Bill Tracker
Below are congressional proposals to block, defund, or put guardrails on the $1.776B Anti-Weaponization Fund.
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.
- Total funding ban — no federal dollars to the fund, period
- Covers the Judgment Fund (the specific pot of money being tapped)
- Focused and short — harder to paint as partisan overreach
Sponsors are eyeing a discharge petition — a tool requiring 218 House signatures to force a floor vote without leadership's approval. That means every House Democrat plus roughly 5 Republicans. A heavy lift, but the most realistic House path.
The most comprehensive House bill. Blocks this specific fund and permanently rewrites the rules to prevent future presidents from pulling the same move. Also adds transparency requirements and recovery tools.
- Directly bans federal funds for this settlement fund
- Bars payouts to Jan. 6 defendants and 2016 election interference defendants
- Bars payouts to anyone whose case was already dismissed with prejudice
- Blocks the President, VP, family members, cabinet officials, and political appointees from receiving any payout
- Requires Treasury to report to Congress all payments over $100,000 (name, case type, attorney)
- Authorizes the AG to sue to recover any improperly disbursed funds
- Permanently amends the Judgment Fund statute (31 U.S.C. § 1304) to close this loophole
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which is Republican-controlled — the same week they voted in a party-line vote to reject Democratic subpoenas related to the fund. Unlikely to advance in committee without outside pressure.
Targets the core conflict of interest: a president suing his own government and winning a taxpayer payout. Would ban settlements from the Judgment Fund in any lawsuit filed by a sitting President or VP — retroactive to January 2025, covering this settlement directly.
- Bans Judgment Fund payouts in lawsuits filed by a sitting President or VP
- Retroactive to January 20, 2025 — directly covers Trump v. IRS
- Would nullify the legal foundation for this specific fund
Schiff plans to offer this as an amendment to the Republicans' immigration enforcement bill when the Senate returns June 1 — creating a floor vote at a simple-majority threshold rather than the normal 60-vote filibuster bar.
Where the first Schiff bill targets who can file a suit, this one targets who can receive a payout. Bans payments to insiders and political figures — essentially anyone in or near the White House.
- Blocks fund payouts to the President, VP, and their family members
- Blocks payouts to members of Congress and congressional staff
- Blocks payouts to political appointees and senior executive branch employees
- Blocks payouts to presidential campaign employees
WHICH BILL DOES WHAT?
Why Congress hasn't stopped it yet
The next major flashpoint is June 1, when the Senate returns from recess to resume debate on the stalled immigration bill. Some see the immigration bill negotiations as the fastest way to act against the settlement fund, since Democratic amendments targeting the fund could come to a vote at a simple-majority threshold rather than the usual 60-vote bar.
What to watch.
Key moments that could change everything.
Senate picks up the stalled $72B immigration enforcement bill. Democrats have pledged to offer amendments targeting the fund. Republicans are split. Watch for Schiff's amendment votes — if they force Republicans on the record, that's the ballgame for public pressure.
Fitzpatrick needs roughly 5 Republican co-signers beyond himself. Every Republican who signs publicly breaks with leadership. Watch for names — that's the real vote count heading into November midterms.
⚡ UPDATE: May 29, 2026
A federal judge has temporarily enjoined the fund. Acting AG Blanche's plan to appoint 5 commissioners is currently blocked. The court's order bars any further action on the fund, including consideration of claims and fund transfers. Hearing: June 12, 2026. Track the cases →
Republicans opposed.
GOP members who have spoken out. Encouragement from constituents matters — especially for members facing re-election.
"Stupid on stilts." "A payout for punks." "The American people are going to reject this out of hand."
"I do not support the weaponization fund as described. I do not believe individuals convicted of violence against police officers on Jan. 6 should be entitled to reimbursement."
"So the nation's top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick."
"Taxpayer dollars will not become a discretionary payout fund. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable."
"People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas — not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the President and his allies with no legal precedent or accountability."
Make some noise.
Pressure works. Take 2 min to voice your view.
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES
ZIP code lookup. Act now!
POST ON X
Share with #StopTheSlushFund
Share on Facebook
Spread the word to your network
Text a friend
Send the link directly
Copy the link
Paste anywhere — email, Slack, anywhere