As some Republicans seek to distance themselves from President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” others are doubling down in defending Trump and the Justice Department’s startling move to seize Americans’ hard-earned money and redirect it to Trump allies.
Florida Republican congressman and leading gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds practically did back flips during a recent interview with CNN’s Pamela Brown, as he attempted to justify the unprecedented fund, pitched as a means of providing reparations to any American unfairly pursued by the government.
Donalds became increasingly animated as Brown pressed him about backing a program when gas costs have topped $5 per gallon in several regions and households are grappling with a widening affordability crisis.
Brown, in a Thursday, May 21 interview, asked Donalds where he stood on covering the legal fees and emotional distress of convicted Jan. 6 rioters—some who assaulted police officers—after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche refused to rule it out.
‘Heartless Pig’: Trump Stands In Front of Cameras and Casually Brags About Dead Troops Like He’s Reading a Golf Score, Then Critics Unearth the Furious Rants He Desperately Wanted Buried
Donalds began by echoing a familiar Trump tactic, blaming the Biden-era DOJ and surprisingly contending that some rioters were “overcharged.”
Then he attempted to frame the fund as something intended for all Americans.
“[T]hat fund, as I understand it, is open to anybody, Republican or Democrat, independent, no matter what your political viewpoints are,” Donalds insisted.
“If you faced a weaponized prosecution by the federal government, and that fund is available to cover the necessary payments, frankly, for pain, suffering, and mental anguish with your government choosing to persecute you for political reasons,” he added.
But the prosecutions of Jan. 6 rioters were not political. A mob of thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, hunted for lawmakers, damaged government property, and assaulted police. They broke the law and were held accountable.
Donalds argued that the slate of individuals persecuted by previous administrations for political reasons is broad, but Brown would not permit him to dodge the question.
“Yeah, but as you know, people point out that this is primarily going to benefit Trump allies,” Brown said, growing visibly frustrated as Donalds hedged. “And to be clear, yes or no, should individuals convicted of violence against law enforcement, those who continue to protect you daily as a member of Congress, be eligible for compensation from the federal government? Yes or no on that?” Brown pressed clearly.
‘How Dare You!’: JD Vance grew visibly rattled when questioned about Trump’s suspicious activity, then the room watched him spiral into a whiny tirade
As the tension between them intensified, an irate Donalds still dodged the question, blamed Biden, and ultimately aligned with Trump’s aims for the fund, which include reimbursing rioters.
“So, under those circumstances, then yes, as a fund like this should be utilized,” he conceded.
“So, you’re not ruling this out either, that those convicted of attacking police officers could be compensated. You’re not ruling out that that could, that should be a possibility?” Brown pressed on.
A furious Donalds accused Brown of playing politics, interrupted her, and talked over her.
“What you’re trying to do is make an assertion where it doesn’t even exist today, and that’s what you’re doing. So, don’t come in with a leading question trying to make an assertion that doesn’t exist, because you’re trying to make it a political question,” he angrily declared, continuing to advocate for the slush fund.
But she stood her ground.
“All right, and I wanted to give you a chance to share your perspective here, but just to be clear, I’m not driving this. I’m a conduit for concerns raised by people in your own party. You’ve got Republicans in the Senate and House raising questions about who could receive this money, including the January 6 rioters,” Brown replied.
“Is it a fiscally responsible decision for the Trump administration to roll out this $1.8 billion fund when Americans, and Floridians in particular, are grappling with high gas prices?”
An enraged Donalds snapped, accusing Brown of conflating issues.
Brown interrupted, denying the accusation, reiterating that she was asking questions on behalf of voters. Donalds, however, pressed his point again, arguing that Trump cannot be held responsible for rising fuel costs—even as he pointed to an unapproved confrontation with Iran conducted without a clear plan or endgame and without considering that the Islamic Republic might close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which a large portion of the world’s energy has long flowed, or did before Trump’s action.
Social media lit up over Donalds’ claims.
“What an Uncle Tom! @GenFlynn was a traitor! Seen with Putin in person and involved in the inauguration under suspicious circles, and yet he gets pardoned,” one X user wrote.
Donalds pointed to Michael Flynn, who served briefly as Trump’s national security adviser during the first term, as an example of someone who could apply for—and receive—reimbursement from the slush fund, even though Flynn had pleaded guilty to the charges and was eventually pardoned by Trump. Flynn had been prosecuted by Trump’s own Department of Justice.
Raw Story readers weighed in as well.
“…hmmm… Byron Daniels, didn’t he USED TO BE a black man? Nixon – ‘let me be perfectly clear…’”
Another commenter didn’t hold back, “Donalds is too far removed from reality to realize he’s a blithering idiot.”
One irate reader put it this way, “It’s really unfortunate that too many Americans have the attention span of gnats. In one breath, Donalds says most January 6 participants were ‘overcharged,’ and in the next he says Michael Flynn was wrongly prosecuted. Both claims are false. And Donalds will keep lying and whining about his own victimhood-by-proxy as he champions J6er rights… Because, after all, anyone who attempts to topple the federal government should be publicly compensated by the government for their efforts…”
Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization had filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in January over the illegal leak of Trump’s tax returns in 2018, but Trump dropped the suit once it became clear he would likely lose the case and reached a settlement with his own appointees in the Justice Department for the substantial slush fund.
