Trump's $1.776B fund gets bipartisan pushback from LI delegation

WASHINGTON — The Trump Administration’s creation of a $1.776 billion fund to compensate allies who say they were unfairly investigated or prosecuted by the Biden administration is being met with pushback from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Long Island’s congressional delegation.

The Department of Justice announced on Monday that it would establish the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" as part of a legal settlement to dismiss President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over his leaked tax returns.

Trump and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche have defended the creation of the taxpayer-funded compensation program, arguing that any American who believes they were unfairly targeted by federal law enforcement can apply.

But lawmakers have raised questions about the legality of establishing a major fund without congressional input, and raised concerns that the administration has not immediately ruled out the eligibility of those charged with assaulting officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Long Island lawmakers have also raised concerns about establishing a $1.776 billion fund as Americans grapple with rising fuel costs and inflation.

"No, we shouldn’t be spending billions on a new DOJ compensation fund," Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-Bayport), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement to Newsday. "The federal government should be focused on lowering costs and addressing the issues families are actually dealing with every day."

Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-Glen Cove) on Thursday filed legislation co-sponsored by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) that would block the release of the compensation funds.

Suozzi, in a phone interview Friday, said the idea of the compensation fund concerned him on several fronts, including the possibility that Jan. 6 defendants convicted of assaulting officers may be eligible to apply. He also said the fund’s creation violated the Constitution's separation of powers, which give Congress the power to appropriate funds.

"The president can't just decide 'I want to spend $1.8 billion the way I want to,' " Suozzi said. "The power of the purse is in the hands of Congress and the purpose of the appropriation processes is that you can't just have a president just go do whatever the heck they want to do. That’s why we have separation of powers."

Trump, when asked about the fund on Monday, said he supported its creation because "these were people that were weaponized and really treated brutally by a system that was so corrupt, with corrupt people running it."

Already some of Trump’s first-term officials, past campaign aides and supporters tied to the Jan. 6 attack have said they plan to apply for compensation, according to The Hill.

New York Democratic senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand both vowed to fight to block the release of funds in the Senate, where Republicans including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have voiced their opposition to the fund.

"People are aghast, jaws drop all over the nation when they hear what Trump wants to do," Schumer, the senate minority leader, said in a senate floor speech Thursday.

Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), asked about the fund during a virtual news conference on Wednesday, said Democrats "will try to lift up our concerns as aggressively as possible in the hopes of winning over some Republicans, because if we could have bipartisanship on this issue, hopefully we can limit how this fund is actually implemented."

"He literally is getting a slush fund to pay his buddies and his friends and people he likes," Gillibrand said.

Administration's rationale

Blanche, testifying before a Senate panel on Tuesday, defended the fund by saying a panel of five political appointees — four appointed by the attorney general and one appointed with congressional "consultation" — will create the guidelines for applicants and will decide which cases deserve a payout.

"It is entirely voluntary if an individual wants to apply and assert that they were a victim of weaponization," Blanche said. "And the commission can do anything, according to what was set up yesterday, from issuing an apology to the claimant to awarding compensation."

Despite Blanche’s assurances that the panel would judge each case on its merits, lawmakers raised concerns that Jan. 6 defendants charged with violent crimes have not been outright excluded from being part of the applicant pool.

Rep. Nick LaLota (R-Amityville) said in a statement to Newsday that he would not support the release of funds to those convicted of assaulting officers on Jan. 6, while also comparing the fund to money used by New York to provide housing and other services to migrants who crossed the U.S. southern border without legal status during the 2024 migrant crisis. 

"We shouldn’t be using taxpayer dollars to reward people who broke the law, whether it’s [Gov. Kathy] Hochul’s $4.3 billion spent on migrant hotels, health care, and legal services, or funds going to individuals who assaulted police officers," LaLota said.

State officials have argued that many of the migrants were asylum seekers, legally allowed to petition for asylum, and others had temporary legal status under the federal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program.

Asked about LaLota’s statement, Hochul spokesman Gordon Tepper in an email accused LaLota of "fearmongering."

"Nick LaLota shamelessly comparing migrant families to people who violently assaulted police officers on Jan. 6 is outrageous," Tepper said.

Rep. Laura Gillen (D-Rockville Centre), slammed the Trump administration for expecting "Americans to foot the bill for an outrageous political slush fund while working families can barely make ends meet."

"Turning the DOJ into an ATM for any administration’s political allies is a disgraceful abuse of our justice system," Gillen said in a statement to Newsday. "It must be stopped."

Legal questions

A pair of police officers injured during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and a government watchdog group have filed lawsuits looking to block the fund from moving ahead. The lawsuits argue that the Trump administration overreached its executive authority by creating a fund without congressional approval.

Hofstra University Law professor James Sample said there are "substantive constitutional problems" with the fund.

"Every safeguard that would be included in a real claims fund is missing here," Sample said in an email to Newsday. "There is no neutral administrator. There is no independent commission. There are no published criteria. There is no judicial oversight. There is no defined class of victims. There is a president, an attorney general who used to be his personal lawyer, and a five-person panel that serves at the president’s pleasure."

By Laura Figueroa Hernandez

laura.figueroa@newsday.com@Laura_Figueroa

Laura Figueroa Hernandez is the White House correspondent and previously covered New York City politics and government. She joined Newsday in 2012 after covering state and local politics for The Miami Herald.