Who's eligible for the 'Anti-Weaponisation Fund'? Trump's critics think they might be

May 22, 2026

The Justice Department has established a $1. 8 billion compensation fund for victims of alleged government "weaponization" as part of a settlement over leaked Trump tax returns, but the fund's eligibility criteria remain remarkably vague and controversial. The fund has attracted claims from an unexpected array of applicants, including Trump critics like former attorney Michael Cohen and ex-FBI Director James Comey, as well as Trump allies such as January 6 defendants and former administration officials.

Who is affected

Michael Cohen (former Trump attorney)
James Comey (former FBI Director, indicted twice)
Allison Gill (podcast commentator who lost government job)
Individuals convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot
Michael Caputo (first-term Trump administration official)
Democratic and Republican lawmakers
Donald Trump and his family (explicitly barred from receiving funds)
Republican US senators
"Literally tens of millions of Americans" (according to Blanche's memo)

What action is being taken

Michael Cohen is filing a claim to the fund
James Comey stated he might apply for the fund
Allison Gill is seeking $8.647 million in compensation
Michael Caputo posted his request for $2.7 million
Democratic and Republican lawmakers are pressing Blanche for more details
Rep Brian Fitzpatrick sent a letter to Blanche asking for specifics
Rep Brian Fitzpatrick and Rep Tom Suozzi introduced legislation to bar the use of federal funds for the payouts
Todd Blanche is working to convince Republican senators the fund is not a "slush fund"

Why it matters

This fund represents an unprecedented government acknowledgment of alleged political weaponization of law enforcement, with potentially massive financial and political implications. The extraordinarily broad eligibility criteria—potentially covering "tens of millions of Americans"—creates the possibility for wide-ranging claims from both Trump critics and allies, raising concerns about fairness and fiscal responsibility. The fund's opaque nature has generated bipartisan concern about its potential misuse as a political tool, particularly regarding whether January 6 defendants convicted of violent crimes could receive taxpayer money. The controversy threatens to deepen partisan divisions and could set a concerning precedent for future administrations to compensate political allies or settle grievances through discretionary government funds.

What's next

The fund will be overseen by five people appointed by the US attorney general, one chosen in coordination with Congress
Comey's attorneys are expected to make a vindictive prosecution motion in his new case
Pending legislative action on the Fitzpatrick-Suozzi bill to bar federal funds for the payouts
Continued scrutiny from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers demanding clarity on eligibility criteria

Read full article from source: BBC