First up, Katie Phang.
Chump was guilty of projection his entire life. Now even some of MAGA have to face the reality.
Wednesday, June 3, 2026. Chump couldn't factor in Iran's response --
most basic rssponse -- to an attack launched by him, Todd Blanche
defends Chump's IRS deal, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne
Mullin appears before a Senate Committee, and much more.
As Ben (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) notes, the war drags on.
In mid-February, shortly before President Trump launched the war on Iran, the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps conducted live-fire drills
in its coastal waters. Iranian state media publicized the exercise,
whose official name made its purpose clear: “Smart Control of the Strait
of Hormuz.”
The exercise amounted to a
flashing red warning light to the Trump administration — one that, for
reasons that are still not fully clear, went largely unheeded.
Within
days of the war’s start, Iran’s military exerted control over the
strait, menacing commercial tankers with boats, missiles and drones.
Shipping ground to a halt. Energy prices soared. And Mr. Trump was
backed into a strategic corner.
Three
months later, Iran’s control of the strait has become its most powerful
weapon, a source of huge leverage in negotiations with Mr. Trump over
the country’s nuclear program.
A president used to bending opponents to
his will has struggled to conceal his exasperation. In an April social
media post, Mr. Trump profanely demanded that the “crazy bastards”
leading Iran open the strait, “or you’ll be living in Hell.” Iran’s
military mocked Mr. Trump’s threat as a sign of helplessness.
But
Iran’s response has been neither crazy nor surprising, say numerous
former U.S. officials who spent hours war-gaming Tehran’s likely
response to a major U.S. attack.
For
years, the U.S. government has conducted war games dealing with
potential conflicts with Iran, including ones at the Pentagon attended
by dozens of military officials and policymakers. Over and over,
participants say, they concluded that Iran would respond to a major
American attack by closing the strait of Hormuz.
So Iran's response should have been expected and factored in. But Chump's a buffoon and he doesn't listen.
President
Donald Trump has stayed out of the public eye for the second day after
negotiations with Iran were suspended, according to reports on Tuesday.
Trump
was reportedly furious during a call with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu over Israel's escalating military campaign in
Lebanon, a condition that Iran cited as a reason to halt talks over a
ceasefire with the United States. And after the derailed negotiations on
Monday, Trump has stayed "out of sight," David Gardner, The Daily
Beast's D.C. Bureau Chief, wrote in a post for The Swamp, The Daily Beast's Substack. "The
episode is called ‘Don’t Mention the War,’ and The Swamp suspects that
is the very sentiment at the White House today after the president’s
comically contradictory comments about his Iran War on Monday," Gardner
wrote.
"One moment he was promising a solution
and insisting all would be well, then he was saying he didn’t really
care, and the Iranians made all his remarks moot by pulling out of the
peace talks, anyway, which confirmed the one thing we did understand
about the impasse—it’s a bloody mess," Gardner wrote.
Nearly two weeks after Donald Trump boasted
that a “peace” agreement with Iran had been “largely negotiated,” and
the world could expect to learn more about the breakthrough deal
“shortly,” officials from Tehran effectively walked away from the negotiating table. The American president with a notoriously short attention span told CNBC, “I really don’t care. I couldn’t care less,” adding that he thought the protracted talks had become “very boring.”
As
for why exactly Iran backed away from the diplomatic efforts, there
were three apparent causes. One was the increased U.S. military strikes,
coupled with Israel’s ongoing incursion in Lebanon. But The Washington
Post reported that Iranian negotiators were also surprised and
displeased when Trump made last-minute changes to the terms of the deal
that had been previously worked on by members of his own team.
It led Joe Cirincione, the vice chair of the Center for International Policy and a longtime expert on nuclear policy, to highlight an underappreciated observation: “Trump is perhaps the world’s worst negotiator.”
Chump
shouldn't struggle with admitting that he's lousy at deals. There are
so many other things that people want him to admit. For example,
Kathrine Frich (DAGENS) reports:
According to RadarOnline, US President Donald Trump is facing a fresh wave of public mockery.
The
criticism sparked after he attended a Memorial Day ceremony at
Arlington National Cemetery alongside Vice President JD Vance and
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
During the
solemn event at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, viewers noticed a large
bulge under his trousers. Users on the social media platform X quickly
started pointing out the wardrobe oddity.
