To understand what just happened with the “anti-weaponization” fund in Congress, you need to understand a little bit of context about the past few months of legislative back-and-forth.
In February, in the wake of the killing of two US citizens during the ICE surge in Minnesota, Democrats demanded strict legislative restrictions on domestic immigration enforcement — blocking funding for the Department of Homeland Security when Trump refused. In late April, the parties agreed to a compromise: They would fund every part of DHS except for ICE and Border Patrol, which would operate using last year’s budget outlays until a separate bill could be passed funding them for the forthcoming fiscal year.
Unable to compromise with Democrats on ICE restrictions, Republicans decided to try and pass their funding using a process called budget reconciliation. Reconciliation is not subject to a Senate filibuster and thus can’t be blocked by the Democratic minority, though it does allow them to force amendment votes. The plan was to pass a reconciliation bill in late May.
But on May 18, the Trump administration announced the creation of the “anti-weaponization” fund. It was the result of Trump essentially settling a lawsuit against himself — he filed suit against the IRS, an agency he controls, as a private citizen over his leaked tax returns. The fund was designed to support victims of alleged political persecution under the Biden administration. There were no rules constraining its disbursement, and Democrats immediately pounced: claiming that Trump was robbing the Treasury to pay himself and violent January 6 rioters.
Republicans knew that these Democratic attacks had bite. On May 21, GOP senators met with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to see if there was anything that could constrain potential abuse of the fund. The meeting, by all accounts, was a disaster: Blanche had no good answers for their questions, as the fund was designed to give Trump maximum discretion over payments. Furious, they left town for a weeklong Memorial Day recess without passing the reconciliation package funding ICE and Border Patrol.
Which brings us to Monday, June 1: Congress returned to Washington.
When the day began, Republicans were contemplating a very difficult choice. If they tried to pass the ICE funding bill, Democrats would force them to take a series of votes on amendments constraining Trump’s power over the weaponization fund. If they simply voted down Democratic ideas, they would own the fund in political terms — becoming valid targets of biting attack ads if Trump paid out a cop beater or child molester. If they passed some restrictions without White House approval, they’d suffer Trump’s wrath.
The revolt also wasn’t confined to the Senate: House Speaker Mike Johnson went to the White House on Monday to talk with Trump about the fund. We don’t know exactly what was said during that meeting, but leaks about the fund’s suspension began appearing shortly afterward — with every piece citing Republican opposition in Congress as a key reason for the decision.
There is an important lesson here: that Trump has limits, even with the mostly pliant Republicans in Congress. This is “a predictable reaction from the members,” says Liam Donovan, a Republican strategist and president of the GOP-aligned Targeted Victory Fund.
Indeed, the weaponization fund is not the only recent act of congressional rebellion.
Trump’s proposal to build a new White House ballroom, widely seen as a pointless vanity project, has run into significant opposition — with Republicans refusing to fund it as part of the ICE reconciliation package. Just recently, the Senate voted to advance a War Powers Resolution act that would, in theory, force Trump to end the war in Iran absent explicit congressional authorization. And Trump has lost some key policy votes, such as when the House passed a bill in February that would end Trump’s tariffs on Canada.
It is still uncommon for Republicans to fight back against something Trump really wants, and many of his defeats there are symbolic. High-profile effective challenges to Trump remain quite rare.
However, there is a difference between “quite rare” and “unheard of,” which is basically how Congress operated in the early months of Trump’s presidency. It seems that the specific ways he has gone about trying to consolidate his own power have, over time, created space for greater friction in Congress — or even actively generated pushback. And given the narrow majorities in both the House and Senate, it doesn’t take a lot of resistance to block a bill.
Read Zack’s full story here.
