Trump Lackeys Forced to Face the Public on Trump’s Blatantly Corrupt Slush Fund

This is your TPM evening briefing.

May 19, 2026

‘We’re Trying to Give Money — Not Give Money …’

Two of President Trump’s closest cronies were made to face the music today. Bipartisan outrage over the corrupt slush fund created by the Justice Department for Trump’s friends and political allies has swelled in the hours since it was announced on Monday.

As TPM has reported, the actions from the Justice Department yesterday were some of the most blatantly corrupt we’ve seen, and that is a high bar in Trump II, when the president did not hesitate for even a moment before folding the Justice Department under his purview upon returning to office.

On Monday, Trump and the IRS signed a settlement agreement which involved Trump dismissing his lawsuit against the IRS, his own government’s agency, in which he was claiming damages for the 2019 leak of his tax records. In exchange, the DOJ would establish an “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which was immediately panned as nothing more than a “slush fund” for Trump’s supporters — including, it seems, those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 — and other MAGA allies. Trump’s move to dismiss the lawsuit also created a convenient-for-Trump situation in which the U.S. District Court judge overseeing the case did not have time to scrutinize whether the lawsuit was legally valid in the first place.

The Justice Department announced the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” in a press release on Monday, arguing it was accessible to anyone who believes they’ve been mistreated by a “weaponized” justice system — a claim Trump’s friends, overwhelmingly, make.

But the vagueness of the agreement set up a situation where Trump’s Vice President JD Vance and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche were made to sorta publicly eat shit on Tuesday, selling the arrangement publicly as they responded to pointed questions from reporters and, in Blanche’s case, bipartisan concerns from lawmakers.

Both reporters and lawmakers had questions about whether those who were convicted of attacking police officers on Jan. 6 would qualify for a payout. Vance’s response was garbled as he flailed between attacking the reporter who asked the question and giving a cohesive answer that wouldn’t upset the faction of Trump’s base that still respects law enforcement.

“We’re not trying to give money to anybody who attacked a police officer. We’re trying to give money — not give money, we’re trying to compensate people where the book was thrown at them, they were mistreated by the legal system,” he said during a White House press briefing, during which he was covering for White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt while she is on maternity leave.

“Sometimes, you know, we are — we do have, John, in this country, innocent until proven guilty,” he continued, addressing the reporter. “We have people who were accused of attacking law enforcement officers. That doesn’t mean that we’re gonna completely ignore some of the claims they’re gonna make.”

Clear as mud. Blanche was asked to answer to similar concerns during his previously scheduled appearance before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee. Democrats tore into the acting AG for the “obvious abuse of power by the Department of Justice, by the president,” as Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) put it.

“What we are talking about is nothing short of the sitting president of the United States looting from the treasury for his own gain. Do you seriously think this arrangement is appropriate? The president telling the federal government to settle a case and let him pay billions to the people that he chooses?” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said. “This is corruption that has never been more blatant. … What is happening is you write the check, Trump and his cronies cash it. American taxpayers, who are already being whacked with high prices, are going to foot the bill.”

Democrats and Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) pressed Blanche to give specifics about who exactly could qualify for compensation.

“It’s not limited to Republicans. It’s not limited to the Biden weaponization. It’s not limited to in any way, scope or form to Jan. 6 or to Jack Smith. There’s no limitation on the claims,” Blanche said.

“It’s entirely voluntary if an individual wants to apply and assert that they were a victim of weaponization, and the commission can do anything according to what was set up yesterday, from issuing an apology to the … claimant to awarding to awarding compensation,” he continued before making the cartoonish suggestion that even Hunter Biden could qualify!

“It does not limit it to President Trump or President Trump’s friends. To the contrary, President Trump isn’t taking a dime,” Blanche said. “The commissioners will set rules I’m sure … That’s not for me to set. That’s for the commissioners, and whether an individual, an Oath Keeper as you just mentioned, applies for compensation … anybody in this country can apply.”

As long as Trump himself isn’t personally profitting, but the Oath Keeper insurrectionists are, who could be concerned?

Raskin Wants to Force Republicans on Record

Democrats in the House are planning to soon introduce a bill that would block Trump’s settlement slush fund and also block the creation of something similar in the future as part of an effort to force their Republican colleagues to go on record on the unprecedentedly corrupt action. They’re considering using a discharge petition to work around Republican House leadership to get the legislation on the floor, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told The New Republic‘s Greg Sargent:

“We need to put Republicans on the spot as to whether or not they are going to endorse this rank corruption, or whether they are going to stand up for basic constitutional values,” Raskin said in an interview, adding that he will pursue “straightforward legislation to block this outrageous misappropriation.”

Even Lindsey Has Questions

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) did not have a lot to say when questioned about Trump’s $1.8 billion “lawfare” fund, but he told reporters Tuesday he was “not a big fan” of it and did not “see a purpose for that.”

“I think that there are, and will be continue to be, a lot of questions around that, that the administration is going to have to answer,” he said at a news briefing.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) expressed a similar sentiment on Tuesday to reporters, per Politico:

Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the White House’s staunchest allies who once championed a payout for lawmakers who had their phone data subpoenaed by the Biden administration, said Tuesday he believed senators needed more information.
“Conceptually I understand what he’s trying to do, but I don’t know,” he said. “I think we need to ask more questions.”