Critics
used the visual moment to fuel ongoing rumors about the aging
politician. Some commenters suggested the president is hiding serious
neurological issues.
One person argued that the
clothing choice was not the actual problem. Instead, they claimed the
issue is how the leader tries to present himself to the public.
A
former associate of Melania Trump has made a sensational claim that the
first lady was an “escort” for Jeffrey Epstein and met the president
through the notorious sex offender.
Reported by the Daily Beast,
Former Brazilian model Amanda Ungaro dropped the bombshell allegation
in a taped recording, accusing her ex-partner, Paolo Zampolli, of lying
about having introduced Melania and Donald Trump at a party in 1998. The
story of how Melania Knauss later met her future husband while working
as one of Zampolli’s models in New York has since become part of MAGA
folklore.
In April, during her surprise press
conference, Melania denied what she described as “mean-spirited and
politically motivated lies” linking her to the late convicted sex
offender.
“Let’s tell the
public you never was the one introducing Melania to Trump. It was
Jeffrey Epstein, as she was escort of Jeffrey Epstein. That’s how she
met Donald Trump,” Ungaro claims in the WhatsApp recording.
“And I know, because I was with you 20 years and you always told me it was not you—it was Jeffrey Epstein,” she added.
However,
in the post Ungaro shared on X, she challenged that version of events.
Ungaro was 17 when she boarded Epstein’s private jet, known as the
“Lolita Express,” on a flight from Paris to New York in June 2002. She
was accompanied by her then-agent, French modeling scout Jean-Luc
Brunel, who was later accused of recruiting young women for Epstein.
So which is it?
New
Mexico legislators probing Jeffrey Epstein on Monday said they have
issued their first subpoenas, calling for evidence on the late sex
offender from 14 entities including federal law enforcement agencies,
the state governor's office and a Santa Fe scientific institute.
The
New Mexico Truth Commission, in its second meeting since it was set up
in February, also heard testimony from Rachel Benavidez, a survivor of
alleged sexual abuse at Epstein's New Mexico ranch, as well as family
members of the late Virginia Giuffre, another survivor.
The
commission, the first of its kind in the country, was established
following the Justice Department's release of millions of
Epstein-related files that shed new light on activities at the ranch 30
miles south of state capital Santa Fe.
The
investigation could have wider, international significance if it can
find evidence that public figures traveled to the ranch and took part in
alleged sexual abuse. Epstein survivors have called on lawmakers in New
York and Florida to also launch probes into abuse at the late
financiers residences in those states.
Epstein
owned Zorro Ranch in southern Santa Fe County from 1993 until his death
in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019. Unlike several of his other
properties, Zorro Ranch was never thoroughly investigated by federal law
enforcement. The ranch is now owned by Texas political candidate and
businessman Don Huffines.
“This first round of
subpoenas represent the foundation of our evidentiary review: the
records, communications, the documents that will allow us to ask the
right questions of the individuals we have already identified as being
part of this investigation,” Romero said, pledging to report publicly on
how each entity responds.
The Legislature has never before exercised its power to issue subpoenas, Romero said.
The hearing featured emotional testimony from survivors and their families.
Rachel
Benavidez, a New Mexico survivor who first spoke publicly about
Epstein’s abuse in 2019, shared how recounting her story continues to
affect her life.
“Recently when I spoke on the
national news, there was rarely a word about my successes in advocacy,
only the salacious details and images portray me as a victim. Each time I
am retraumatized by the representation of me in this light. I am more
than a salacious story for consumption. I share my experiences to share
my truth,” Benavidez said.
The family of
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a prominent survivor whose family says she was
trafficked to wealthy men in New Mexico, also spoke about the human
cost behind the headlines.
“This was about
lives, and children, and young women, and girls, and boys who were
abused for decades,” Giuffre’s sister-in-law, Amanda Roberts, said.
Lawmakers emphasized their commitment to centering survivors’ stories and ensuring transparency.
“I’m speaking to you directly, that we are following your lead,” one lawmaker said.
They
also noted that more survivors could still come forward and that anyone
ready to share their story is being directed to the New Mexico
Department of Justice to avoid jeopardizing potential prosecutions.
Jon Schuppe (NBC NEWS) notes that the commission's "work is
funded by money the state collected in a settlement with Epstein’s
banks" (said to be $2.5 million). Four commissioners serve: Rep Andrea
Romero, Rep Marianna Anaya, Rep Andrea Reeb and Rep Bill Hall.
