What Activists Need to Know About the Anti-Weaponization Fund

By Joseph McGraw

As the common saying goes, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” After the formation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund this May, some individuals who believe they were victimized by “lawfare and weaponization” could possibly receive financial compensation. More commonly referred to as the “Slush Fund” in the media, the $1.776 billion pool originated in a settlement agreement between President Donald Trump, his sons, his LLC, and the Internal Revenue Service. Eligibility for payment will be determined by a to-be-appointed panel of five individuals. In vague terms, the settlement agreement provides that those who are a “victim of lawfare and/or weaponization” will be eligible (1). There are, however, some important strings attached that claimants must know about.

What Happens if I Accept Payment?

If one accepts payment out of the fund, a condition of receipt is the waiver of all other forms of relief ,whether previously asserted or not (2). In other words, if one takes the money, he is precluded from receiving compensation or judicial relief for any past, present, or future legal claims for the injury in question. For example, consider a hypothetical protestor that engaged in unpopular political activism. Imagine this individual suffered some kind of abuse at the hands of law enforcement or the Department of Justice. If this man takes a payment from the Anti-Weaponization Fund but later brings his claim in court, the defendants can put a stop to the litigation by showing he already received payment for his injury. For those who never seriously considered undertaking the exhausting process of a lawsuit, perhaps this is a better deal. Those who have complex, multi-million-dollar suits could place the dispositive fate of these claims in the hands of the as-of-yet unnamed panel of five. Notably, one need not accept payment if approved, and currently pending action does not preclude recovery from the fund. In any event, one should be careful to read any papers requiring signature signed to receive payment,as there may be more conditions that arrive with the cheque.

Who Can Make a Claim?

Right now, there is no formal portal set up to intake claims. Nevertheless, there are certain eligibility requirements already known. Claims may be brought by both individuals and organizations. The foremost requirement is that the applicant have at least one legal claim arising from “lawfare and/or weaponization.” This language is likely left ambiguous on purpose. One may infer, however, more restrictions based on Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s statements. He made references to “the machinery of government” as the primary offender for possible claimants. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter similarly referenced “The use of government power to target individuals or entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, or ideological reasons.” Inferentially, recovery from the fund is likely limited to those who suffered harm from government action alone. If the foregoing is true, compensation will be refused to those terrorized by private arms of the functionary apparatus, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

How Will Claims Be Evaluated?

A five-person panel will handle and process all claims for the fund, though a much larger supporting review staff is almost certain. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the panel “shall have the power to determine its own procedures for submitting, receiving, processing, and granting or denying claims.” The agreement goes on to state more specifically that the panel will consider the following factors: 1) the strength of the claim and supporting evidence;  2) the claimant’s actions ; 3) actual damages resulting from the “lawfare and weaponization”;  4) reasonable attorney fees incurred by the claimant in dealing with these actions;  5) any time spent in prison or custody;  6) the extent to which the claimant has already received compensation;  and 7) “other factors The Anti-Weaponization Fund deems just and appropriate.” Possible avenues of gathering evidence for claimants could include Freedom of Information Act Requests. Any supporting documentation of both government action and the resulting harm is likely to make a stronger claim. The deadline to apply is December 1, 2028.

Is the Fund Legal?

The DOJ bases the creation and administration of the fund on the D.C. District Court case Keepseagle v. Vilsack. In that case, the class-action plaintiffs alleged systemic racial discrimination by the United States Department of Agriculture in the distribution of loans but later settled in 2011 (3). Those affected had a window of time to make a claim out of the settlement figure of roughly $680 million (4). After the expiration of that window, approximately $380 million went unclaimed (5). In accordance with the original settlement agreement, the remainder was to be distributed to various charities (6). However, the lead plaintiff in the class sought to modify the agreement after the deadline to add more time for potential claimants, leading to the 2015 iteration of the case (7). The court held it did not have the authority to modify the agreement under Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (8).

While there are some striking dissimilarities between Keepseagle and the Anti-Weaponization fund, there is a common thread to both: the freedom to contract. The Keepseagle court begrudgingly acknowledged that, “This case places the Court in the unenviable position of enforcing a five-year-old bargain that nobody likes.”(9)  It is likely that, upon challenge, Trump and the DOJ will argue that the parties in Trump v. Internal Revenue Service were free to enter into whatever settlement they deemed acceptable. In accordance with the holding in Keepseagle, they will argue that the court may not interfere with the agreement after the fact. While opponents could raise a number of defenses to enforcement such as unconscionability, likely the IRS would need to be a plaintiff. Already organizations such as Democracy Forward announced their intention to challenge the fund alleging it trespasses the executive branch’s limited powers and bypasses congressional authority over federal spending.

Conclusion

While a promising development for those who suffered at the hands of government interference or harassment, accepting payment from the Anti-Weaponization Fund is not without drawbacks. Most prominent is the fact that receipt precludes recovery in pending and future claims. The settlement agreement states that the fund will “take reasonable steps to protect private personal and financial information submitted,” but activists should be cautious of opening their affairs or organizations to the government’s gaze. Regardless of considerations for possible claimants, the fund itself may possibly be bogged down in litigation beyond its own deadline to pay out.

Footnotes:

1. President Donald J. Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW, Settlement Agreement at 3 (S.D. Fla. filed 2026).
2. Id.
3. Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 118 F. Supp. 3d 98, 102 (D.D.C. 2015).
4. Id.
5. Id.|
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 103.
9. Id. at 101.