of the Judgment Funds Act,” the complaint states.

“And they allow the defendants to avoid the public scorn that now cries out for taxpayer-funded “reparations” from their illegal slush by, for example, giving taxpayer funds to the January 6th insurrectionists who were later convicted of child sexual abuse and sentenced to life in prison, the pardoned insurrectionists and assassin threaters, and numerous other convicted felons pardoned by President Trump. Fund. ”

The lawsuit comes two days after two police officers who protected the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking to withhold the funds.

President Trump said in a post on Truth Social early Friday morning that he “gave up significant funds to allow the just-announced anti-weaponization fund to advance.”

“He could have settled a lawsuit involving the illegal release of tax returns and the equally illegal Mar-a-Lago break-in for absolute riches,” Trump said.

“Instead, I am helping people who have been horribly abused by the evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden administration finally receive justice!” By authorizing the creation of the fund, “I am giving up a lot of money.”

Trump’s social media comments came a day after the fund faced strong opposition from Senate Republicans, with some lawmakers pushing legislation that would prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for the $1.8 billion payout pool.

Critics of the fund called it a “slush fund” and blasted the idea that members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 could get paid from the fund if they were indicted for their actions, even if they attacked police officers that day.

Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pennsylvania, and Tom Suozzi, R-New York, introduced a bill Thursday that would prohibit federal funds from being used to pay claims submitted to Justice Department funds.

On Thursday, Blanche met with Republican senators to defend the plan, many of whom expressed regret over the plan.

After the meeting, in a sign of discord among the caucus, Republican leaders backed away from plans to hold a series of votes on a package that would fund immigration enforcement agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R.S., told reporters Thursday after the sit-in with Blanche that the White House “needs to work with us on this issue because there are a lot of members of Congress who are concerned.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a longtime leader of the Republican caucus, slammed the fund Thursday.

“So the highest law enforcement official in this country is asking for slush funds to pay people who assault police officers?” McConnell said in a statement. “It’s completely stupid and morally wrong. Make your choice.”

But earlier Friday, several House Republicans defended the fund in interviews with CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

Asked about the fund, House Budget Committee Chairwoman Jody Arrington (R-Texas) said President Trump was “one of the biggest victims of weaponization” and that she thought it was “the right approach and use of tax dollars as long as there are guardrails.”

But Mr. Arrington also said, “We need accountability and safeguards to ensure that this does not become a slush fund that funds political allies who have no legitimate claims.”

“We need to be fair and objective…That’s why I think the Senate will find a way forward,” he said.

These guardrails could be included as part of the next Congress’ budget reconciliation package, Arrington suggested, “or they could just be agreed upon.”

“I think there’s a need for it,” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said of the fund.

Comer claimed that Trump was a victim of “the law.”

When asked about the lawsuit settlement that led to the fund’s creation, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said, “I wasn’t there, so I don’t know the details.”

“No one knows more about the government’s weaponization against him and his family than Donald Trump,” Emmer said. “Whatever agreement is reached, I think it will be fair to both parties.”

Massachusetts House Minority Whip Democrat Katherine Clark criticized Trump and Republicans over the Justice Department fund and the president’s pet projects, including a new ballroom at the White House and a new arch near Arlington National Cemetery.

“We can’t put on display what we saw here this week, where we have a $1 billion slush fund for the ballroom, a $2 billion slush fund for the president, and a Republican and a president proposing $75 billion in additional funding for ICE, which doesn’t cost the American people a dime and doesn’t need any more funding,” Clark said.

Clark said the Trump administration is “building ballrooms and arches and kind of disrespecting them.”