Alexandra Miller (10NEWS San Diego) notes,
"The commission faces a deadline of July 31 to produce an interim
report, with a final report scheduled for later this year."
THE STRAITS TIMES adds,
"Epstein survivors have called on lawmakers in New York and Florida to
also launch probes into abuse at the late financier’s residences in
those states."
John J. Kelly, who served as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico from 1993 to 2000, was exposed in April for his previously undisclosed ties with Jeffrey Epstein, and on Tuesday, veteran journalist Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez accused the state’s “elites” of continuing to “protect him” amid the ongoing investigation into activity at Epstein’s sprawling New Mexico compound.
In 2024, Kelly was asked by a local news outlet
why his name had appeared in Epstein’s contact directory, often
referred to as his “little black book,” and told the ABC News affiliate
that he had “no clue.” However, as uncovered by Valdes-Rodriguez, a file
published by the Justice Department revealed that Epstein had given
Kelly “power of attorney” to facilitate his purchase of Epstein’s
infamous New Mexico compound known as Zorro Ranch.
It was during Kelly’s tenure as the top federal prosecutor in New Mexico that then-16-year-old Annie Farmer filed a report
with the FBI about being sexually abused by Epstein and his accomplice
Ghislaine Maxwell at Zorro Ranch – a tip that “protocol would require to
be forwarded to Kelly’s offices,” Valdes-Rodriguez previously wrote, and one that ultimately went “ignored,” per The New York Times. And
yet, despite Kelly having “directly [contradicted] his account of
barely knowing Epstein,” Valdes-Rodriguez argued, the ex-prosecutor remains
on Albuquerque’s Ethics Board as a mayoral appointee, and no public
announcements have been made regarding plans to question him, including
from the newly created legislative committee with subpoena power dedicated solely to investigating potential crimes that occurred at Zorro Ranch.
“Kelly
is still on the ethics board. And the state’s political and media
elites continue to protect him, as he appears to have protected
Epstein,” Valdes-Rodriguez wrote in a report published on her Substack Tuesday.
Last
Friday, former Attorney General Pam da Bimbo Bondi appeared in front of
the House Oversight Committee for a closed door conversation during
which she repeatedly shifted the blame for problems with the release of
the Epstein Files to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Blanche is
now acting Attorney General. Yesterday, Democrats on the House
Oversight Committee released the following:
Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote
to Oversight Chairman James Comer demanding the Committee bring in
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel for
transcribed interviews regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. This
letter follows former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s transcribed
interview last week, where she shifted blame to Blanche and Patel
regarding the handling of Ghislaine Maxwell, redactions of the Epstein
files, compliance with the Oversight Committee’s subpoena of the Epstein
files, and the implementation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
“During her transcribed interview, former Attorney General Pam Bondi
made one thing clear: we need to talk to Acting Attorney General Todd
Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel. These agency leaders were directly
involved in the cover up of the Epstein files and botched roll-out of
the documents, which re-victimized survivors and made a mockery of our
Justice Department. Oversight Democrats are demanding answers straight
from the source,” said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.
In the letter to Chairman James Comer, Ranking Member Garcia wrote, “Rather
than provide answers in her testimony, Ms. Bondi repeatedly shifted
responsibility to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. In her opening
testimony, Ms. Bondi acknowledged that “I did not lead every aspect of
this effort or conduct that document review myself. I delegated
oversight over this process to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.”
During questioning, Ms. Bondi invoked Mr. Blanche’s name more than 30
times, pointing to him as the person responsible for DOJ’s actions
involving the review, withholding, and botched release of
Epstein-related records. Ms. Bondi also indicated that it was Mr.
Blanche’s decision to conduct the highly unusual interview of Ghislaine
Maxwell—an interview that preceded her suspicious transfer to a
minimum-security facility in violation of standing BOP policy.”
###
Blanche appeared before Congress yesterday and Tara Palmeri covered that live.
Ahead
of the hearing commencing, one of Tara's viewers was wondering what
Blanche would say about the slush fund and about Chump's deal where he
would never be audited again.
Norman Eisen, the former White House ethics czar who has become one of
the most aggressive legal thorns in Donald Trump's side, filed a new
lawsuit Monday on behalf of former January 6 prosecutors, refusing to
accept media reports suggesting the administration's $1.8 billion
anti-weaponization fund has been quietly shelved.
