ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The National Abortion Federation “is joining a broad coalition of organizations and individuals harmed by the Trump-Vance administration in challenging the $1.776 billion so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which the U.S. Department of Justice created through a private agreement with President Donald Trump and his family following the president’s own lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, according to the article.
The funds allocated to the Trump-Vance administration allow officials to disburse taxpayer money with minimal oversight or judicial involvement while creating a discriminatory process that excludes a wide range of plaintiffs. Those excluded are individuals who claim they were harmed by Republicans.
The article states, “Harmed plaintiffs in addition to NAF include former career Assistant U.S. Attorney and Jan. 6 prosecutor Andrew Floyd, Professor John Caravello, and City of New Haven.” Common Cause joined as a plaintiff because its mission is to protect taxpayer funds. According to the article, taxpayer money cannot be protected if it is allocated to a secret slush fund. “All plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward,” the article states.
The article states, “In January 2026, President Trump, members of his family, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS and the Treasury Department over disclosure of his tax return information.” Rather than taking the case to court, the department developed a large government-funded compensation program. The program was designed to support people who were indirectly connected to the Trump v. IRS case. Many of those individuals claim they were unfairly targeted by Democratic administrations.
Critics argued that the program encouraged certain people to continue unlawful actions, such as harassing abortion clinics or committing acts of violence at polling places.
According to the article, “The lawsuit argues that the creation of the fund violates the U.S. Constitution, exceeds executive authority, unlawfully bypasses Congress’s exclusive authority over federal spending and appropriations, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.” The complaint also contests the administration’s use of the federal Judgment Fund to pay for the program. It raises concerns about the transparency of the fund’s operations, including provisions allowing payments and claims to remain secret, reducing public accountability for how nearly $2 billion in taxpayer money is being distributed.
National Abortion Federation CEO and President Brittany Fonteno said abortion providers already feel threatened and that government actions are making it easier for people who harass them. She said that is why the organization joined the lawsuit, seeking greater protection and accountability rather than policies it believes reward dangerous behavior.
Democracy Forward CEO and President Skye Perryman stated, “This latest attempt by the Trump-Vance administration to make grift great again is profoundly unlawful and will not withstand judicial scrutiny.” Perryman argued the government should not be allowed to use taxpayer money in a secretive and politically biased manner. Perryman also claimed the administration is creating a program that rewards people based on political loyalty rather than neutral standards, arguing that it is unconstitutional and unlawful.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to halt the program and return the money to the Judgment Fund, an appropriate government account. According to the article, the fund can only be used to pay legal claims rather than what plaintiffs describe as politically motivated claims favored by the president.
“The case is Andrew Floyd et al v. U.S. Department of Justice et al. The legal team on this matter includes Pooja Boisture, Jyoti Jasrasaria, Aman George, Kevin Friedl, Ayesha Khan, Robin Thurston, and Skye Perryman,” the article states.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
The “slush fund” is disgusting, as is the “agreement” to not audit his family’s taxes, as is Trump’s decision to sue the IRS over “leaked” information in the first place.
This one pretty much pushed me over the edge in regard to Trump. And apparently, it has finally done so for some Republicans.
Though truth be told, the convictions against Trump seemed motivated by politics, as well as the harsh sentences handed down to the January 6th rioters. Perhaps if Biden had (appropriately) pardoned some of them, Trump wouldn’t be president today.
On the other hand, I’m not sure that any of these type of convictions make much difference regarding elections. (Apparently not, since this country elected a “convicted felon” who has proudly displayed his mug shot in the White House, I understand.)
Unlike some, I don’t dislike some of what Trump does (compared to other Republicans).
An example of what I “might” like about Trump:
He still does seem to have some restraint, regarding “ending civilizations” (despite what he says). I’m not sure that he truly understands religious zealotry, however – the type of people willing to die for their cause for no actual reason.
He strives to be a deal-maker, but is willing to abandon that when it no longer makes logical sense.
And I don’t think he has any actual “friends” or “enemies” when he’s seeking to make a deal.
I’m pretty sure that the problematic party in negotiations with other countries, for example – isn’t usually Trump himself.
Overall, it seems to me that the world is better off (in just about every way) by being friendly with the U.S. – regardless of who is president. (But again, see “religious zealotry”, “ego”, or perceived “self-interest” which probably prevents that from consistently occurring.)
“(Apparently not, since this country elected a “convicted felon” who has proudly displayed his mug shot in the White House, I understand.)”
Much of the country saw Trump’s convictions for what they were, law fare and biased NY courts, judges and juries. The Democrats didn’t realize that these convictions actually helped Trump win as voters saw through it.
True – and some of those convictions were driven by ego, as well. Not just politics.
Reminds me of that prosecutor who got into trouble in regard to someone she was involved in a relationship with, whom she apparently hired. Something along the lines of, “I’m not the one on trial, here”. (Well, you apparently were on trial in regard to public opinion, at least.)
No way that convictions against Trump would have been pursued in the first place, if not driven by politics. Even if he was “technically” guilty.
One thing I have learned from Trump’s presidencies: The media and the justice system are not as impartial as I once believed them to be. Perhaps that’s the most-important thing that Trump has inadvertently uncovered.
Perhaps things have changed within those systems in recent years, as well.