this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
114 points (96.7% liked)

politics

29966 readers
1891 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Trump administration is scrapping plans to create a $1.8 billion fund meant to compensate allies of the Republican president, the Justice Department’s top official said Tuesday in retreating from a program that faced setbacks in the courts and a fierce political backlash that had threatened to stall key elements of the White House agenda.

“We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said in response to questions at a House hearing on the Justice Department budget.

“Not moving forward, ever?” asked Rep. Grace Meng, a New York Democrat.

“Correct,” Blanche answered.

The blunt declaration marked an extraordinary, and rare, turnabout in the face of mounting political opposition to a fund officials said was intended to compensate people who believe they have been improperly targeted by the criminal justice system. But since the fund’s creation two weeks ago, it’s been paused by a judge and lambasted by Democrats and Republicans alike who said they were troubled by a lack of oversight of the money disbursement and the potential for payouts to participants in the violent Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The fund drew concerns even from Republicans

The furor especially complicated matters in the Senate, where Republicans defiantly left town nearly two weeks ago without passing legislation to fund President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies after Democrats said they would offer amendments to scrap or scale back the compensation fund. Furious, Senate Republicans jettisoned White House security money from the bill and made clear they would not pass the legislation at all unless the administration made major changes to the plan. They had sought reassurances from Blanche before moving forward.

The $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” was established to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The Justice Department had said it was an appropriate measure to correct what officials have insisted was the weaponization of federal law enforcement under the Biden administration, when Trump faced criminal charges and several of his allies were investigated and prosecuted.

The administration had said that anyone who felt unfairly persecuted could apply for compensation regardless of political affiliation, but Blanche’s refusal to publicly foreclose the possibility that people convicted of crimes of violence in the Jan. 6 riot could get payouts alarmed lawmakers. A five-member commission was to have been responsible for deciding on the payouts.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 51 points 3 days ago (4 children)

“We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said in response to questions at a House hearing on the Justice Department budget.

“Not moving forward, ever?” asked Rep. Grace Meng, a New York Democrat.

“Correct,” Blanche answered.

Bullshit. All this means is that it is too politically volatile to take up in advance of the midterms. Make no mistake, this isn't dead. The settlement agreement is still there, and as soon as it is politically feasible, they'll say that their concerns have been addressed and pass it.

[–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 23 points 3 days ago

When pressed about committing to that in writing he declined. So, yeah.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

Or they have found a more secretive and less politically damaging way of doing the same thing.

I will never believe they have given up on a grift. At most they have postponed it.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think it's because the judge reopened the case to examine the obviously illegal "settlement." This is the goons trying to avoid trouble.

[–] Tower@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago

Agreed. I understand why cases go moot when things go a certain way, but god damn sometimes I wish it wasn't the case and officials still had to go through the process and explain their fuckery.

[–] Big_Boss_77@fedinsfw.app 2 points 3 days ago

Was the slush fund something to bring to the table to give up and hope the immunity from IRS audits and investigations went under the radar?

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I mean it's a win for sure, but they also successfully distracted from the whole no audits ever for you and your companies and progeny thing.

[–] disorderly@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I am guessing that if anyone actually tests that settlement in a court of law that it will not be worth the paper it's written on. All it takes is one person in the IRS to grow enough of a testicle to actually call for the audit.

[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Apparently that whole deal is a non starter, as it's null since Trump waited until he was president again - 6 years after the Trump family tax documents were released, (and the contractor that did it served his jail time) as the statute of limitations to bring a complaint against the IRS on such matters is two years.

Since he ALSO is head of the Executive Branch - which includes the Treasury and the IRS, there is a massive conflict of interest regarding the suit and a valid inability to show harm from the tax documents being released (since ofc, he's the POTUS and not some schmoe living on the streets) so any punitive amount is rightly to be viewed as a policital shakedown at best, and outright theft of taxpayer money at worst.

Given that he's facing bigger problems now that Iran closed the Straight of Hormuz again, (Israel is doing whatever the hell it wants, to no one's surprise) and what it's likely to do to fuel and food costs come the fall... He's fucked no matter what.

Which.. is delicious.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Mmm yes please give me a sip of that optimism and belief in the rule of law.

[–] queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Rule of Law is like Tinkerbell: it exists if enough people believe in it.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm willing to relent that maybe that's how the rule of law works, maybe, but that's definitely not how Tinkerbell works.

[–] queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

There's little evidence that Tinkerbell or similar fairies exist, so I can only conclude that we're below the existential belief threshold for fairies. Probably below threshold for Rule of Law too, at least in pockets... I wonder if the fairy threshold is similarly localized, or a universal ratio of unbelieving:believing consciousnesses. Maybe a strong enough localized belief in fairies can spontaneously instantiate them, but only for a small fraction of a second before the thought changes and the fairies slip back into the void of nonbeing.

[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Trump still got immunity from tax audits though. We still lost.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The next president can just reverse it though

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 4 points 3 days ago

They won't, though.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago

Now let's see the rest of those Epstein files.