In the United States (US), the tension between the Donald Trump administration and federal institutions has, in recent years, given rise to serious debates not only in the context of political competition but also with regard to the impartiality of state institutions and the independence of the law. The announcement by the US Department of Justice that it will establish a new fund of approximately $1.8 billion, to be called the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” has deepened these debates further.[i] It is noted that the fund was brought to the agenda by circles close to the Trump administration on the grounds that certain judicial investigations were conducted not for legal reasons but as part of political competition, and that certain individuals were targeted due to their political affiliations.
The emergence of the fund is linked to the settlement process that followed Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the leaking of his tax records. Within the scope of that process, it was announced that Trump had withdrawn the lawsuit, while at the same time a mechanism of approximately $1.8 billion, to be called the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” would be established.[ii] However, this situation has sparked serious debate over whether the executive branch can use public resources in line with the victimhood claims of politically allied circles.
Debates over the politicization of state institutions in the United States are not new. Particularly since Trump’s first presidential term, discourse alleging that institutions such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the IRS were “used for partisan purposes” has become widespread in Republican circles. Trump and his supporters argue that the investigations conducted especially in the aftermath of the January 6th Capitol assault were politically motivated. Democratic circles, on the other hand, contend that Trump has been running a systematic distrust campaign against state institutions, thereby weakening democratic institutions.
One of the most controversial aspects of the new fund is the possibility that it will cover not only the Trump family but also individuals who participated in the January 6, 2021 Capitol assault and were subsequently pardoned by Trump. This increases criticism that the fund may be used not merely to remedy legal grievances, but also as a tool to consolidate Trump’s political base. Particularly within the Democratic Party, figures have characterized this structure as “a political loyalty fund created with taxpayers’ money.”[iii]
The statements of Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin illustrate the sharpness of these criticisms. Raskin describes the fund as a resource Trump has created “for insurrectionists, extremists, and supporters who rejected the election results.”[iv] For Democrats, the issue is not merely a compensation mechanism; it is also the possibility of the federal budget being redistributed along lines of political loyalty. For this reason, approximately 90 Democratic representatives in Congress are initiating efforts to block the agreement.
The Trump camp, for its part, frames the matter as “a fight against the weaponization of the state.” Lawyers close to Trump argue that federal institutions were deliberately used against conservative circles during the Biden era. This narrative has become a very powerful political discourse on the American right in recent years. In particular, the FBI’s raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, social media companies’ policies targeting conservative accounts, and tax investigations have spread the notion among the Republican base that “the federal government is being used against political rivals.”
The fundamental problem here, however, concerns the independence of the body that will assess the victimhood claims. The fact that four of the five members of the commission tasked with administering the fund are to be appointed by the Attorney General gives rise to objectivity debates, given that the current administration is directly aligned with Trump. Accordingly, the government’s conducting a “victimhood assessment” for its own political allies is being interpreted as an erosion of democratic oversight mechanisms.
Another element that draws more attention from the perspective of the American legal system is the matter of the executive branch suing the institutions it controls. In legal opinions submitted to the court, it is noted that “a sitting president seeking damages from a federal institution under his own control on grounds of personal harm is without precedent.”[v] This situation gives rise to serious debates about how the separation of powers system will function in practice.
In truth, the issue is not limited to Trump. In the United States, debates over the use of the law as a tool of political struggle have become widespread across both right and left circles in recent years. While Republicans argue that Democrats have used federal institutions to pressure their political rivals, Democrats believe that Trump is discrediting legal processes in order to mobilize his own supporters. Thus, legal processes are increasingly becoming part of political polarization.
The long-term implications of these developments are of considerable significance for American democracy. Trust in federal institutions is one of the fundamental elements of the functioning of democratic systems. If state institutions come to be consistently viewed as “partisan tools,” public faith in legal processes will erode. This situation is not unique to the Trump era; on the contrary, it is the institutional reflection of the growing polarization in the United States in recent years.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, stands to gain politically from this fund. Trump positions himself as “the leader fighting against the system.” This strategy proves effective particularly among conservative voters who harbor high levels of distrust toward the federal government. The Anti-Weaponization Fund is thus an institutionalized extension of this political narrative.
In conclusion, the Anti-Weaponization Fund established in the United States is not merely a legal settlement mechanism. This development once again brings to the fore multidimensional debates in American politics regarding the impartiality of state institutions, the use of public resources, political polarization, and the politicization of the law. The Trump administration presents this move as “a fight against the weaponization of the state.” Opposition circles, however, argue that it may lead, on the contrary, to further partisan capture of state institutions. In the period ahead, questions of who will receive payments from this fund, what criteria will be applied, and how Congress will respond will continue to be among the key issues shaping the direction of institutional tensions in American politics.
[i] Debusmann Jr, Bernd. “‘Not a Big Fan’- Top Republican Breaks with Trump on $1.8bn Compensation Fund.” BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9pzp50npeo, (Accessed: 24.05.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