"We are NOT accepting media reports as proof that the $1.8B slush fund
and 'settlements' associated with it are dead," Eisen wrote on X,
announcing the filing. "That's why we have just filed a new lawsuit to
make sure this ENDS."
According
to language visible in the filing, the lawsuit argues that the fund's
creation, along with its assertion that January 6 prosecutors acted for
improper political reasons, has harmed the plaintiffs. The complaint
notes that January 6 insurrectionists have already been "hailing the
creation of the Fund," underscoring why the legal fight cannot be
considered over based on press reports alone.
The Justice Department is standing by an
extraordinary measure giving President Trump, his family and his
businesses potentially lucrative protection from I.R.S. investigations,
Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, said on Tuesday.
Mr.
Blanche’s remarks about the tax protections came during an appearance
in front of a House Appropriations subcommittee, in which he told
lawmakers that the Trump administration was abandoning a related plan to create a $1.8 billion fund to pay restitution to people who claimed they were victims of government “weaponization.”
Mr.
Blanche said the end of the fund would not affect the separate
agreement shielding Mr. Trump from audits of tax returns he and his
family had already filed. Both proposals had emerged in recent weeks as
part of a settlement of Mr. Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the
I.R.S. But now only the measure benefiting the Trumps will survive, Mr.
Blanche said.
“Nothing has changed with that,” he said,
referring to the tax proposal. “We’re not moving forward with the
anti-weaponization fund.”
Mr.
Blanche’s directive left in place a staggering public benefit to a
president who has sought to bend the government toward his own financial
interests. A host of thorny legal questions also remain. Mr. Trump’s lawsuit against the I.R.S. was revived last week
by a judge concerned about potential deception in the agreement to
withdraw the suit and to release the Trumps from any ongoing audits.
Senator
Patty Murray: Well welcome, Mr. Secretary. I think from where I sit, I
think it is pretty fair to say that DHS under President Trump has been a
debacle. From day one, we saw rampant abuse of power and corruption.
From awarding millions in no-compete contracts, to companies with direct
family ties to DHS officials, to blatantly politicizing disaster relief
and slow walking or outright blocking funding to blue states like mine,
to making this country less prepared for disasters and leaving
communities in the lurch. And then you have the absolutely shameful,
unacceptable, un-American conduct we have seen from some of ICE and
Border Patrol members. After Republicans gave nearly $200 billion last
summer in their Big Ugly Bill -- with effectively no strings attached,
President Trump and Stephen Miller built up a paramilitary force, and
essentially promised it immunity, and set it loose on some of our
American communities. We all witnessed the consequences: a family
heading home from a basketball game that was teargassed. A priest in
Chicago shot in the head and body with pepper balls. An American citizen
dragged out of the house in the freezing cold, in his underwear. Renee
Good, Alex Pretti, others murdered in broad daylight. Those actions
shock the conscience -- and have shocked the world, which is horrified
by what's unfolded on American streets. So, going back, as we negotiated
the FY 26 DHS funding bill, I fought very hard alongside my Democratic
colleagues to secure very basic reforms to make sure nothing like that
happened again. Steps like, requiring body cameras -- and ensuring that
the footage is retained and available, restoring basic training and
hiring standards, requiring warrants, ending racial profiling, banning
enforcement actions in sensitive locations, like schools, hospitals, and
houses of worship. Taking off the masks and requiring visible
identification. Those are very basic protocols the American people
overwhelmingly support -- and by the way, police departments follow
every day. But unfortunately, after weeks of back and forth --and at
times, good discussions and good progress -- Republicans did ultimately
walk away from the talks to enshrine those protections into law. And
they chose to instead circumvent Democrats through reconciliation and
are now trying to fund ICE and Border Patrol for the remainder of
Trump's presidency -- not just this year -- without any oversight or
accountability measures in place. This is exactly what led to the
horrors that we did witness in Minneapolis and across the country. And I
want to be very clear, Secretary Mullin, I'm watching closely to see
what steps you now take as the new DHS Secretary. And I have to say -- I
have yet to see you take back the reins from Stephen Miller. Because
even now -- we are seeing some outrageous proposals. You plan to
withdraw CBP officers from airports in cities that don't roll over for
Trump -- that is insane -- it is not only dangerous, it would also spell
economic crisis for blue and red states. Meanwhile, DHS is already on
track to break last year's record for people dying in custody. And last
week, ICE agents tear gassed a United States Senator who was simply
working to peacefully mediate between ICE and protestors after federal
law enforcement, we know, shoved a different Senator to the ground last
year. And you continue to deport upstanding community members instead of
the worst of the worst.
