A DOJ Brief Preposterously Insists That Trump’s ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ Was Politically Neutral (opinion)
One brief information Filed Friday, Deputy Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. argues for a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s decision. brazenly corrupt The “Proliferation Fund” is controversial because the Ministry of Justice does not plan to implement this idea. Woodward also stated that the case Floyd v. Department of JusticeIt is based on the premise that the fund is designed to benefit Trump’s supporters, with the exception of Democrats who claim they are victims of “law enforcement and weaponization” by Republicans. And he says that’s absolutely not true.
Trump himself was skeptical of both of these claims. Meet the Press report It was published two days after Woodward submitted his brief. The President stated that the fund, which is part of May 18, “compromise agreement“The person who settled his lawsuit against the IRS may not have died after all. And he described the intended beneficiaries as people who were “very badly injured by radical left lunatics” who were “working for the Biden administration and Sleepy Joe.”
As the contrast between Woodward’s arguments in court and Trump’s televised comments shows, the Justice Department’s portrayal of the Proliferation Fund is completely disconnected from reality. Woodward’s funding statement, which he formally approved by signing the “settlement agreement,” overlooks the reasons why it provoked the bipartisan backlash that persuaded Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to reach the settlement. ditch two weeks after the idea was announced.
The excuse of the Anti-Armament Fund was this: case Trump implausibly claimed that IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn’s illegal leak of tax returns caused “at least” $10 billion in losses. In addition to offering an improbable estimate of his injury, Trump also missed the point: legal deadline for making such claims. And even if he had filed his lawsuit in time, he would have faced the challenge of showing that the IRS was responsible for the crimes of a man he did not appoint.
Despite these legal weaknesses, the Justice Department never mounted a defense. That failure underscored the apparent conflicts of interest created by the case, which pitted Trump against the institutions he oversees in a case in which both sides were represented by lawyers working for him. The situation was so strange that Kathleen Williams, the federal judge presiding over the case in the Southern District of Florida, questioned Whether it involves a genuine dispute between the opposing parties, as is necessary for the proceeding of the case.
Woodward acknowledges that “because President Trump is the Chief Executive, his lawsuit against his administration” presents unique challenges. To put it mildly: unless the parties were truly opposed, which they were not, this was a sham case from the beginning, and any “solution” that resulted from it was equally sham.
“Eventually,” says Woodward, “the federal defendants agreed to settle the case.” HE after all He does a lot of work. Why settle a fatally flawed case? Could this decision have something to do with the fact that the lead plaintiff is the boss of the Justice Department lawyers tasked with defending the IRS, which they clearly failed to do?
Woodward doesn’t say. But it’s clear that the Justice Department is not treating Trump like other plaintiffs with similar claims. Woodward notes that Kenneth Griffin, another billionaire whose 2022 tax returns were disclosed by Littlejohn, is: lawsuit filed under the IRS 26USC7431The same law that Trump invoked. Unlike Trump, Griffin filed his lawsuit within two years of learning of the disclosure, as required by law. Also unlike Trump, Griffin faced Justice Department lawyers who actually disputed his claims.
The Justice Department argued that Littlejohn did not count as a federal employee, another requirement for a Section 7431 claim. The judge declined to dismiss the case on that basis but indicated the issue would be addressed at a summary judgment hearing or possibly a trial. It also ruled that Griffin did not make a separate claim for damages. Privacy Act. “Eventually,” says Woodward, Griffin “agreed with the United States for a formal apology.”
Trump also received an apology, though he never had to argue with government lawyers determined to refute his claims. But unlike Griffin, he got much more: $1.8 billion plus taxpayer money for his allies and supporters. blanket protection Blanche’s immunity from liability for tax violations and other federal crimes she or her family may have committed before May 19 is a jaw-dropping promise of immunity. clarified announced the master agreement the next day. Neither regulation had anything to do with Trump’s allegations against the IRS.
Williams never had a chance to reconsider this sweet deal. And Trump never resolved this important issue, as he dropped the case two days before the deadline for briefing on whether the case involved a genuine dispute. But lately signaled He said he plans to reconsider the question. On May 29 he ordered The government will address “accusations of collusion,” “whether the Parties are truly adversarial,” “the allegation that the dismissal in this case was based on deception by the Parties,” and “the question of whether the case should be reopened because the Court is a ‘victim of fraud.'”
