Congressional proposals to block, defund, or put guardrails on the $1.776B Anti-Weaponization Fund and related efforts.
The most aggressive House bill — and the first to move via discharge petition. Consolidates and supersedes Raskin's earlier proposals into a single vehicle. Three distinct targets in one bill: it blocks taxpayer funds from covering anyone in the Trump–IRS settlement, voids Acting AG Blanche's audit-immunity addendum (Raskin calls it the “Super Pardon”), and permanently bars Jan. 6 defendants and the President from tapping the Judgment Fund in the future.
Two petitions are in play. Rep. Raskin’s petition on H.R. 8914 (NO CARTE BLANCHE Act) went live June 26 — the broader, more aggressive vehicle, needing 6 Republicans to reach 218. Fitzpatrick’s petition (H.R. 8955) was filed mid-June but faces leadership headwinds. No Republican co-signers have been publicly confirmed on either petition.
Key names to watch: Any House Republican in a competitive district · Members who publicly criticized the Fund but haven’t signed
A tax-based approach: imposes a 100% tax on any payment received from a fund derived from a civil action filed by a former president or their family against the U.S. Effectively renders any such payout worthless. Also requires full public disclosure of all such payments.
Two pages. Simple. Says: no federal money may be used to pay any claim submitted to the Anti-Weaponization Fund. That's it — a clean, narrow prohibition that's hard to argue with.
The narrowest tax-mechanism bill. Imposes a 100% tax specifically on payments from funds established as a result of a civil action filed by the President of the United States against the Internal Revenue Service — scoped directly to the Trump v. IRS origin case, no broader.
A Republican-sponsored bill predating the Anti-Weaponization Fund by three months. Addresses a different practice: DOJ settlement agreements that directed money to third-party nonprofits rather than victims or the Treasury — a pattern associated with Obama-era enforcement actions. Not targeted at presidential lawsuits or the Judgment Fund.
A lean, structural fix. Amends the Judgment Fund statute (31 U.S.C. § 1304) to bar any payout arising from a lawsuit filed by a sitting President or VP — retroactive to January 20, 2025. Doesn't enumerate categories of excluded individuals; instead targets the act of a president suing his own government at the root.
100% tax on settlement payments received from any fund arising out of a civil action filed by a former president or family against the U.S., with full public disclosure requirements. Identical text to H.R. 8910.
Permanently bars Presidents, VPs, their families, and controlled entities from collecting settlement payments from the U.S. government. Also bans filing administrative claims while in office and imposes strict transparency guardrails on any post-office claims. Identical text to H.R. 8309 (Raskin–Min).
S. 4791 would have abolished the Anti-Weaponization Fund entirely and nullified Acting AG Blanche’s IRS audit-immunity addendum — the “Super Pardon” provision Raskin later targeted in the NO CARTE BLANCHE Act. Schumer sought unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass it without a roll-call vote.
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) objected, blocking passage. A single objection is enough to defeat a unanimous consent request — no vote is held, no threshold required. The fund that Hagerty defended had, by then, already been informally abandoned; the immunity addendum, however, was still in effect and drew no equivalent Republican objection.
A motion to commit is a procedural tool that returns a bill to committee. It requires only a simple majority, unlike amendments during a vote-a-rama, which are subject to points of order requiring 60 votes to waive.
The first amendment offered in the S.2 Vote-A-Rama. Would have sent the $70B ICE/Border Patrol reconciliation bill back to the Senate Judiciary Committee with instructions to add language permanently banning the Anti-Weaponization Fund. Required only a simple majority of 50 votes to pass.
Most Republicans voted against it, holding the bill together. Three Republicans — Collins (R-ME), Husted (R-OH), and Sullivan (R-AK), all facing competitive re-election races — voted yes. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) was absent. The vote was held open for nearly three hours as Republicans debated internally over whether to allow an anti-weaponization amendment to the bill.
Full roll call pending official Senate record publication.
One sentence. Prohibited the DOJ from using taxpayer funds to make settlement payments to any individual convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers at or around the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Coons noted that Acting AG Blanche had refused to commit — when asked directly in a May 19 hearing — that such individuals would be ineligible for fund payouts.
Despite a majority of senators voting yes — 54 in favor — it fell six votes short of the 60-vote threshold. A majority of the Senate, including a significant number of Republicans, effectively voted to bar Jan. 6 assault convicts from the fund — but the procedural bar prevented it from becoming law.
Full roll call pending official Senate record publication.
Would have repurposed the Anti-Weaponization Fund entirely — restricting payouts exclusively to law enforcement officers who were killed or suffered injuries during the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, or their next of kin. Appropriated $100 million for that purpose, offset by a cut to ICE funding. A direct inversion of the fund's stated purpose.
Cassidy negotiated with the Senate parliamentarian for hours overnight, seeking a ruling that would allow the amendment to pass with a simple majority. The parliamentarian ruled it required 60 votes to waive a procedural objection — a threshold it could not reach despite majority support. Six Republicans joined all Democrats in voting yes.
Full roll call pending official Senate record publication.
Would have prohibited all federal funds — including the Judgment Fund (31 U.S.C. § 1304) — from being used to establish, administer, defend, or pay claims through the Anti-Weaponization Fund. It also stripped the AG's authority to negotiate any agreement that would fund covered activities and explicitly superseded the Trump v. IRS settlement. Uniquely, it would have redirected up to $1.7B to the DOJ's fraud enforcement division, and declared that no person acquires any legally enforceable right from the settlement unless Congress expressly authorizes it.
Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) raised a procedural point of order, arguing the amendment exceeded the budget authority allocated to the Judiciary Committee for the reconciliation package. Waiving the point of order required 60 votes — a threshold the amendment fell far short of. Most Democrats also voted no, arguing the $1.7B reallocation would simply create a new slush fund under the AG's control.
Key moments that could change everything. Filter by Court, Congress, or All.
Pressure works. Take 2 min to voice your view.
ZIP code lookup. Act now!
Share with #StopTheSlushFund
Spread the word to your network
Send the link directly
Paste anywhere — email, Slack, anywhere