Now that Donald Trump has created his very own political slush fund with $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to hand out to allies, the very least that Democrats can do right now is this: Do everything possible to force Republicans to vote on it—over and over again. Make them defend this brazen corruption at a time when Trump’s approval rating on the economy is in the toilet and the country is awash in deep and widespread economic dissatisfaction.
Democrats might take this step sooner rather than later. Representative Jamie Raskin tells me that House Democrats plan to introduce a bill that would block the fund and other future efforts like it. While it’s unclear exactly how this will play out in each chamber, Raskin says the bill will have the full support of the Democratic caucus and the leadership—and that Democrats will pursue a discharge petition to get it to the floor around the GOP leadership.
“We need to put Republicans on the spot as to whether or not they are going to endorse this rank corruption, or whether they are going to stand up for basic constitutional values,” Raskin said in an interview, adding that he will pursue “straightforward legislation to block this outrageous misappropriation.”
This could prove politically potent in unexpected ways, and Trump’s vile tirade on Monday about his heist shows why. The fund—which the Justice Department is creating pursuant to its “settlement” of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS—will be dispensed to alleged victims of government “weaponization.” When a reporter asked Trump why taxpayer funds should go to the January 6 rioters, it set him off.
“This is reimbursing people that were horribly treated,” Trump replied angrily. “They’ve been in some cases imprisoned wrongly. They’ve paid legal fees that they didn’t have. They’ve gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed. And they turned out to be right.”
Emphasis mine. In short, Trump admits his fund is designed to grant taxpayer money to the January 6 rioters for the expressly declared purpose of rewarding them for trying to overturn a lawful election on his behalf with mob violence. Let Republicans defend that.
This whole fiasco is ripe for congressional intervention. The slush fund has been created by Trump’s settlement of his anti-IRS lawsuit—which was itself thoroughly bogus—and the $1.8 billion will be drawn from the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund, which pays people who have actually won legitimate claims against the government.
That loot will go into a new fund—which experts widely condemn as illegal—and this one is effectively controlled by Trump while operating outside any government procedures. That means no transparency into the payments—and no congressional oversight. The cash will apparently go to whomever Trump wants, since he can fire the fund’s board members for any reason.
How did this happen? To oversimplify, by dismissing the IRS lawsuit as part of this deal, Trump essentially got around the judge who’d been hearing that lawsuit. And because no one has clear standing to sue to block the new fund—save, perhaps, for Congress, but only if it acts as a whole body, which won’t happen under GOP control—the “settlement” payment to the new fund probably can’t be stopped in court.
So Raskin’s proposal will seek to do two things, he tells me: First, block this fund by legislating a ban on the use of this particular money for Trump’s stated purpose. Second, prevent more funds of this kind from being set up in the future. One way would be to clarify the statute creating the Treasury Judgment Fund so it expressly says no money can be awarded to people who don’t prevail with a valid claim against the government via lawful processes, Raskin says.
“Trump would like to turn the entire federal budget into a collection of political slush funds,” Raskin told me. “We want to get Congress to take responsibility over our spending power back.”
The goal, Raskin said, is “to pass legislation blocking any use of money in this way.” A spokesperson for Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries confirms that he’s supportive of Raskin’s legislative effort.
Raskin says he believes “every Democrat in our caucus” will be behind this. He confirmed that Democrats still believe the new fund is unconstitutional—because its expenditures weren’t approved by Congress—and will still try to contest it in court while also moving forward with legislation.
Will Raskin’s bill ever get a vote? House GOP leaders will block it. But Democrats recently had success forcing a vote on aid to Ukraine using a discharge petition, which gets a bill to the floor if 218 members support it. Raskin says Democrats are prepared to pursue this tactic against Trump’s slush fund.
“That is the only way that we are going to be able to make this happen,” Raskin said, while noting that Democrats will try to attach it to other bills via the amendment process.
Here’s the rub: Even if the GOP tries to block this bill from a vote, once it is written and introduced, Republicans will be asked why they don’t support it. That won’t be an easy question to answer even without a vote, and if it does get a vote, it’s one Republicans won’t want to take.
It’s easy to get fatalistic about GOP loyalty to Trump. But occasionally Republicans do judge certain things too politically toxic to support. Many revolted against voting for $1 billion to fund Trump’s ballroom, some specifically because the expenditure would be hard to defend amid widespread economic pain.
This same pattern—Trump lavishing billions on himself and his loyalists while ordinary Americans suffer under his economic decisions—applies to his slush fund. This week’s New York Times poll finds Trump’s approval on the economy at 33 percent to 64 percent—31 points underwater. Democrats lead in the generic House matchup by 11 points. Among independents, it rises to 18 points. Independents famously react badly to corruption. The slush fund will be absolutely toxic among them.
There are other angles to attack here, as well. After the slush fund was announced, senior Treasury Department lawyer Brian Morrissey resigned. Though it’s unclear why, Senator Ron Wyden—the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee— says he will pursue Morrissey’s testimony. “It’s important we hear from Mr. Morrissey and everyone else involved,” Wyden told me in a statement, adding that if Democrats win the Senate, they are “not going to let this go.”
A core myth of Trumpism is the idea of white, male, reactionary victimization: His ascension represents vengeance for his voters, who are the victims of a series of world-historical crimes by non-MAGA Americans and elites alike. As Adam Serwer notes, the slush fund embodies this: It effectively will give “reparations” to reactionaries who attacked our constitutional democracy to prevent all our votes from counting, in a naked effort to destroy multiracial democracy itself.
But most Americans aren’t bought into those Trumpist fictions. When Trump pardoned hundreds of January 6 rioters, large majorities of independents opposed it—including pardons for nonviolent offenders. The middle of the country opposes special treatment for those who tried to violently destroy our constitutional order—and doesn’t accept MAGA victimization mythology.
As the ballroom scandal demonstrates, Trump’s self-dealing is already a huge problem for Republicans. But with the slush fund, Republicans will have to defend the illicit raiding of taxpayer funds to pay off supporters in one of the most corrupt presidential acts in modern history. For good measure, that will include the people who violently attacked our country and injured scores of police officers to boot. Democrats: Do whatever you can to make Republicans vote on this—again and again. Pledge accountability for these crimes against our country if you win the majority. And don’t let up.
