The Trump administration has unveiled a new $1.8 billion Justice Department-backed compensation fund intended to pay individuals who were investigated or prosecuted during past Democratic administrations. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Monday that this “anti-weaponization fund” is linked to a settlement stemming from Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns during his first term.
While the initiative is designed to compensate those targeted by federal investigators, it has drawn immediate scrutiny regarding its oversight and its potential to reward political allies, including people involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots.
Among those raising concerns is CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings, a prominent defender of the president on cable news, who admitted on CNN NewsNight that the setup makes him a “little uncomfortable.”
RELATED: Government Launches $1.776 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ To Resolve Trump Tax Leak Lawsuit
Jennings agreed with the fundamental idea of creating a safety net for citizens mistreated by federal agencies, pointing back to the origins of the fund. “The question is, has anyone in the history of the United States ever been unfairly targeted by the Department of Justice? Of course they have,” Jennings said. “And there ought to be, just at a top line, a way for people to seek recourse if they have been unfairly targeted.”
He noted that Trump is giving up his personal claims to any settlement money from the IRS lawsuit so the funds can go to others.
“That having been said, this all started by the fact that Donald Trump had his tax returns unfairly and illegally leaked by the IRS. That’s where all this started, and he was initially seeking damages for that, which he has given up. He’ll receive no money, as I understand it, and now it has morphed into this idea that there have been people that have been unfairly targeted.”
However, Jennings questioned the program’s lack of legislative approval and the direct role the executive branch would play in distributing the cash. “All of this makes me a little uncomfortable because it’s a lot of money, and it didn’t go through the U.S. Congress. That’s number one… Number two, I don’t want to see a president necessarily handpicking people to get payments, where he could be accused of just picking people out who are political allies.”
When questioned by fellow panelists about whether January 6 defendants should qualify for these payouts, Jennings clarified that he draws a strict line between nonviolent participants and those who engaged in assault.
“My personal view is anybody who committed documented violence against the government or against police officers, you know, they’ve not been unfairly treated. If they ended up being convicted of a crime because of the violence they committed, I got no real sympathy for them,” Jennings stated. “Now, if there were people who were on the periphery that were swept up, over-prosecuted, whatever, and they have a way to seek recourse here, I have less of a problem with that. But I draw the line at violence.”
Jennings emphasized that he supports a system where citizens can seek damages for federal overreach, but maintained his stance against rewarding rioters who used force. “If you’ve committed political violence, if you attack the government building, if you attack police officers, I got no sympathy.”
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
