A banner with a portrait of President Donald Trump is hung from the Department of Justice, Thursday, March 5, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
What happened: After dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for leaking President Trump’s tax returns in 2019 and 2020, the Justice Department established a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund” to pay damages for those who had been targeted by the federal government. While the group in charge of distributing its funds technically answers to the Attorney General, the president retains the right to remove any of its members as he sees fit.
Why it matters: To call the fund controversial would be an understatement, but it’s hardly the first time he’s provoked such a response. And that’s a big part of the problem.
The backstory: What is the “anti-weaponization fund”?
This past January, President Trump sued the IRS for $10 billion after his confidential tax returns for 2019 and 2020 were leaked. The president and two of his sons argued that the IRS should have done more to prevent the leaks. And they have a point. After all, the government contractor who leaked the documents has already been sentenced to five years in prison, so everyone involved clearly understands that what happened was wrong.
However, certain elements of the case made it tricky to adjudicate. If the lawsuit came from private citizen Trump, then awarding damages would be a bit more straightforward. However, President Trump technically oversees the agency he was suing, meaning he was essentially “suing his own government and then paying himself billions of dollars of taxpayer money” if the case went in his favor.
The courts were understandably wary of setting that precedent, and it was beginning to look like the case would get thrown out before it ever went to trial. The judge in charge set a May 20 deadline for the Justice Department and President Trump’s lawyers to submit their briefs in the case, but it never reached that point.
Two days before a ruling could be handed down, the Justice Department announced that it had reached a settlement to create a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund” to provide relief for those who claim to have been politically targeted by the government under previous administrations. Claims will be processed until December 1, 2028, granting those with a grievance until the end of the president’s term to make their case for why they deserve a portion of those funds.
As you might expect, the outcome created quite a bit of controversy, and the implications of what comes next, whether it’s actually legal, and the precedent it could set for future administrations remain hazy at best. So, let’s take a closer look at what the judgment actually means.
More of the same or something new?
Isaac Saul has a good rundown of the story and how the fund functions, but some of the key components are:
- The $1.776 billion comes from an existing judgment fund that the federal government uses to settle lawsuits against the US. That fund technically exists without a budget, so there was no cap or set pool from which the funds were allocated.
- Congress should have the power to step in and determine how those funds can be used, but it’s unclear at this point if they will.
- A five-person board appointed by the Attorney General will be responsible for disbursing the funds. These individuals can be replaced at any time by the president.
- Claims will not require congressional or judicial review in order to be paid out. The Attorney General will provide a quarterly report on how much was given and to whom, but that appears to be the extent of the transparency.
In defense of the fund, the Justice Department cited the Obama administration’s 2011 settlement in the Keepseagle case as precedent for the anti-weaponization fund. In that instance, $760 million was appropriated and approved through judicial review to compensate Native American farmers who were denied access to Department of Agriculture credit and loan services. Once the claims were paid out, the remaining funds were distributed to non-profits and NGOs that worked with the Native American communities.
There are, however, some important differences between those cases, with the most important being the lack of judicial oversight.
While President Trump is not personally eligible to receive the funds set aside, he is ultimately responsible for determining who can. As such, it’s been understandably criticized by those on the right and the left as a “slush fund” that will be used to compensate the president’s allies with little to no limitations—at least in its current form—over who will be eligible.
And that authority is not the only reason why many are wary of what could come next.
Why President Trump does not deserve the benefit of the doubt
Among the chief concerns over the anti-weaponization fund is the precedent it will establish for future presidents. As Dan McLaughlin described:
The classic Trump modus operandi is to look at something crooked that is done smoothly and quietly by the left through sophisticated lawyering on the left — and then imitate it while saying all the quiet parts out loud. This is another instance.
One of the chief problems in politics today is the way that practices deemed borderline in one administration become normative in the next. It’s been that way for a while, but few presidents have pushed those precedents further than Donald Trump.
At times, doing so appears to have been in service to the nation. At others, it appears to have been in service to himself and his family. And at times, you could make the argument that it’s both.
But the basic facts are that President Trump has done more to personally profit from his time in the Oval Office than anyone before him. And while some of those moves are more defensible than others, when you make billions of dollars for yourself and your family by trading on your influence as president, it comes at the cost of increased scrutiny and immediate doubts when future decisions could add to that list.
And what’s true of presidents is true for each of us as well.
Spiritual application: Forgiveness does not remove consequences
One of the reasons Scripture warns so frequently and so strongly against taking sin is that, while God promises to forgive its eternal consequences when we genuinely repent, he does not promise to remove its consequences. As Paul wrote to the church in Galatia:
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption. (Galatians 6:7–8)
And what we reap will often impact those around us in ways that are difficult to quantify in the moment. Just as past presidents set precedents for future administrations to follow, when people see us act as though sin is of little concern, we make it easier for them to sin as well.
