Trump Retracts Claim: Admits Role in DOJ’s $1.7 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Initiative

Politics

Former President Trump has affirmed his direct involvement in advancing the Department of Justice’s new $1.7 billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund,’ a reversal from his earlier denials of any participation in its establishment. This admission comes as tense conversations surrounding the fund’s details unfold.

On Friday, through a post on Truth Social, Mr. Trump stated that he deliberately forgone a substantial financial settlement in his civil lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service—a case stemming from the unauthorized release of his tax returns. Instead, he claimed his decision was motivated by a desire to assist others he believes were unjustly targeted by the current administration.

He specifically claimed, “I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my Tax Returns and the equally illegal BREAK IN of Mar-a-Lago, for an absolute fortune. Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!”

This statement directly contradicts his previous assertions made earlier in the week. Mr. Trump had twice stated he was not involved in either the settlement of his lawsuit or the creation of the fund announced by the Justice Department on Monday. On Monday, he remarked about the fund, “It’s been very well received, I have to tell you. I know very little about it. I wasn’t involved in the whole creation of it and the negotiation. But this is reimbursing people who were horribly treated.” He reiterated this sentiment to reporters on Wednesday, stating he “wasn’t involved in the settlement.”

Contacted by CBS News for clarification, a White House official responded, “There is no discrepancy. As the President said, he was not involved in the creation of the fund, but he could have chosen to settle his case, therefore preventing the fund. The IRS leaked the President’s tax returns, and the individual who committed the crime is currently sitting in prison. The fund is about accountability for anyone who was a victim of weaponization — regardless of political affiliation.”

Dubbed the ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund,’ the Justice Department describes the $1.7 billion initiative as a mechanism to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare.” A board, appointed by the Attorney General, will be responsible for determining payment allocations.

The Justice Department is facing increasing pressure to clarify the fund’s operational procedures and eligibility criteria. During a closed-door meeting on Thursday, Republican Senators questioned Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for further details. Concerns have been raised by several GOP senators that individuals convicted of assaulting law enforcement during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack—and subsequently pardoned by Mr. Trump—might become beneficiaries.

The fund has already drawn interest from potential claimants, including Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and now a vocal critic, and former Trump adviser Michael Caputo.

Furthermore, Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 22 years for his role in the January 6 assault, has also indicated he may seek compensation. Tarrio was among more than 1,500 defendants convicted for crimes related to the January 6 attack who received clemency from Mr. Trump on the first day of his second term.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement for his IRS lawsuit, Mr. Trump and his two sons, who were co-litigants, are slated to receive a “formal apology” from the U.S. government, though no monetary compensation. The agreement also imposes a permanent bar on the IRS from pursuing any claims against Mr. Trump or his company arising from previously filed tax returns. Additionally, the President is shielded from claims stemming from “lawfare and/or weaponization,” although these terms remain undefined.