Everyone assumes Trump’s fund is destined for January 6 defendants. The actual documents say something far different, creating a legal problem critics cannot ignore.
There is something remarkable happening right now, and it has very little to do with President Trump.
For once.
The outrage machine has locked onto the creation of the Trump Administration’s new Anti Weaponization Fund, and like most outrage machines, it appears to have skipped a rather important step: actually reading the document.
That is becoming a recurring problem in American politics. We read headlines. We read social media posts. We read what somebody else says about a document. But reading the document itself? That’s apparently become an extreme sport.
Let me be crystal clear. I am not arguing that the fund should not be scrutinized. It absolutely should. Any government program involving $1.776 billion deserves scrutiny. Every dollar deserves oversight. Every process deserves transparency.
But that is not where the criticism is focused.
The criticism is focused on assumptions.
Specifically, assumptions about who might, could, or may receive money.
Notice those words.
Might.
Could.
May.
Those are not accidental distinctions. They matter.
After rereading the Department of Justice announcement multiple times, I cannot find language stating that January 6 defendants will receive compensation. I cannot find language guaranteeing payments to insurrectionists. I cannot find language promising relief to Trump supporters, MAGA activists, or anyone else currently being discussed by pundits as though payouts have already been deposited into their checking accounts.
What I do find is language establishing a process.
A process to hear claims.
A process to review allegations.
A process to determine whether government weaponization occurred.
The announcement specifically states there are no partisan requirements to file claims.
None.
Zero.
Not one.
That fact alone creates a rather uncomfortable problem for many of the critics.
Because if there are no partisan requirements, then who exactly is excluded?
Certainly not me.
Certainly not Jim Acosta.
Certainly not Allison Gill.
Certainly not James Comey.
In fact, if the language establishing this fund means what it says, then some of Donald Trump’s most outspoken critics may have just as much standing to submit claims as some of his most loyal supporters. That reality alone destroys much of the certainty currently driving the public debate.
In my own case, I have drafted, though not yet submitted, a request seeking inclusion should the fund ultimately move forward. Why? Because if the Weaponization Fund truly exists to support individuals destroyed by politically motivated law enforcement tactics, selective prosecution, government leaks, abuses of power, and intentional destruction of reputation, then there is perhaps no clearer example than what happened to me.
Agree or disagree with that statement. Debate it. Challenge it. Reject it if you want. That is exactly what a legitimate claims process is supposed to do. What it is not supposed to do is predetermine winners and losers based solely upon political affiliation.
And that is where many of the current critics may find themselves standing on increasingly shaky ground.
Because if someone like me can file a claim, if someone like Jim Acosta can file a claim, if someone who has spent years criticizing Donald Trump can file a claim, then the argument that this fund was specifically designed for January 6 defendants suddenly becomes much harder to prove.
Could some January 6 defendants ultimately apply?
Perhaps.
Might some receive relief?
Possibly.
May that be the intention of some people advocating for the fund?
I have no idea.
But those questions are entirely different from what the actual language says.
The current lawsuits challenging the fund seem largely rooted in fears about who may eventually benefit rather than evidence showing who will benefit.
That is a significantly tougher burden.
Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema has temporarily paused implementation of the fund pending further review. That is her job, and courts should review major government actions.
But eventually somebody must point to actual language.
Not speculation.
Not predictions.
Not cable news hypotheticals.
Actual language.
And right now, critics appear to be relying heavily on what they believe the administration intends rather than what the memorandum actually says.
Those are two very different things.
Intent can be argued.
Text can be read.
The administration, through Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, is making an argument that this fund resembles previous settlement structures, including the Keepseagle settlement during the Obama Administration.
Whether one agrees with that comparison is irrelevant.
The existence of precedent matters.
Courts care about precedent.
Judges care about precedent.
Lawyers certainly care about precedent because it is often the difference between winning and losing.
The irony here is delicious.
For years, many of the same commentators now denouncing this fund championed government compensation mechanisms when they aligned with causes they supported.
Now suddenly, compensation funds themselves are being portrayed as inherently dangerous.
That inconsistency is difficult to ignore.
Again, I am not endorsing the fund.
I am endorsing reading.
There is a difference.
What concerns me most is not the fund itself.
It is the reaction.
We have reached a point where accusations are treated as evidence and assumptions are treated as facts.
The public conversation immediately jumped from “a fund has been created” to “January 6 rioters are getting rich.”
Maybe.
Could be.
Might happen.
But those words matter because none of those outcomes currently appear in the actual announcement.
And until someone produces language proving otherwise, the legal challenges face a difficult task.
Courts generally evaluate what governments do, not what commentators fear they might do.
That distinction may ultimately determine whether the Anti Weaponization Fund survives.
And if it does survive, the biggest surprise may not be who receives compensation.
The biggest surprise may be discovering that the people screaming the loudest about exclusion never bothered to read the eligibility requirements in the first place.
In today’s America, reading the fine print may be the most revolutionary act of all.
NYA thanks Michael Cohen!