Fortunately, Paul’s message to the Galatians was not just a warning. As he goes on to write:
But the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. (Galatians 6:8–9).
The bottom line is that every action we take has consequences, for better or worse, that will impact our lives and the lives of those around us. If the people around you know that you profess to be a Christian—and if they don’t, that’s a red flag in its own right—then you are often the measure by which they will judge what it looks like to follow Jesus. If their walk with Christ mirrored your own, how close would they be to the Lord?
Our calling as Christians is to live in such a way that when people look at us, they don’t have to look much further to see Jesus.
How well are you living out that calling today?
News worth knowing
1. US bombs southern Iran as peace talks continue
The United States attacked missile launch sites and boats that were attempting to lay more mines in the Strait of Hormuz earlier today. While US Central Command (Centcom) stated that the attacks were defensive and did not violate the ceasefire agreement, they come at a time of increased pressure and scrutiny as Iranian leaders head to Qatar for the next round of peace talks.
Why it matters
The Strait of Hormuz appears to have become as important—if not more so—than Iran’s nuclear capacities in the ongoing negotiations to end the war. Early reports are that the deal currently being negotiated would prioritize opening the Strait over forcing Iran to give up its stockpile of nuclear materials, though trusting that any such reports are accurate has become increasingly difficult. Preventing Iran from fortifying its defenses along the coast is a key step toward ensuring that the Strait can be opened as quickly as possible should any such agreement come into effect.
What to watch
Will the upcoming round of negotiations be any more fruitful than the talks that have taken place to this point? Will Iran try to respond to the latest attack by targeting American bases or allies in the region?
The Guardian has more on the story
2. Pope Leo XIV warns about the impact of artificial intelligence in his first encyclical
In Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”), he notes that AI can be a useful tool, but warns that it will carry the values of the people and corporations that design it. As part of the encyclical, he identified five key areas in which the technology could negatively impact our relationships with one another and with the broader world.
Why it matters
While some who are fearful of the future AI could bring have advocated for rejecting the technology, Leo’s focus was more on calling for new guidelines to help ensure that human dignity is not lost in the pursuit of technological advancement. Regardless of what you may think about the pope or the Catholic Church, an approach to artificial intelligence that does not lose sight of people in the process is a necessary word of caution.
What to watch
As the spiritual leader for almost 20 percent of the global population—including nearly half of the Americas—Leo’s perspective could have an enormous impact on how people see the future of AI. That said, influencing the general public will accomplish relatively little unless he can also influence the technological and political leaders who will shape that future. Will their approaches change in any substantive ways to reflect his own?
3. The inaugural Enhanced Games ended with only one new record
Professional sports—particularly those of the Olympic variety—have had a long and troubled history with performance-enhancing drugs. In Sunday’s inaugural Enhanced Games, though, they were embraced by athletes and spectators alike. The organizers of the event hoped several world records would be broken, but in the end, only the 50-meter freestyle record fell.
Why it matters
38 of the day’s 42 competitors used a doctor-approved, personalized cocktail of performance-enhancing drugs in the months leading up to the Games. But while testing their limits was part of the motivation, money was the primary factor. As Shania Collins, who competed in the 100-meter sprint, noted, her $125,000 payday was “bigger than any contract I ever got my entire pro career. In one meet, in 10 seconds.” Greek swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev, who broke the only world record for the day, walked away with $1.5 million.
What to watch
Now that the first Enhanced Games have come and gone, will it prove to be more of a novelty and a gimmick, or will it provide real competition to the legitimate versions of these events? Will attempts to market these same drugs to the general public—the driving force behind the Games—succeed and, if so, what kind of impact will it have on young athletes and others?
God is good
When comedian Nate Bargatze recently spoke about his upcoming film, “The Breadwinner,” he said he sees his career as a “calling” from God and that his Christian upbringing has shaped both his stand-up and the movie. He went on to describe how creating something that families could see together, and that the 12-year-old version of him wouldn’t have gotten in trouble for viewing, helped set parameters for the project.
Kingdom impact
While the film is not overtly Christian, Bargatze said his hope was “to show a wonderful family. It’s not just a movie about being a dumb dad. It’s just a dad figuring it out.” So many of today’s films, particularly those ostensibly made for families, seem to be built on a foundation of conflict and derision that has only vague similarities to the way God intended for families to function. If this film offers the chance to give kids and parents alike a more biblical picture of what those relationships are supposed to look like, then it could be a resource that the Lord can use to help others draw closer to one another and closer to him.
Prayer point
“The Breadwinner” opens this weekend. Will you pray that it provides families with a fun experience together while giving parents and kids the opportunity to have important conversations about what the Bible says those relationships should look like?
Christian Post has more on the story