“Accountability is desperately needed -- and I know we will all keep
fighting for that.
That's
Senator Murray speaking at the start of another hearing yesterday, this
one the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing where they heard from
Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullen.
Markwayne
Mullin gave a stunning answer to Tuesday's sparring partner Sen. Chris
Murphy after the Connecticut Democrat asked him to specifically commit
that Homeland Security will comply with a judge's ruling ordering the
agency to stop an activity the court finds illegal.
"I
will tell you that we will never break the Constitution and we're not
going to break the law, but we're going to enforce our nation's laws,"
the secretary told Murphy in response to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement violating nearly 100 court orders in one month. Murphy
pointed out that, obviously, DHS can only follow the law if it complies
with court orders.
"If we
didn't think that courts were politicized, then I would probably be able
to answer that," Mullin said to Murphy. "But we see courts over and
over again that use their bench for their political opinion, not just
the rule of law."
The senator looked around the
room baffled, then reminded Mullin he cannot just choose what court
orders to follow based on his personal opinions about the judge. Mullin
told Murphy to not put words in his mouth before claiming the real
concern is not about his compliance but about the rulings.
After
a long silence, Murphy said, "If you're a Republican or a Democrat on
this committee, you should be really, really freaked out."
A sitting Cabinet secretary will not commit to following the law? How do they remain in that position?
Let's note this exchange between Senator Murray and Secretary Mullin:
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: So let me ask you, throughout our
negotiations over the [FY]26 bill, the White House and Border Czar Tom
Homan told us we didn’t need to put any reforms into law, because DHS
was already making changes like ending the roving patrols, restoring
stronger training standards, requiring body cameras to be worn by all
agents and officers.
And I know that at your confirmation hearing, you said you did not
support the warrantless search and seizure policy the administration put
in place and you reportedly were recently talking about legislation to
require judicial warrants, restore training standards, and protect
sensitive locations from raids.
But while you and Tom Homan say you’ve made some of those changes, the American people haven’t seen the proof of that.
So, I want to ask you today, what are your current training requirements for agents?
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: Thank you for the question. I want to remind
the Senator that I was part of negotiating those reforms and I think
you’re aware of that, so I actually know what happened during those.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: I know you were not in the room, but I do know you were aware of them.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: No, I was very involved in it.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: But you were not in the room.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: No, I was very involved in it.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: I was in the room; you were not in the room. I know you were not in room.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: I was very involved in it because we were talking with the House and you know—
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: It doesn’t matter; I asked you a question. What are the training requirements?
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: Senator, you know that we agreed to all the
stuff you said and the fact is you guys walked away because you had
primary elections.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: No, Mr. Secretary, we walked away because you would not agree to put it in writing.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: We had agreed, we had asked for three and we
had asked for nine and we agreed to nine. But you would never get to
yes, so we walked away and did reconciliation because we were never
going to get to yes between Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and you
know that to be a fact. And you can’t pull the wool over my eyes because
I was part of negotiating.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: Mr. Secretary, you can give your side, I’m
telling you I was in the room and we turned—I want to ask you what are
your training requirement?
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: It’s interesting I was involved in that too,
if you want to start talking about training, we’re going to -- July
1st == we'll go back to the 71, 72 hours of training. The training policy
is going to change a little bit because we’re going to be doing crowd
control and fit today’s needs, but all training is willing to change
back-and-forth. When you start talking about warrants, I was very clear
in my confirmation that judicial warrants are used when we are entering a
residence unless we’re in pursuit of a criminal or the criminal
continues to evade by going from one place to the next to the next to
the next and we’re trying to lock the person down, but I was very clear
when we started discussing that. And on the sensitive locations, it has
been asked multiple times, we’re not actively being at sensitive
locations. We do sometimes have to pick up a felon that is around a
sensitive location, but we are not actively patrolling those, and I
think you know that to be true.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: Okay and can you give this committee in
writing what your current training requirements are? You said as of July
1st—if you could give that to us so we can see what those are.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: Yes.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: How about the updated departmental protocols for agents engaging with protestors?
