mosaique.info logo
sign up
  1. home
  3. article
  5. Trump Suspends $1.8 Billion Anti‑Weaponization Fund Amid Bipartisan Opposition

Trump Suspends $1.8 Billion Anti‑Weaponization Fund Amid Bipartisan Opposition

Updated on
ai generated text

President Trump is expected to cancel his $1.8 billion anti‑weaponization fund after facing congressional opposition, including from fellow Republicans.

1 / 2
  1. US
    Todd Blanche
    US Attorney's Office
    1. It's nothing that gives any sort of immunity in the future to the president or his family or his organizations.
    2. It's typical for to get rid of past ongoing audits.
    3. We are not moving forward with the fund, period.
  2. US
    Chuck Schumer
    Democratic Party
    1. 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. No justice department announcement that makes this corruption acceptable.
    2. But a promise from Trump is worthless. If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law.
    3. The press reports that Trump says he will table his $2bn MAGA slush fund.
  3. US
    Rosa DeLauro
    Democratic Party
    1. You just gave the president's family tax immunity to the tune of about $100 million.
  4. US
    Dick Durbin
    Democratic Party
    1. The president wants to hand lofty payouts to his political buddies and the criminals who attacked our democracy at his request.
  5. US
    Adam Schiff
    Democratic Party
    1. The attempt at IRS immunity is corrupt and undoubtedly illegal — and we look forward to seeing it exposed as a fraud.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  6. US
    US Department of Justice
    1. This fund was open to anybody who was so weaponised, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise.
  7. US
    Jim Lankford
    Republican Party
    1. They need to say, 'We're setting this whole thing aside.'
    2. They need to say what they actually mean.
  8. US
    Mitch Mcconnell
    Republican Party
    1. So the nation's top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick.

sources

  1. 1.CNN
  2. 2.South China Morning Post
  3. 3.Los Angeles Times
  4. 4.Al Jazeera
  5. 5.Hindustan Times
  6. 6.ABC News
  7. 7.The Straits Times
  8. 8.CNBC
  9. 9.Sweden Herald
  10. 10.Yahoo Finance
  11. 11.France 24
  12. 12.The Korea Herald

perspectives

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

countries

  1. 1.United StatesUS
  2. 2.CanadaCA
  3. 3.Russian FederationRU

organizations

  1. 1.Republican Party
  2. 2.US Internal Revenue Service
  3. 3.White House
  4. 4.Democratic Party
  5. 5.Democracy Forward
  6. 6.Conservative Party
  7. 7.House Appropriations Committee
  8. 8.Independent
  9. 9.US Department of Justice
  10. 10.US Homeland Security Department
  11. 11.US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
  12. 12.US Senate

persons

  1. 1.Donald TrumpUS
  2. 2.Todd BlancheUS
  3. 3.John ThuneUS
  4. 4.Leonie Brinkema
  5. 5.Chuck SchumerUS
  6. 6.Gavin NewsomUS
  7. 7.Grace Meng
  8. 8.Jim LankfordUS
  9. 9.Joe BidenUS
  10. 10.Mike JohnsonUS
  11. 11.Rosa DeLauroUS
  12. 12.Ted CruzUS

technicals

  1. 1.US Capitol
  2. 2.Capitol Hill
  3. 3.Anti-Weaponization Fund
  4. 4.Drain the Slush Fund Act
  5. 5.Meet the Press