WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has suggested he’s entitled to compensation from the federal government over investigations he faced that he claims were politically motivated. Now, the Justice Department that Trump has exerted control over could approve a hefty payout in taxpayer dollars.

The Republican president’s comments in the Oval Office on Tuesday have put a spotlight on a law through which people can seek damages if they believe they were wronged by the federal government.

But the potential that the president might take taxpayer money from the same government he leads has raised numerous ethical questions, especially since Trump has made cutting federal spending a top administration priority.

Adding to conflict-of-interest concerns is the fact that top Justice Department officials who would presumably have to sign off on such a settlement previously served as a defense lawyer for the president or his close allies.

Here’s a look at Trump’s claims and the process that could play out:

How the claims process works

Before reclaiming the White House, Trump filed two claims with the Justice Department seeking $230 million in damages related to the FBI’s 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago property for classified documents and for a separate investigation into potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

He filed the claims in 2023 and 2024 under a law that permits individuals to sue federal agencies, like the Justice Department, if they believe they’ve been harmed by employees of those agencies acting within the scope of their duties. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, individuals must first file an administrative claim with the government agency. The agency then has six months to either settle the claim or deny it outright.

If the agency denies the claim or doesn’t act on it within that time frame, the person can then file a federal lawsuit. Trump has not yet filed a lawsuit on either claim, even though six months have passed.

The usual source of payments for claims against the government is from what’s known as the Judgment Fund. Treasury Department records show payments from the Judgment Fund over the last year on behalf of a slew of federal agencies related to discrimination claims, violations of the Privacy Act and other matters.

In one recent high-profile case, the Justice Department in 2024 agreed to pay more than $138 million to settle 139 administrative claims brought by people who accused the FBI of grossly mishandling allegations of sexual assault against Larry Nassar in 2015 and 2016.

Why Trump says the government owes him money

Trump has long claimed he was the victim of a weaponized Justice Department that targeted him for political purposes. The Biden administration’s Justice Department abandoned both criminal cases it brought against Trump after his White House victory last November because of department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

The president signaled his interest in compensation during a White House appearance last week with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi — telling reporters “I’m suing myself” — even though his claims to date have not been filed as lawsuits. He said he believes the government owes him a “lot of money,” but suggested he could donate any taxpayer money or use it to help pay for a ballroom he’s building at the White House.

One of the administrative claims, filed in August 2024 and reviewed by The Associated Press, seeks $115 million in compensatory and punitive damages over the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate and the resulting case alleging he hoarded classified documents and thwarted government efforts to retrieve them.

It accuses former Attorney General Merrick Garland, former FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith of harassing and targeting Trump with a “malicious prosecution” in an effort to hurt Trump’s bid to reclaim the White House.

The Times said the other claim seeks damages related to the long-concluded Trump-Russia investigation, which continues to infuriate the president.

Defense lawyers for Trump and his allies could have the final say

Trump’s claims have raised thorny ethical issues because under Justice Department policy, proposed settlements of more than $4 million must be approved by the deputy attorney general or associate attorney general. Blanche, the deputy attorney general, was one of Trump’s lead defense lawyers in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. And Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward represented Trump’s valet and co-defendant, Walt Nauta, in the same case.

The department has not said whether Blanche and Woodward would be recused in settlement talks, but said in a statement on Tuesday that “in any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials.” Bondi, in July, however, fired the department’s top official responsible for advising the attorney general and deputy attorney general on ethics issues.

Democrats plan to investigate

Democrats pounced on the news, announcing that Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, would launch an investigation into what they called a “shakedown” that violated the Constitution.

It was not immediately clear what shape that inquiry might take, but it seems unlikely that Raskin or other Democrats will get any cooperation from Justice Department leadership, particularly in the aftermath of a combative congressional appearance that Bondi made earlier this month.

A Washington, D.C.resident who drew attention to the deployment of the National Guard in the district by playing “The Imperial March” from “Star Wars” is now suing after he was detained in what he argues was a violation of his rights while protesting.

“The law might have tolerated government conduct of this sort a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away,” Sam O’Hara’s lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a civil complaint filed Thursdayplaying on the “Star Wars” theme. “But in the here and now, the First Amendment bars government officials from shutting down peaceful protests, and the Fourth Amendment (along with the District’s prohibition on false arrest) bars groundless seizures,” they wrote.

The complaint, filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., gave O’Hara’s account of his detention last month. It followed one of the times he recorded and protested the deployment by playing the theme associated with “Star Wars” villain Darth Vader, while walking behind Guard members on public streets.

The incident leading to the lawsuit arose when the 35-year-old was coming home from work on Sept. 11, and he began walking behind a group of Guard members while playing the march on his phone and recording them. He said he didn’t speak to them, touch them or interfere with their activities, and he said he played the music loudly but not at a “blaring level.”

O’Hara’s complaint said that most Guard members he encountered during his protests ignored him and that “a few smiled or laughed.” But he said that on Sept. 11, Sgt. Devon Beck of the Ohio National Guard “was not amused by this satire,” and that Beck contacted D.C. police officers, who handcuffed the plaintiff and blocked him from “continuing his peaceful protest.” He was released without charge.

O’Hara’s suit names Beck, several D.C. officers and the District of Columbia as civil defendants. He claims violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as false arrest and battery. He said officers refused to loosen his tight handcuffs, which caused him pain. The defendants will have an opportunity to respond in court before a judge weighs in on how the case will proceed.

The suit comes as litigation unfolds over the Trump administration’s attempted deployments in Los Angeles; Portland, Oregon; and Chicago, with the last pending before the Supreme Court in a case that could be decided any moment.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined BLN, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.