VOICES

"It looks inappropriate. When you negotiate with yourself over taxpayer money, it doesn't look right."

Britt said she does not want any person who assaulted police officers at the Capitol on January 6th to receive compensation — a possibility the Trump administration has refused to rule out.

"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."

"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."

"President Trump is the first president to sue his own government and then direct his chosen acting Attorney General to reach this kind of settlement."

"From all outward appearances, this doesn't pass the smell test." He added: "An executive branch being able to, at their will, send money to people without the proper judicial rule — those are my concerns."

"My God do you not find there's any conflict of interest in what you are doing here – as the Acting Attorney General of the United States?"

"Taxpayer dollars will not become a discretionary payout fund. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable."

"It's pretty clear that the president has to say very explicitly that there's not going to be a weaponization fund."

"Taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for everyday Americans, not brutalize or kill them."

"My concern is this addendum isn't getting a lot of attention... Scott [Bessent], you should apologize to the American people for fleecing them and giving this away to Donald Trump."

"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."

"I'm just concerned because you're not under oath, and I want to trust you, and I want to believe you – we all do. But putting it in writing would settle that issue."

"The White House dropped a bomb in the middle of a pretty well planned-out reconciliation bill to help deliver on one of President Trump's priorities."

"The president has set up a slush fund — and he literally will get to choose through his hand-picked appointees who gets paid. That is absurd."

Trump's lawsuit against the IRS "was never about justice — it's another self-enrichment scheme on the backs of hard-working taxpayers."

"It's unprecedented for someone to be on both sides of a legal decision, where you make a plea bargain with yourself, essentially."

"This case is nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia."

"What about judicial review? And where does the legislature, Congress' role fit into this?"

"He sued the government he runs, had his own DOJ settle the case and pocketed the prize: special IRS protection for the Trump family. That is self-dealing with a government seal."

"This is a bipartisan bill to block the President's $1.7 billion slush fund to pay off January 6th criminals and other maladjusted minions! To allow it to continue would set a dangerous precedent."

"I'm not a big fan. I'm not sure exactly how they intend to use it." Thune also told reporters he wasn't given a heads-up and that it "would have been nice" if he had been consulted.

"Stupid on stilts." "A payout for punks." "The American people are going to reject this out of hand."

"This is an outrageous, unprecedented slush fund that you have set up. Simple question: will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund?"

"An insane level of corruption — even for Trump." She called it "a $1.7 BILLION slush fund for Trump's hand-picked stooges to hand money to January 6th insurrectionists and his political allies."

"The announcement of this slush fund was staggeringly corrupt even by Trump's bottom-dwelling standards."