Woodward doesn’t mention any of this. Nor does it explain the logic tying the Antiproliferation Fund to Trump’s complaint that the IRS failed to properly vet contractors entrusted with confidential tax information. But as Woodward said, the fund was a politically neutral plan to compensate victims of government abuse.
“Plaintiffs’ contention – hypothetical plaintiffs should have been targeted
“Anything in the Settlement Agreement targeted by Democratic rather than Republican administrations misinterprets the plain language of the Settlement Agreement,” Woodward says. “Nothing in the Settlement Agreement would prevent people targeted by a Republican administration from making claims. Plaintiffs only need to ‘assert at least one legal claim stating that the plaintiff is a victim of Civil and/or Weaponization,’ which means they are ‘targeted'[ed]…for improper and unlawful political, personal and/or ideological reasons.”
Other aspects of the “settlement agreement” belie this claim of neutrality. The document describes the Antiproliferation Fund as a response to the abuse of “government power” by “Democratic elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents.” The report specifically addresses “the Biden Administration’s unfair labeling of some parents as domestic terrorists” and “the Biden Administration’s abuse of the FACE Act.” prohibitions blocking access to abortion clinics.
The agreement makes no mention of any abuses by Republican administrations, such as Trump’s vindictive and legally frivolous attempts to imprison his political rivals. According to Blanche, there is no problem with this type of armament.
Despite the fund’s framework, Woodward insists it will be open to all alleged victims of “law and gun”, regardless of their ideology or political leanings. But the process was clearly designed to favor the president’s friends, as the five-member board tasked with distributing the money would be under Trump’s complete control. The board would not be required to publicly explain its procedures or decisions and would stop accepting requests a month and a half before Trump leaves office.
In case these clues weren’t enough, Trump made it clear who the intended beneficiaries were. “I am helping others who have been so badly abused by the evil, corrupt and weaponized Biden Administration finally get JUSTICE!” HE explained Four days after the “solution” was announced.
These “others” likely include the approximately 1,600 Trump supporters arrested for participating in the 2021 Capitol riot; because Trump had already pardoned them and often described them as victims of government persecution. He reiterated this view during his visit. Meet the Press report. “The people were destroyed by dirty police and guns” in question. “Many of these people need to be compensated.”
Trump did not rule out paying compensation to rioters convicted of attacking police officers; It was a possibility that angered Republican lawmakers who objected to the Anti-Proliferation Fund. “I’m not inclined to say these people should get compensation, but I need to see it,” he said. He suggested they may actually have legitimate claims because they “pleaded guilty because they were afraid.”
Woodward ignores this entire context; Without this it is not possible to explain the political reaction to the fund. The reparations plan “gained significant attention and provoked widespread debate about the arming of the government, whether and how any claims process should work, and past compromises reached by other administrations,” he reports mildly. “After Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, the political process continued to play out. On June 2, 2026, the Acting Attorney General told Congress that while ‘the Fund’s causes remain important,’ the Fund ‘has not moved forward.'”
Trump appeared to contradict that assurance during the election. Meet the Press Interview suggesting the fund could be revived in some way. “I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans,” he said. “You have to get it approved. If they approve it, that’s great. If they don’t, I’ll be disappointed.”
Woodward may still be right case Objecting to funding filed May 22 in the Eastern District of Virginia no longer involves an actual “litigation or argument.” He may also be right that the plaintiffs (a former federal prosecutor, the city of New Haven, Common Cause, and the National Abortion Federation) never had the right to sue. And he argues persuasively that First Amendment and equal protection claims are unlikely to succeed.
On the contrary, Woodward’s definition of a “settlement agreement” is so misleading that a reader unfamiliar with the controversy it has sparked will be puzzled as to why the Trump administration abandoned this seemingly good idea. It’s pretty clear why Woodward didn’t want to get into all of this, considering the disclosure would implicate him in a scam. Under the pretext of a false lawsuit, Trump obtained benefits for himself, his family, and his supporters. This would not have been possible without the willing assistance of government lawyers who abandoned legal ethics in their rush to please the president.
Post DOJ Brief Implausibly Insists Trump’s ‘Proliferation Fund’ Is Politically Neutral appeared for the first time reason.com.
