Trump slush fund raises threat of Republican revolt

“A government of laws, not men.”

That message blazed across the US Department of Justice headquarters in Washington DC on Tuesday, casting a sharp rebuke in light against one of the most powerful buildings in the country.

The words, drawn from founding father John Adams, were projected above a banner of US President Donald Trump that has hung from the building for months.

Washington has hardly been quiet since Mr Trump returned to the White House last year, and the capital has become familiar terrain for demonstrations of every kind.

A so-called “Jeffrey Epstein walk of shame” recently appeared there as well.

This latest action was organised by a group called Justice Connection after the Trump administration announced an “anti-weaponisation” fund.

Justice Connection, which includes former Department of Justice officials, said it wanted to defend the department’s “integrity” and the “rule of law”.

And the unease is no longer confined to outside advocacy groups. Lawmakers are voicing it too.

More strikingly, some of the resistance is now coming from Republicans.

Todd Blanche suggested Hunter Biden could potentially qualify for the fund

Democrats have denounced the creation of a $1.776 billion (€1.4 billion) compensation fund for people who say they were harmed by the US government, calling it an “outrageous, unprecedented slush fund”.

The fund is widely expected to potentially benefit people tied to the 6 January attack on the US Capitol, and the Trump administration has declined to rule out payouts even for those convicted of violently assaulting police officers.

Two officers who helped defend the Capitol that day have already gone to court in an effort to block it.

In their complaint, they argued that Mr Trump “created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name”.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche responded by saying approvals would not turn on party affiliation, and even raised the prospect that Hunter Biden, the son of former US president Joe Biden, could be eligible.

Mr Blanche also said the president and his family would be barred from receiving money, but that defence has done little to calm a growing and unusual Republican backlash.

Concerns about how the fund would work, and whether it is needed at all, have widened fissures that were already opening within Congressional Republicans’ support for Mr Trump.

For much of his second term, Republicans have brushed aside attempts to rein in the president’s authority, even as he tested the limits of war and trade laws.

A PBS/NPR/Marist poll in February found that 68% of Americans said the system of checks and balances is not functioning well.

President Trump backed Ken Paxton (pictured) over Senator John Cornyn in the Texas Senate race

But several developments this week darkened the mood inside the Republican Party and pushed many lawmakers into a more confrontational posture.

The New York Times reported that Republican senators were “livid” after Mr Trump endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over Senator John Cornyn in the state’s Senate race.

Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy also lost his re-election bid after Mr Trump supported a primary challenger.

Mr Trump has long warned Republicans to stay in line or risk being driven from office.

Senator Cassidy was among those who voted to impeach him in 2021.

“Get smart and tough Republicans, or you’ll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible,” he wrote on his social media platform Truth Social on Wednesday.

“Maybe he doesn’t think he needs us … but I don’t know. Last I checked, the laws don’t just appear before his desk to be signed,” Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said.

The criticism is no longer coming only from familiar internal dissenters such as Ms Murkowski and the outgoing Senator Mitch McConnell, who asked: “So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, mortally wrong – take your pick.”

Bill Cassidy also condemned the fund

The Republican response has taken shape both in rhetoric and in legislative manoeuvring.

On Thursday, Republicans delayed plans to approve tens of billions of dollars in new funding for immigration enforcement agencies, with the dispute over the future of the fund emerging as a major obstacle.

NPR reported that although the fund was not included in that legislation, enough GOP senators were so troubled by the proposal that they wanted answers before sending the immigration package to the president’s desk.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune went so far as to say the White House should have consulted Congress, which formally controls federal spending, before unveiling the settlement.

That failure, he said, made “everything way harder than it should be”.

He also conceded that Mr Trump’s endorsement of Mr Cornyn’s rival had made the politics even more difficult.

In a separate setback, House Republicans cancelled a vote on a resolution to stop the war in Iran after it became clear they lacked the votes to defeat it.

Mr Trump’s primary-season “revenge tour” has also stirred resistance in the Senate.

On his way unwillingly toward the exit, Senator Cassidy cast a key vote to advance a stalled war powers resolution that could limit the president’s authority over the Iran war.

He also sharply criticised the fund.

Posting on X, he wrote: “People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability.”

Democratic Senator Richard J Durbin asked: “Is it possible on 21 May 2026, Republicans finally found an ethical bridge too far?”

The fund is part of an unprecedented settlement involving Mr Trump, two of his sons, the Trump Organisation and the government he oversees, tied to the leaking of his tax returns.

It was not the only agreement this week to send tremors through Washington and beyond. Another provision intensified the controversy.

A separate agreement permanently bars the Internal Revenue Service from auditing Mr Trump’s old tax returns.

More questions followed when Mr Blanche failed to mention that additional term while testifying before a Senate committee earlier on Tuesday.

It emerged only afterwards.

Republicans now face the political question of whether loyalty to Mr Trump still helps them at the ballot box

In a conversation with Scott Greytak, Deputy Executive Director of Transparency International US, he said he was deeply alarmed and had never encountered anything comparable.

He said: “This is entirely extraordinary.

“I think that its association with this $1.7 billion fund for weaponisation of government compensation makes the whole package we are in completely uncharted waters here in the United States.

“Ordinary taxpayers in the United States can’t negotiate immunity for future scrutiny of their past tax.

“It is unthinkable that public officials would be able to use political power to obtain protections that are unavailable.

“The question is whether or not Congress is going to rise for that challenge, or whether or not we’re going to continue to see a relatively blank check when it comes to these extraordinary breaches of our norms.”

Republicans are now confronting a political test that could shape the midterms and the rest of Mr Trump’s presidency.

Does loyalty to Mr Trump remain an electoral asset?

Or, with prices still high at the pump and approval ratings slipping, is that loyalty turning into a deeper liability? With Congress away for a week, the question now is whether dissent will build when lawmakers return or whether it will again give way under pressure.

Asked at the White House on Thursday whether he was losing control of the Senate, Mr Trump replied: “I really don’t know. I can tell you … I only do what’s right.”

If the answer ultimately proves otherwise, President Trump may have a far less casual reaction.