The Trump administration is reportedly preparing to abandon its proposed $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund after facing mounting legal challenges, bipartisan criticism and resistance from within Republican ranks, marking a significant setback for one of the Justice Department's most controversial initiatives.
According to Axios, administration officials have begun backing away from the program just weeks after it was unveiled. The fund, designed to provide compensation and formal apologies to individuals who claimed they were harmed by politically motivated government actions, quickly became a lightning rod for criticism from lawmakers, watchdog groups and law enforcement officials.
"The president believes government was weaponized against people - it wasn't just him. But this isn't the time and vehicle for it," one official familiar with the discussions told Axios. Another source was even more direct, saying, "It's dead for now."
The development follows a federal court ruling that temporarily halted the program before it could formally begin operations. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of Virginia issued an order preventing the administration from establishing the fund while litigation proceeds. The judge has scheduled a June 12 hearing to determine whether the block should remain in place during the broader legal challenge.
The Justice Department announced the initiative earlier this month, presenting it as a mechanism to compensate individuals who believed they had been unfairly targeted by government investigations, prosecutions or other official actions. DOJ officials emphasized that there were "no partisan requirements" for applicants and said any unused funds would return to the federal government after the program's scheduled expiration on Dec. 1, 2028.
However, the proposal immediately generated controversy because many early supporters included January 6 defendants, Trump allies and others who argued that legal actions against them had caused financial and personal harm.
The backlash quickly expanded beyond Democratic opposition. Harry Dunn, a retired U.S. Capitol Police officer, and Daniel Hodges, a Metropolitan Police officer who responded during the January 6 Capitol riot, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the program. Their complaint described the initiative as a "taxpayer-funded slush fund" and accused the administration of directing public money toward political supporters.
Democrats echoed similar concerns. Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, labeled the proposal a "slush fund" for Trump loyalists and questioned the legal basis for using taxpayer funds in such a manner.
What made the controversy particularly damaging for the White House was the emergence of Republican criticism. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina publicly condemned the proposal after reports indicated January 6 defendants could become beneficiaries.
"These people don't deserve restitution; they- many of them deserve to be in prison," Tillis said. The senator also urged fellow Republicans to voice their concerns, warning that "this is not good for my colleagues."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune similarly acknowledged growing unease among Republican lawmakers. Speaking about the controversy, Thune said Trump administration officials "need to help with this issue, because we have a lot of members who are concerned, obviously, about the timing, but also about the substance."
Despite the reported retreat, sources told Axios that President Donald Trump remains personally supportive of the concept. One official noted that Trump "likes the fund" and "believes in it," while cautioning that "nothing is final until it's final."