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: I’m sorry?
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: You have an updated Department
protocol for agents who are engaging with protestors, can you describe
that?
Senator Katie Britt: And the time has expired, so if you could get to your answer quickly then I’d appreciate it.
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: Well then let me just ask you then, if you
could give the Committee in writing that answer, whether or not you have
ended roving patrols, and whether or not every officer and agent in the
field is now wearing a body camera, in writing so we can see what your
protocols are.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: We don’t have the money for all the cameras,
we had it in the funding bill but since you guys decided not to vote
for it, we don’t have the money to put it on all of our officers. But if
you remember during the funding bill, we had $20 million set up for it
and its currently unfunded because Democrats are refusing to fund CBP. [NOTE: The enacted FY26 appropriations bill did include $20 million specifically set aside for body-worn cameras. See Sec. 109(a).]
Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: We had $20 million in it, and I will tell
you this, that that was not enough but what I’d like to know is if you’d
respond to that in writing what your current policies are so that we
know that they are actual policies being implemented.
Secretary Markwayne Mullin: We’ll respond to you in writing.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Schiff's office:
Senators Schiff, Kelly, and Slotkin held a press conference to announce the legislation. The livestream can be viewed here.
Washington, D.C. – In case you missed it, U.S. Senators Adam
Schiff (D-Calif.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.)
introduced the Drain the Slush Fund Act,
new legislation that would shutter President Donald Trump’s so-called
Anti-Weaponization Fund and prevent taxpayer dollars from being paid to
the President or his allies including those convicted of crimes or those
related to the insurrection on January 6, 2021.
The Drain the Slush Fund Act would
also prevent future presidential abuse of the Department of Justice’s
Settlement Fund by banning any settlements or payments stemming from a
claim or lawsuit filed by the President of the United States or the Vice
President. The introduction of the bill will prevent any abuse or
corrupt settlements from this fund or any in the future.
Read more about the bill here and see coverage below:
CBS News: Senate Democrats launch campaign to kill what DOJ calls its “anti-weaponization” fund
Senate Democrats are launching a coordinated effort to kill the Trump
administration’s $1.7+ billion “anti-weaponization” fund. In a “Dear
Colleague” letter released Monday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said
Democrats will use a variety of strategies, from floor action to
oversight, to block President Trump’s “nearly $2 billion MAGA slush
fund.”
“If Republicans return to reconciliation, we will be ready with
amendments to shut the fund down,” Schumer wrote. “If they try to bury
the issue, we will force them to the Senate floor. If they try to sneak
behind appropriations, we will fight them there, too. There will be no
escape hatch. No fake guardrails or backroom promises to hide
behind.”
In addition, a trio of Democratic Senators are introducing a bill
Monday to shut down the fund and prevent taxpayer dollars from being
paid to the president or his allies, including those convicted of crimes
or related to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The measure,
dubbed the Drain the Slush Fund Act, is sponsored by Sens. Adam Schiff,
of California, Mark Kelly, of Arizona, and Elissa Slotkin, of
Michigan.
“As Republicans return to Washington to provide further funding for
this and other mistaken priorities, we’re going to hold them
accountable,” Schiff said. “And as Senators who have actually seen their
government weaponized against them, we want to make it clear: We will
not allow a single payout from this so-called weaponization fund to be
paid.”
Last week, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Justice Department
from moving forward with work on the new fund. A department
spokesperson said it “remains extremely confident in the legality of the
Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent,
including Obama-era settlements.”
The $1.776 billion fund would provide taxpayer-funded payouts to
people who allege the legal system has been “weaponized” against
them. It’s part of an agreement between President Trump and the federal
government to settle his lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department
over the leak of his tax returns.
Senate Republicans are considering adding potential guardrails to the
fund as part of a broader $72 billion reconciliation package for
immigration enforcement agencies. GOP leaders scrapped votes on the
party-line measure last month after a contentious meeting over the DOJ
fund with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
“They (Trump administration) need to help with this issue, because we
have a lot of members who are concerned,” Majority Leader John Thune
told reporters at the time.
Blanche will return to Capitol Hill this week for an oversight hearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee.
The New Republic: Democrats Are Starting to Fight Back Against Trump’s MAGA Slush Fund
Three Democratic senators introduced a bill Monday to kill Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” slush fund.
