The Trump administration’s $1.8 billion fund to pay people who say they have been politically persecuted has set off a revolt among Republican senators and drawn denunciations from Democrats who have labeled it President Trump’s “slush fund.” But those who anticipated being eligible, such as pro-Trump supporters who were prosecuted and pardoned for mobbing the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, expressed elation.
Mr. Trump and top officials have suggested the fund, which was created as part of a deal struck between the president’s personal lawyers and government lawyers over the leak of his tax records, was not particularly unusual. They have also said that it will not be financially beneficial to Mr. Trump or his family.
But critics have pointed out that the arrangement essentially establishes a way to funnel taxpayer money to Mr. Trump’s allies.
Here’s a fact-check of some of the administration’s claims.
What Was Said
False. The White House and the Justice Department have cited one other fund that they said was similar in structure to the $1.8 billion fund. But even that comparison differed in several ways.
In congressional testimony on Tuesday, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, conceded that the fund announced this week was “unusual.” But he pointed to a $760 million fund announced in 2010 as part of a settlement in the class-action case Keepseagle v. Vilsack. Asked whether there were other examples of a president suing his own government and resolving the case before court review, Mr. Blanche acknowledged that there were not.
“The underlying case is not the same,” he said, even as he insisted other similarities remained, like how the fund would be run. “The structure of the commission is the same as the Keepseagle commission.”
The Keepseagle settlement settled a class-action lawsuit filed in 1999 by Native American farmers, who accused the Agriculture Department of systemic discrimination. It was approved by a court and set specific eligibility standards, with a maximum award of $250,000 to be paid out of the Judgment Fund, a Treasury Department account used to cover judgments and settlements against the federal government.
Potential claimants had to be Native American farmers or ranchers who had applied for or tried to apply for a loan from the Agriculture Department between 1981 and 1999, and who had made a complaint of discrimination during the same period. Epiq Systems, a legal software company, was approved as the settlement administrator.
In comparison, Mr. Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund, which is set at $1.776 billion, also taps the Judgment Fund to pay out people with claims against the government. It is more vague on specifics, including how eligibility is determined, the time frame of any complaint and the maximum payout. Instead of appointing a settlement administrator who would typically oversee such a fund, Mr. Blanche will choose a five-member board, and Mr. Trump can fire any member at will.
Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at the University of Southern California who has written extensively about mass tort litigation and presidential settlements, pointed to other major discrepancies. “There has been no class action, no allegations that laws have been violated, no judicial oversight, and to this day, there does not even appear to be an identifiable set of lawsuits for the government to settle,” he said.
He added: “The president is suing himself and compensating other people for legal claims that have not been identified from people that we don’t know. We just haven’t seen anything like that.”
Paul Figley, an adjunct professor at American University and the former deputy director in the torts branch of the Justice Department’s civil division, said that Mr. Trump’s fund was more analogous to a fund created under the Obama administration to compensate Hispanic and female farmers and ranchers.
In that case, Garcia v. Vilsack, Hispanic farmers in 2000 sued the Agriculture Department, also accusing it of systemic discrimination. Courts repeatedly denied the farmers class certification, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in 2010. But in 2011, the Justice Department and Agriculture Department announced a voluntary process to resolve claims of discrimination from Hispanic and female farmers, including those who were not party to the initial lawsuit. The settlement created a $1.33 billion fund — also paid out of the Judgment Fund, and with criteria similar to the Keepseagle settlement.
Mr. Figley said that the Garcia settlement and the president’s fund were the only two examples he knew of in which the Judgment Fund was used to compensate people not directly involved in litigation against the government.
Mr. Figley and Mr. Zimmerman agreed that the $1.8 billion fund was an inappropriate use of the Judgment Fund to circumvent Congress.
“The power of the purse is one of the key checks and balances that we have,” Mr. Figley said. “The way it is now, the executive branch has a little area where it has its own source of money, and it shouldn’t.”
What Was Said
This is misleading. The deal announced this week does bar Mr. Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization from pursuing further legal action or seeking compensation. But a supplement disclosed on Tuesday noted that the deal also bars the government from prosecuting or pursuing tax claims about Mr. Trump, his family and his businesses. An adverse ruling from an audit could potentially have cost the president $100 million, according to a New York Times analysis of his earlier tax returns.
Moreover, the deal does not preclude current or former members of the Trump administration from seeking compensation.
At least one former Trump administration official appears to have already asked for restitution. Michael R. Caputo, a top spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services in the first Trump administration, posted on social media on Tuesday a letter requesting $2.7 million from the fund.
Other potential claimants could include current members of the Trump administration. Mr. Trump himself has characterized Peter Navarro, a senior White House trade adviser who was found guilty of contempt of Congress in 2023, as a victim of “weaponization.” And the president has said that the Justice Department attempted to “destroy” the life of Waltine Nauta, his former personal aide who was charged in the 2023 investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified materials and who was listed as the director of Oval Office operations as of July 2025.
What Was Said
Mr. Van Hollen is correct that a pardoned rioter promised restitution. Mr. Van Hollen was referring to the case of Andrew Paul Johnson, a pardoned Jan. 6 rioter who was sentenced to life in prison in March for child sex abuse. Contrary to Mr. Blanche’s denials, Mr. Johnson told one of his victims that he would receive $10 million in restitution money from what he cast as persecution from Jan. 6, and promised the victims some of that money, according to a police report filed in July 2025.
It is true that the promise was made before the announcement of Mr. Trump’s fund, but discussion of compensation for Jan. 6 rioters — among the rioters themselves and the Justice Department — long predated the announcement of the fund. Mr. Johnson himself had repeatedly posted about compensation for his arrest and time spent behind bars for participating in the Jan. 6 riot.
On a social media account identified by NPR as belonging to Mr. Johnson, he posted in May 2025 about rumors of an executive order dedicated to “restitution” for Jan. 6, with awards starting at $50,000. Asked about his sources, Mr. Johnson responded that he was in touch people who “sat in meeting with Ed,” presumably referring to Ed Martin, who ran the Justice Department’s weaponization working group and represented Jan. 6 defendants.
In another post a few days later, Mr. Johnson singled out Mr. Martin, asking for an update on the restitution money. “There’s a lot of us that are really in bad positions because of the weaponization of the justice system used against us,” he wrote.
