Where Was $1.776 Billion Going? The Shocking List of People Blocked by New 'Slush Fund' Bill

Senate Democrats on Monday moved to shut down the Trump administration's controversial anti-weaponisation fund, introducing the Drain the Slush Fund Act in Washington as the Justice Department itself backed away from the £1.32 billion ($1.776 billion) scheme earlier the same day.

The bill from Mark Kelly, Adam Schiff and Elissa Slotkin would block taxpayer money from going to President Donald Trump, his associates, people convicted of crimes and anyone involved in the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol.

The news came after a federal judge in Virginia temporarily froze the fund, and after growing bipartisan unease over what had become an especially clumsy piece of government engineering.

The Justice Department had created the fund last month as part of a settlement tied to Trump's lawsuit over the Internal Revenue Service and the leak of his tax returns, but even before the court intervention, the idea had triggered questions about who, exactly, might benefit and on what legal basis.

The 'Drain The Slush Fund Act' And Who It Would Block

The Drain the Slush Fund Act, introduced by Slotkin, Schiff and Kelly, is blunt about where it believes public money should not end up.

The proposed law would forbid any use of the so‑called anti‑weaponisation fund to make payments to Trump himself, to his associates, to individuals with criminal convictions, or to people involved in the 6 January storming of the Capitol.

It also goes after a broader pot of money inside the Department of Justice. Under the bill, the DOJ's settlement fund would be barred from paying out on any claim or lawsuit brought by a sitting president or vice president.

That provision would be retroactive to 20 January 2025, the date of Trump's second inauguration, effectively cutting off pending settlements linked to his time in office and attempting to prevent what Democrats say is a built‑in conflict of interest.

In their public statements, the three senators did not bother with polite understatement. Slotkin described the £1.26 billion ($1.7 billion) structure as 'an unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money' and accused Trump of treating the federal government as 'a piggybank for himself and his allies', name‑checking everything from 'his ballroom' to 'his son's cryptocurrency' and 'selling pardons to the highest bidder.'

Schiff called the arrangement 'one of the most brazenly corrupt schemes we've ever seen from a US president' and promised to force a vote on language that would 'shut down the slush fund once and for all.'

Kelly, a retired Navy captain, framed it in terms of ordinary households: 'Americans are struggling to make ends meet and Trump wants to use taxpayer money to pay off his friends and allies... The president's slush fund is a $1.7 billion theft in broad daylight.'

How The $1.776 Billion Fund Was Stopped In Its Tracks

The legislative push follows fast on the heels of a key court intervention. On Friday, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, issued a temporary order blocking the Trump administration from processing or paying any claims from the $1.776 billion settlement pool.

She also barred officials from advancing the fund's creation or operation while a lawsuit brought by the advocacy group Democracy Forward is pending. The legal challenge argues that the Anti‑Weaponisation Fund has 'no legal basis or accountability' and should be 'wholly dismantled.'

Plaintiffs include a former federal prosecutor, Andrew Floyd, who handled Capitol riot cases before being fired, and a California academic, Jonathan Caravello, who was acquitted of assaulting federal agents during a protest in 2025.

In their filing, Democracy Forward's lawyers say Trump and his allies have repeatedly claimed that Democrats weaponised the state against them, while ignoring what they describe as the administration's own 'unprecedented campaign of targeting individuals and entities for retribution on personal and ideological grounds.'

Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, said it was crucial to preserve the status quo for at least two weeks and avoid any funds being 'irreversibly disbursed.' Her order prevents the administration from transferring money into the fund, considering claims or paying out. She has set a hearing for 12 June to decide whether to extend the block.

The Justice Department has not yet filed a full defence of the scheme in court. On X, the department said it 'disagrees strongly' with Brinkema's ruling but will comply with it. Shortly after, it scrapped the fund entirely, even as it insisted it had acted lawfully.

Who Might Have Been Paid — And Why Critics Call It A 'Slush Fund'

The Anti‑Weaponisation Fund was billed by the administration as a means to compensate those who believed they had been targeted by a 'weaponised' federal government.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche faced fierce questioning from both Democrats and Republicans at a 21 May Senate meeting about whether even rioters who assaulted police officers on 6 January could qualify.

Blanche would not rule that out, fuelling anger from officers who defended the Capitol and from lawmakers who say the fund risks rewriting the narrative of the attack.

Nearly 1,600 people were charged over the riot, and more than 1,200 were convicted and sentenced before Trump later moved to pardon or commute many of those cases and to order the dismissal of outstanding prosecutions.

For critics, the idea that some of those same individuals might then be paid from a federal fund overseen by his own administration was a glaring conflict.

At the same time, the Justice Department had not yet even formed the five‑member commission that would set the rules for who could claim what. No claims had been accepted and no money had gone out.

That lack of clear criteria was one reason watchdogs such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington branded the project 'a jaw‑dropping act of presidential corruption' in separate litigation.

Senators Under Scrutiny Take Aim At 'Weaponisation'

There is an extra twist in the identity of the Drain the Slush Fund Act's sponsors. Earlier this year, US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro reportedly sought, and failed to secure, a grand jury indictment against Kelly, Slotkin and several House Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds after they recorded a video urging service members and intelligence officers to refuse unlawful orders.

Kelly is now in a separate legal battle with the Pentagon over an attempt to reduce his rank in response to that video.

Schiff, meanwhile, was the subject of a DOJ probe into alleged mortgage fraud last year. None of those investigations has resulted in convictions, but they help explain why the senators talk pointedly about having 'seen their government weaponised against them.'

'As Republicans return to Washington to provide further funding for this and other mistaken priorities, we're going to hold them accountable,' Schiff said in a statement. 'And as senators who have actually seen their government weaponised against them, we want to make it clear: we will not allow a single payout from this so‑called weaponisation fund to be paid.'

The fund was created last month by the Department of Justice as part of a settlement in Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

Branded by critics as a political pay‑off pot for Trump's circle, the scheme has already been temporarily frozen by a federal judge in Virginia, who halted any payouts and stopped the government from moving forward with the mechanism while legal challenges play out.

The DOJ has since announced that it is abandoning the fund, but the new bill is designed to close off the route for good and to stop similar projects being revived or repackaged later.