Senators Adam Schiff of California, Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Elissa
Slotkin of Michigan introduced the “Drain the Fund Act,” which they
said would block taxpayer dollars from being funneled to Trump and his
allies, including individuals convicted in connection with the January 6
riot, public figures who spread election misinformation, and the leader
of a violent hate group.
“As Republicans return to Washington to provide further funding for
this and other mistaken priorities, we’re going to hold them
accountable,” Schiffsaid in a statement. “And as Senators who have
actually seen their government weaponized against them, we want to make
it clear: We will not allow a single payout from this so-called
weaponization fund to be paid.”
The bill would also ban settlements stemming from suits brought by
the president or the vice president, and be retroactive to January 20,
2025. That would functionally undo the recent settlement for Trump’s
failing $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Services that
produced the fund, and blocked the president from future audits.
Last week, a federal judge issued a restraining order to ensure that
no taxpayer dollars would be “irreversibly disbursed” from the fund
before the legal battle could play out.
But the bill is only part of the plan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer said Monday that Democrats would introduce an amendment to their
$72 billion budget reconciliation bill in order to shut down the fund.
“If they try to bury the issue, we will force them to the Senate floor.
If they try to sneak behind appropriations, we will fight them there,
too. There will be no escape hatch. No fake guardrails or backroom
promises to hide behind,” Schumer said.
The Hill: Senate Democrats unveil bill to block Trump’s ‘anti-weaponization’ fund
Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Elissa
Slotkin (Mich.) on Monday introduced legislation to block the Trump
administration’s “anti-weaponization” fund, which the Department of
Justice (DOJ) scrapped earlier in the day.
The bill, dubbed the Drain the Slush Fund Act, would bar the use of
taxpayer money for payments to President Trump, his associates,
individuals convicted of crimes or those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021,
attack on the Capitol.
The bill would also put restrictions on the DOJ’s settlement fund,
prohibiting settlements or payments arising from claims or lawsuits
brought by a sitting president or vice president. That restriction would
be retroactive to the day of Trump’s second inauguration.
The DOJ on Monday abandoned the $1.776 billion fund it created last
month as part of a settlement agreement in Trump’s lawsuit against the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). That was after federal judges in
Virginia and Florida on Friday temporarily halted the fund from making
payouts and reopened the president’s suit against the IRS,
respectively.
The department wrote on the social platform X that while it
“disagrees strongly” with the decision by U.S. District Judge Leonie
Brinkema in Virginia, it will abide by her ruling.
When acting Attorney General Todd Blanche unveiled the fund last
month, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pushed back.
Democrats largely slammed it as a “slush fund” for those
involved in Jan. 6, while some Republicans argued similarly — with
Senate Republicans taking Blanche to task during a May 21 meeting on the
fund.
In unveiling their legislation, Kelly, Schiffand Slotkin slammed the
fund, with Kelly calling it “theft in broad daylight,” Schiff referring
to it as “one of the most brazenly corrupt schemes we’ve ever seen from a
U.S. president” and Slotkin saying it is “an unprecedented misuse of
taxpayer money.”
That particular trio sponsoring the bill is notable. Earlier this
year, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro
unsuccessfully sought a grand jury indictment of Kelly, Slotkin, and
four House Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds for
recording a video urging military members and intelligence officers to
refuse illegal orders.
Kelly, a retired Navy captain, is also embroiled in a legal fight
with the Pentagon, which has tried to reduce his rank in the wake of the
video.
Schiff, meanwhile, was the subject of a DOJ probe into alleged mortgage fraud last year.
“As Republicans return to Washington to provide further funding for
this and other mistaken priorities, we’re going to hold them
accountable, and force a vote on this language to shut down the slush
fund once and for all,” Schiffsaid in a release. “Americans see the cost
of this corruption coming out of their own pockets.
“And as Senators who have actually seen their government weaponized
against them, we want to make it clear: we will not allow a single
payout from this so-called weaponization fund to be paid.”
Los Angeles Times: Trump’s $1.8-billion fund unravels amid court setbacks, bipartisan pushback
California Sen, Adam Schiff,along with Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona
and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, introduced the “Drain the Slush Fund
Act.”
The White House declined to comment on whether the administration would also make changes to the tax immunity clause.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is backing away from plans to
create a $1.8-billion fund to compensate people who claim the government
was weaponized against them, a retreat that comes amid a cascade of
legal setbacks and a revolt within members of the Republican Party.
