Trump’s Slush Fund Is Based on a Lie
The real victims of lawfare and weaponized prosecutions aren’t the insurrectionists.
THE ORWELLIAN “ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND” Trump has created—the legal equivalent of twirling the combination lock on Fort Knox and driving off with gold bars—purports to be righting a wrong. The bogus (and badly written) “settlement agreement,” which is laughable as there was no true lawsuit, claims to be compensating those who were victims of the “sustained use of the levers of government power by Democrat elected officials.” It goes on like that, accusing Democrats of “lawfare” and “weaponization.”
Even more than usual with Trump, this foul fund represents a total inversion of reality. It’s as if he’s trying to create a handy shorthand for projection. Trump, after more than a year of subjecting his critics and opponents to wrongful prosecution, firing, and other harassment, now insists that he and his allies have been the victims of lawfare and weaponization. It’s upside down.
When asked whether convicted rioters from January 6th should be eligible for taxpayer dollars, Trump responded with his familiar drivel about how “horribly they’ve been treated,” about how their lives had been destroyed, about their legal bills, and closed with “And they were right!”
No, they were fed a damnable lie and acted upon it. Millions of other Americans were credulous enough to believe the lie, too, but they didn’t fly to D.C. to erect gallows and hunt for Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence. That required a certain criminal disposition. Dozens of the insurrectionists had prior records of criminal violence, and scores have been rearrested since receiving Trump’s January 2025 pardon. One “patriot,” Andrew Paul Johnson, was arrested in October 2025 for sexually abusing two children (one was 11). Confident in the character of the president for whom he climbed through a broken window on January 6th, Johnson somehow came to believe he was owed $10 million as part of his pardon, and used that anticipated windfall to try to buy the silence of one of his victims.
In no way were the January 6th rioters victims of “lawfare” or politicized prosecution. They assaulted Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan Police officers, causing five deaths and at least 150 injuries including concussions, traumatic brain injuries, cracked ribs, heart attacks, spinal damage, loss of an eye, stab wounds, taser burns, and other severe trauma.
For Trump, it wasn’t enough that even the most violent received unconditional pardons. No, now he proposes to enrich them with taxpayer funds. Those deserving of punishment get rewarded. The victimizer becomes the victim. The criminal becomes the patriot.
Letitia James, former New York attorney general, was indicted on mortgage fraud charges just a couple weeks after Trump publicly called for her to be charged with something. (She had successfully sued him for civil fraud.) It should go without saying that presidents are never supposed to demand that individuals be charged with crimes, far less those against whom the president has a personal vendetta.
Needless to say, the evidence was extremely thin, but neither a judge nor jury got the opportunity to rule on that. After U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert apparently signaled that he wouldn’t pervert justice by bringing the politically motivated sure loser of a case, Trump replaced him with the inexperienced, hapless Lindsey Halligan—but did so illegally. Case dismissed. Undaunted, the Justice Department then attempted two more times to bring charges against James but was thwarted by grand juries who refused to indict.
Halligan, during her illegal tenure as a federal prosecutor, also indicted former FBI Director James Comey on the dubious charge of lying to Congress. When that case too was thrown out due to Halligan’s illegitimate appointment, the Justice Department returned to the well and indicted him for threatening the life of the president—by posting a photo of sea shells. If eye-rolling were a crime, every judge in America would be guilty.
Jerome Powell, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, was subjected to a criminal investigation due to . . . cost overruns during a building renovation. Any high schooler could tell you that the true reason for the investigation—and the accompanying stress, expense, and distraction—was Powell’s refusal to set interest rates to serve Trump’s short-term political agenda. (See also Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was fired when her agency reported accurate jobs numbers that displeased the president.)
Speaking of the Federal Reserve, let’s not forget that Trump attempted to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook, again on charges of mortgage fraud (the projection is almost too obvious to point out—almost). She fought back, and her case is before the Supreme Court. A decision is expected by June.
Sometimes the lawfare goes the other way. Trump directed that all charges be dropped against former New York Major Eric Adams, though the prosecution had him dead to rights. One of the top prosecutors in the case resigned, alleging a direct quid pro quo between the decision to drop charges and Adams’s newfound willingness to use city resources to support Trump’s political agenda.
Trump has also used the withdrawal of security clearances as a form of weaponization of government. Leading law firms need those clearances to represent clients, as do any number of former government officials. Among those who were targeted: the firms of Covington and Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Wilmer Hale. Among the individuals whose credentials were pulled were Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Mark Milley, James Clapper, and Sam Vinograd, among many others.
Trump has attempted to use the Federal Communications Commission to silence critics. It’s Weaponization 101. When Jimmy Kimmel made a tasteless joke about Charlie Kirk’s death, the FCC strong-armed ABC into firing him. Only a public backlash persuaded Disney (ABC’s owner) to reverse course.
Kimmel came out fine, arguably stronger, from that brush with authoritarian government. Larry Bushart had a much tougher time. A 61-year-old former Tennessee law enforcement officer, Bushart posted a couple of Kirk-related items to social media, including reposting a quote from Trump after a school shooting, “We have to get over this.” Bushart was arrested and held in jail for thirty-seven days. Dozens of people were fired and several were prosecuted for saying the wrong things in the wake of Kirk’s murder. The perpetrators of this lawfare were not Trump officials, but they were MAGA-adjacent and egged on by Vice President JD Vance.
The list of Trump critics or adversaries who’ve been investigated, indicted, or fired in the past eighteen months is staggering.
Who can forget “sandwich guy,” who was charged with a felony for tossing a Subway sandwich at a national guardsman? Or the FBI officers fired for having participated in the search of Mar-a-Lago and other Trump cases? Or the widow of Renée Good, who was investigated after Good was shot and killed by ICE? Or Cassidy Hutchinson, the star witness in Trump’s second impeachment, under investigation as of April 2026 by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights division? There are hundreds more.
That is what lawfare and weaponization look like. Trump’s fund is not just blazingly corrupt and unjust, it is also a massive exercise in gaslighting. Trump and his followers are not victims, they are perpetrators.
"It should go without saying that presidents are never supposed to demand that individuals be charged with crimes, far less those against whom the president has a personal vendetta."
You bet it should! But in times like these the message should appear in the first minute of every newscast and on the masthead of every paper that purports to be a work of journalism. Too much to hope, huh?