The Justice Department‘s new $1.776 billion fund to compensate victims of lawfare is giving Democrats a fresh opportunity to drag Republicans back into politically fraught debates over Jan. 6 just months before the midterm elections.
The DOJ announced the fund on Monday as part of its settlement with President Donald Trump, his sons Eric and Donald Jr., and the Trump Organization, after they agreed to drop their $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. They sued the IRS in January after an IRS employee leaked their tax returns in 2019 and 2020.
But Democrats argue the taxpayer-funded program could compensate Jan. 6 defendants, including some charged with or convicted of assaulting police officers, reopening an issue Republicans have largely tried to move beyond ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
“It’s a bad look for that money to end up in the pockets of Trump’s friends and people who assaulted police officers,” said Claremont McKenna College politics professor John Pitney. “Just picture all the good things he could have done with that money, such as compensating Jeffrey Epstein‘s victims.”
The anti-weaponization fund will be paid for by DOJ’s judgment fund, which is appropriated by Congress to settle cases. Claims will not be processed after December 2028, one month before the end of Trump’s second administration. It remains to be seen if the fund will be challenged in court.
Even Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) appeared uneasy with the arrangement as Republicans try to protect their narrow congressional majorities.
“I’m not sure exactly how they intend to use it,” Thune told reporters Tuesday. “But yeah, I don’t see a purpose for that.”
Vice President JD Vance spent much of Tuesday defending the program at the White House press briefing.
“Why should taxpayers fund this? Whenever the United States government incurs legal expenses, it pays out those legal expenses,” Vance told reporters. “When it’s settling a lawsuit, it pays out money to settle that lawsuit. And the question is, is $1 of this money going to the Trump administration? No. Is $1 of this money going to Donald Trump personally? No. Is $1 of this money going to Donald Trump’s family? No.”
Vance stressed no money would go directly to Trump or his family and dismissed Democratic claims the initiative amounted to a “slush fund” for Jan. 6 defendants.
“We’re going to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis, and if we think that somebody, whatever they were accused of, if we think that somebody was unfairly prosecuted and deserves just compensation, then that’s what this fund is going to exist to provide,” Vance said.
Still, the fund has support from some Republicans who argue the government unfairly targeted Trump supporters and conservatives.
“I’m open to the concept,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told reporters. “Does the federal government abuse people sometimes? Yeah, and those people should have recourse. I’d like to know how this will supplement their recourse in the courts, but I’m open to the concept.”
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) similarly endorsed the fund, saying “people who are harmed by government ought to be compensated by government,” though he also thought successful claims ought to be made public.
“I think some of those people were grievously harmed by their quest, the jihad against them,” Johnson said. “Where are all the convictions for all the riots in January the summer of 2020?”
With six months until the midterm elections, Democrats hope to use the fund against Republicans.
‘UNELECTED MAYOR OF DC’: TRUMP CONTINUES WASHINGTON MAKEOVER DESPITE BACKLASH
“Trump has already stuck taxpayers with the bill for his massive tax cuts for the ultra-rich, his deadly and costly war with Iran, and his White House ballroom — and now he wants even more of their hard-earned money to give his allies and supporters another kickback,” Democratic National Committee rapid response director Kendall Witmer told reporters.
The Justice Department also announced on Tuesday it had expanded the settlement with Trump to include a provision that it would not pursue any claims against him, his family, or his companies over unpaid taxes regarding “returns filed before the effective date” of the agreement.
David Sivak and Ramsey Touchberry contributed to this report.