But Senate Democrats say the concession is not enough, and are
pushing legislation to ensure no president can ever attempt the creation
of such a fund again.
“If Republicans are serious about ending this brazenly corrupt
scheme, they should have no problem voting for legislation banning any
president from creating such a slush fund in the future,” Sen. Adam
Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote Monday in a post on X.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) added that Democrats
plan to force a vote on a measure to ensure that Trump and Republicans
are “truly abandoning this corrupt scheme.”
“Trump’s word is nowhere near enough,” Schumer wrote on X. Earlier in
the day, Schumer vowed to force a floor vote to make Republican
lawmakers take a public stance on the issue.
Schiff,along with Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of
Michigan, introduced the “Drain the Slush Fund Act” on Monday. The bill,
if approved, would bar any payout arising from a lawsuit filed by a
president or vice president, language that is designed to permanently
foreclose the fund, or anything like it, from being put in place by a
future administration.
The White House did not comment on the president’s thinking. But in a
statement, the Department of Justice said the decision to scrap the
fund was in response to a federal judge’s ruling last week that
temporarily blocked payouts from the fund while legal
challenges remain pending. The department said it “disagrees strongly”
with the move, but stopped short of saying it would challenge the
decision.
“This fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or
persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative,
Independent, or otherwise,” the statement read. “The Department will
abide by the Court’s ruling.”
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who was nominated to the bench
by President Clinton, a Democrat, has scheduled a June 12 hearing for
argument on whether to extend the order blocking the fund.
While the court ruling is not permanent, the unraveling over the fund
is a notable defeat for Trump, who has cast it as a long-overdue
reckoning for Americans he says were targeted by “an evil, corrupt and
weaponized Biden administration.” For Republicans who publicly
criticized the fund, it may come as a relief as the concept had been
widely seen as a political liability heading into the midterm
elections.
The Department of Justice created the fund to settle a lawsuit Trump
personally brought against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of
his tax returns. The settlement also includes a clause permanently
barring the IRS from pursuing any tax claims against Trump and his
businesses that were filed before May 19 — a provision that, according
to an analysis by Forbes, would save Trump and his family more than $600
million.
The White House declined to comment on whether the administration
would also make changes to the tax immunity clause. The Democrats’ bill
does not address that provision.
“Congress doesn’t need to pass a law to remind the Acting Attorney
General [Todd Blanche] that he doesn’t have the authority to grant a
blanket pardon for tax crimes by the president, much less when the AG is
his personal attorney,” a Schiffspokesperson said in a statement. “The
attempt at IRS immunity is corrupt and undoubtedly illegal — and we look
forward to seeing it exposed as a fraud.”
Beyond Trump’s own legal disputes with the IRS, the fund was
structured to accept claims from anyone who said they had been targeted
by the government, a category the administration made clear could
include those who were convicted for attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan.
6, 2021.
Trump pardoned and commuted the prison sentences of 1,500 people who
were charged in connection with the attack, and neither he nor Vice
President JD Vance ruled out the possibility that those individuals
would be able to receive money from the fund.
KCAL CBS: Challenging Anti-Weaponization Fund
Yuccas: Also, in Washington today, Senate democrats
are ramping up efforts to block the Trump administration’s $1.7 billion
dollar anti-weaponization fund. Three Democratic Senators, Adam Schiff,
Mark Kelly, and Elissa Slotkin are introducing the Drain the Slush Fund Act.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned he has several plans to
counter potential Republican moves and said, “No matter what Republicans
do, we will force them to vote on it.”
Scripps News: Under Pressure, Trump Admin Backs Off ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Fund, For Now
Reed: Democrats yesterday making clear that they’re
going to take the lead on this one, they’re going to force a vote on a
bill at some point in the coming days to try and outlaw to try and
prevent this weaponization fund from ever coming back or being legal in
the future, a law that would potentially affect to future presidential
administrations as well. Here’s Senator Adam Schiff in a press
conference yesterday.
Schiff (in clip): There will be no hiding from this
issue, and our Republican colleagues need to understand that they can
join us in disavowing this kind of self-dealing corruption
or they’re going to own it. It is not personal to this president and
vice president, it would prohibit any future president from doing the
same thing. And for that reason, I would hope that we would have our
colleagues join us in it.
###
The following sites updated:
