Congress

Trump’s $1.8 billion ‘lawfare’ fund is making Republicans nervous

Published

3 weeks ago

May 19, 2026

Senate Republicans are greeting the Justice Department’s announcement of a new “Anti-Weaponization Fund” with concern, confusion and questions — and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is offering up little clarity on how it will work.

At a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday morning, Blanche fielded queries from members of both parties about the logistics of the $1.8 billion account, who would have oversight and whether it could function as a “slush fund” for individuals who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Democrats are, predictably, enraged by the terms of the settlement for President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the government for the leak of his tax information, which resulted in the creation of this account to benefit targets of “weaponization and lawfare.”

“There is no level below which these folks will not go,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I) said in an interview. “It is just disgusting, having come off Law Enforcement Week, to have set up a slush fund to pay off people who attack police officers.”

But Republicans are also signaling deep discomfort with the arrangement, as well as frustration that they weren’t given the answers they were looking for.

“I’ve got more questions than I’ve heard answers for, and … I didn’t hear anything that gave me certainty in terms of how this all comes together,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), after attending the hearing with Blanche. “Can the president just say $1.87 billion? … I don’t know enough about it to feel comfortable.”

Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Jerry Moran of Kansas — the top Republicans on the full Appropriations committee and the panel that oversees DOJ funding, respectively — both pressed Blanche at the hearing to explain how payouts from the fund would be managed and who might receive them.

Blanche said repeatedly it would be up to the “commissioners” to determine who would get financial compensation for being victimized by the government. He repeatedly said anyone — even President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who was prosecuted and convicted on gun and tax charges before being pardoned by his father — could apply for compensation.

But he also wouldn’t rule out that Jan. 6 rioters convicted of assaulting police might qualify, a deeply sensitive issue for lawmakers who were at the Capitol that day.

Vice President JD Vance, at a news conference later Tuesday afternoon, further confused the matter by saying “we’re not trying to give money to anybody who attacked a police officer” but also that “we do have people who were accused of attacking law enforcement officers” and “we’re going to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters he was “not a big fan” of the fund and that he didn’t “see a purpose for that.”

“I think that there are, and will be continue to be, a lot of questions around that, that the administration is going to have to answer,” he said later at a news conference.

Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the White House’s staunchest allies who once championed a payout for lawmakers who had their phone data subpoenaed by the Biden administration, said Tuesday he believed senators needed more information.

“Conceptually I understand what he’s trying to do, but I don’t know,” he said. “I think we need to ask more questions.”

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It’s not yet clear how Republicans will reconcile their desire for answers with their waning appetite for going against Trump, who has yet again placed the GOP in an awkward situation: Endorse a policy that Democrats are casting as a self-enrichment scheme or get crosswise with the president, who is successfully going after his political enemies in midterm primary campaigns.

Appropriators could choose to put some guardrails on the massive settlement account by restricting funding from going towards its implementation or clearly defining who could benefit from it. Murkowski, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, said she would have “serious and significant problems” if the money was given to those convicted for their part in the Capitol attack.

But Moran concluded his probing questions of Blanche by saying the Appropriations Committee did not have jurisdiction “in a sense, because this is mandatory spending” — a sign he may not seek to be proactive in placing limits on how the fund might function.

In a further apparent effort to deflect the issue, Moran asked Blanche during the hearing whether he had spoken to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee about the account. Blanche replied that he had not “over the past 24 hours.”

Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters that the situation was akin to the $2 million settlement the DOJ reached with former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who sued the government after the Trump administration released their text messages in apparent violation of the federal Privacy Act.

“This has happened before in a Democrat administration, so I’m not sure you should be surprised that there’s justice for people that have had the government weaponized against them,” Grassley said.

Still, he added, “if there’s questions” about the new account, “we’re going to be able to discuss it directly when we have the attorney general before our committee for our usual oversight.”

The panel has not yet scheduled such a hearing with Blanche.

Congress

Senate panel approves Department of War name change

Published

3 minutes ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted this week to formally change the Pentagon’s name to the Department of War, moving a significant step closer to solidifying President Donald Trump’s rebrand of the Defense Department as permanent.

The move came during the committee’s closed-door deliberations over its defense policy bill, according to Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who announced the name change in explaining his vote against the legislation.

“It’s a juvenile move that sadly describes the reality of a president who has abandoned meaningful diplomacy in favor of starting doubtful wars in multiple locations and threatening even more,” he said in a statement.

Trump authorized the War Department moniker last year as part of a broader effort to present a more aggressive military to the world. The Pentagon has used it since, as have many Republicans on Capitol Hill.

But Congress must sign off for the name change to stick — and votes on both sides of the Capitol make it closer than ever to becoming a reality.

Details of the Armed Services vote, including who pushed for the change, were not immediately public. The committee voted 18-9 to advance the bill Wednesday evening and released initial details of the legislation Thursday.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the rebranding last week in its draft of the annual authorization legislation. The measure was adopted there in a narrow, party-line vote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth quickly praised the decision. “The Department of War will officially be restored soon,” he wrote in a social media post after the House panel’s vote.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a full renaming of the department could cost as much as $125 million. But supporters have argued changing the name would more accurately reflect the focus and strength of the department, sending a message to potential adversaries.

The name change’s inclusion in both the House and Senate panel’s drafts of the authorization bill — which has passed Congress annually for the last six decades — signals that the rebrand has a strong chance of becoming law.

Congress

Judge finds Lander not guilty in 26 Federal Plaza obstruction case

Published

18 minutes ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — A federal judge ruled Thursday that former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander is not guilty of misdemeanor obstruction for blocking an elevator while protesting outside an immigrant holding area.

Lander was hit with the obstruction charge last September while demonstrating in support of detained immigrants at 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan. He was offered a deal to drop the charge but opted instead for a trial to bring attention to the federal government’s immigration policies.

Lander said he was there with state legislators to view the facility’s conditions, not to purposefully block an elevator — and that he would have moved if asked. In reading his findings, Judge Henry Ricardo described Lander’s testimony as consistent with video evidence, noting that his movements didn’t suggest he was purposefully trying to block the elevator and that Lander appeared “tired and a bit resigned.”

“No offense to Mr. Lander,” the judge said.

Lander — who entered the courtroom in good spirits and holding a Knicks hat — told reporters after the verdict: “I didn’t feel tired.”

“I felt an urgency to show up that day and try to fight what ICE is doing,” he said.

After a month’s delay, Lander finally had his first day in court Wednesday — less than two weeks before the primary election — bringing immigration even more to the forefront in the waning days of his campaign against Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman.

During the six-hour trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ariel Cohen framed it as a straightforward case — that it was well-documented Lander was sitting in front of an elevator and didn’t move after being told to do so multiple times.

Cohen pointed to Lander singing “We Shall Not Be Moved,” a well-known protest song popularized during the Civil Rights movement, while sitting in front of the elevator. But Ricardo was not swayed by that argument, reasoning that it was a chaotic moment and Lander was, in fact, moved, despite the song he was singing.

“Actions speak louder than words,” he said.

Ricardo said the government failed to prove Lander purposefully obstructed an elevator. He also said he didn’t weigh what was being protested or whether the protest was just — a stated goal for Lander in deciding to take the case to trial. Instead, Wednesday’s proceedings focused largely on elevator logistics and signage at 26 Federal Plaza, not the Trump administration’s immigration efforts.

“Do I wish that they had granted our discovery motions, sought harder to prove the case and given us the ability to hold ICE accountable? Yes, I wish that,” Lander said after the verdict.

Immigration policy has emerged as a flashpoint between Lander and Goldman, who is seeking a third term, especially as the Trump administration threatens to ramp up enforcement in the state.

Goldman, who often highlights his oversight visits at immigrant detention centers and his “triage center” to support detainees near 26 Federal Plaza, has repeatedly criticized Lander for his approach to immigration. On Wednesday, he referred to Lander’s case as “performative” and “self-promoting.” At a debate last week, Goldman chided him for the rhetorical refrain that he puts his “body on the line” for immigrants and for fundraising off of it.

“While Brad never did get the information he sought from ICE, I have all of that information from my weekly oversight visits and would be happy to brief him,” Goldman said in a statement.

Lander, who frequently conducts court watching shifts, was also arrested at 26 Federal Plaza while escorting migrants from immigration hearings last June, ahead of the mayoral primary. No charges were filed then. Lander on Thursday said he thinks the arrests are an effort “to intimidate people into not participating as part of that court watching, ICE watching movement.”

In response to a question about Goldman’s suggestion his actions are political theater, Lander claimed he wasn’t running for anything in September when he was arrested: “We were there to show up for our neighbors and the rule of law. This is much bigger than we are.”

When asked if the legal proceedings have been a distraction from his campaign, he said some of the most “meaningful work of the last year” has been “being part of a movement of Americans who are fighting back against the fascist White House and rogue ICE agents.”

Congress

Spy law on track to lapse after House rejects extension

Published

3 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House failed to extend a key surveillance law Thursday, effectively ensuring it will expire Friday night over warnings from Republican lawmakers and national security officials.

The proposal, rejected on a 218-198 vote, would have extended Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act through July 2. It would have been the latest in a series of punts Congress has passed in recent months.

But a Democratic uproar over President Donald Trump’s decision to tap political ally Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence tanked any chances for passage. The extension — put on the floor under a fast-track method that required a two-thirds-majority vote — failed to garner even a simple majority, winning the support of only seven Democrats.

Nineteen Republicans also voted to reject a punt of Section 702, which allows U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on targets abroad without a warrant. Surveillance under the program also sometimes captures communications with Americans, and some lawmakers in both parties want to put safeguards on how that material is searched.

The House is not expected to vote again until June 23, effectively ensuring Section 702 will expire for the first time since it was enacted in 2008.

Many Hill Republicans believe, despite the congressional failure, the Trump administration can and will continue to operate the program, possibly under a forthcoming executive order. But tech providers could mount legal challenges to the program if it expires, and national security officials fear that could temporarily limit visibility into surveillance targets under the law.

Asked if an executive order would be enough to keep Americans safe in the interim, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in an interview, “Hopefully it is.”

“Anybody who votes ‘no’ is casting a dangerous vote to put American lives at risk,” Scalise said, adding that Trump and his national security deputies are “going to do what they have to do to keep the country safe.”

Scalise said the burden for finding a solution lies with the Senate “to figure out some kind of path.” A procedural vote in the other chamber that would have set up passage of an extension failed last week.

Negotiators there had been circling on a deal allowing for a three-year extension of Section 702 authorities, but those talks collapsed after Trump announced his intention to appoint Pulte, a housing official with no national security experience.

House Democratic leaders encouraged members to vote against the reauthorization Thursday, arguing “meaningful reforms” are necessary.

“Section 702 is a critical foreign intelligence authority, but we cannot in good conscience vote for reauthorization without significant reforms to protect both national security and the constitutional privacy rights of Americans,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other leaders said in a joint statement.