mosaique.info logo
sign up
  1. home
  3. article
  5. Senate Rejects Motion to Ban Trump’s $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund

Senate Rejects Motion to Ban Trump’s $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund

Updated on
ai generated text

Senate Republicans narrowly blocked a Democratic effort to halt Donald Trump’s proposed $1.8 billion fund for his allies. The vote fell just short of the required margin. The decision underscored growing dissent within Trump’s own party.

  1. US
    Donald Trump
    Republican Party
    1. As far as I'm concerned, it was a beautiful thing.
    2. They're GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT.
  2. US
    Thom Tillis
    Republican Party
    1. I voted to get on it with the goal of potentially getting an amendment done or supporting some other members' amendment.
    2. This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they're not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.
    3. We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund's not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is.
  3. US
    Bill Cassidy
    Republican Party
    1. The Anti-Weaponization Fund presents a threat to our constitutional democracy that this Court has never before been asked to confront.
    2. It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People's money without Congressional approval.
  4. US
    Bernie Moreno
    Republican Party
    1. We are going to fund immigration enforcement and Border Patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission.
  5. US
    Chuck Schumer
    Democratic Party
    1. Do any of us believe that Donald Trump, who has lied to us day in and day out, will be able to resist getting his sticky fingers in the slush fund when it would benefit himself and his family?
    2. Do you support Donald Trump's $2-billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?
  6. US
    Jeff Merkley
    Democratic Party
    1. Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.

sources

  1. 1.CNN
  2. 2.The Guardian
  3. 3.Los Angeles Times
  4. 4.Fox News
  5. 5.Politico
  6. 6.The New York Times
  7. 7.Times

perspectives

  1. 1.US under Donald Trump
  2. 2.2024 US Presidential Election
  3. 3.Lawsuit

countries

  1. 1.Iran, Islamic Republic ofIR
  2. 2.United StatesUS

organizations

  1. 1.Republican Party
  2. 2.Democratic Party
  3. 3.US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
  4. 4.US Border Patrol
  5. 5.Heritage Foundation
  6. 6.Republican National Committee
  7. 7.US Customs and Border Protection
  8. 8.US Department of Justice
  9. 9.US Homeland Security Department
  10. 10.US Internal Revenue Service
  11. 11.White House

persons

  1. 1.Donald TrumpUS
  2. 2.Chuck SchumerUS
  3. 3.Susan CollinsUS
  4. 4.Thom TillisUS
  5. 5.Todd BlancheUS
  6. 6.Dan SullivanUS
  7. 7.Graham PlatnerUS
  8. 8.Jon Husted
  9. 9.Bill CassidyUS
  10. 10.Jeff MerkleyUS
  11. 11.Cory BookerUS
  12. 12.Adam SchiffUS

technicals

  1. 1.Nazism
  2. 2.Anti-Weaponization Fund
  3. 3.Oval Office
  4. 4.Project 2025
  5. 5.Schutzstaffel
  6. 6.Totenkopf
  7. 7.US Capitol
Senate Rejects Motion to Ban Trump’s $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund