Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the fund.
- Democrats killed a Republican amendment that would have done the same but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
WASHINGTON — A battle unfolded in the Senate on Thursday over the Trump administration’s controversial $1.8-billion payout fund for people who claim the government wronged them, as Democrats and some Republicans sought to block the fund but fell short after they rejected each other’s proposals.
The episode underscored how President Trump’s plan for the fund — widely seen as a way to pay his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — has created divisions within the Republican Party. But it also revealed apparent limits on how far Republicans who are frustrated with Trump are willing to go in opposing him.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund. Democrats then killed a Republican proposal to prohibit the use of federal money for the fund but instead direct $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
Thursday’s drama in the Senate was underpinned by midterm politics, as Republican senators who are not up for reelection played key roles in the discussion and others who will face voters in November weighed whether to stay in line with the president or oppose his fund, which is unpopular with voters.
The dueling amendments were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans. They were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).
Schumer framed the vote as a choice for Republicans: “Do you support Donald Trump’s $2-billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” he said on the Senate floor before the vote.
The episode was the second effort in Congress to rebuke Trump in two days, following the successful House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran, in which four Republicans joined with Democrats to vote yes.
Democrats say the concession is not enough, and are pushing legislation to ensure no president can ever attempt the creation of such a fund again.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund had generated unusual pushback from some GOP senators, who derailed plans in late May to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following the bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
The payout fund was created by the Justice Department after Trump brought a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their suit in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan.
Frustration within parts of Trump’s party was compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who all lost their primaries.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” they wrote in an amicus brief filed in a federal court case challenging the fund.
Cassidy became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting the Tillis proposal.
The votes came at the start of the Senate’s “vote-a-rama,” a marathon session during which lawmakers proposed a stream of amendments to the immigration funding bill on various topics. They planned to vote on the funding bill late Thursday.
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and Border Patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor. Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
Trump made claims of cheating in the vote, as had been predicted by election experts and Democratic leaders in California, who dismissed them as baseless bluster.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
In addition, Senate Republicans removed funding for Trump’s planned White House ballroom from the immigration package Wednesday.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos in Washington contributed to this report.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently approved California’s request to extend housing assistance to survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fires. But more than 18 months after those January 2025 fires, survivors are still waiting on an additional $16 billion in federal disaster relief from the federal government, which was revised down earlier this year from nearly $34 billion.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
