{"id":154787,"date":"2026-06-15T11:59:21","date_gmt":"2026-06-15T19:59:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/06\/15\/top-doj-official-wanted-a-cut-of-the-trump-slush-fund\/"},"modified":"2026-06-15T11:59:21","modified_gmt":"2026-06-15T19:59:21","slug":"top-doj-official-wanted-a-cut-of-the-trump-slush-fund","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/06\/15\/top-doj-official-wanted-a-cut-of-the-trump-slush-fund\/","title":{"rendered":"Top DOJ Official Wanted A Cut Of The Trump Slush Fund"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Trump \u201cAnti-Weaponization Fund\u201d \u2014 the $1.776 billion slush fund the DOJ announced in May<\/a> without congressional authorization, to pay out Trump allies including January 6 rioters, administered by Trump\u2019s personal lawyer<\/a> turned Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, potentially including a pardoned child molester<\/a> \u2014 is, as of this writing, dead. Probably.<\/p>\n

The fund has been indefinitely blocked <\/a>by Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, who remains unimpressed by the Trump administration\u2019s assurances that the whole thing is moot. She\u2019s not taking Blanche\u2019s un-sworn word for it, noting that his statements, and Trump\u2019s, for that matter, have not been made under penalty of perjury. This matters because Blanche told House lawmakers the fund was finished (\u201cWe\u2019re not moving forward with the fund, period\u201d), while Trump, asked the same question the following day, told reporters \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d A different judge, D.C.\u2019s Richard Leon, accepted the mootness argument in a parallel case (with a pointed warning, \u201cDon\u2019t play possum with this court\u201d<\/a>). But Judge Brinkema is not gambling on this administration\u2019s good faith, and frankly, who could blame her.<\/p>\n

But Politico uncovered <\/a>an additional wrinkle to this mess: Patrick Davis, the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs \u2014 i.e., the DOJ official whose job<\/em> was to sell the slush fund to Congress \u2014 quietly told colleagues in May that he intended to file a personal claim against the fund and asked to recuse himself from related work because he saw it as a conflict.<\/p>\n

The conflict stems from Davis\u2019s prior life as Sen. Chuck Grassley\u2019s senior aide. During the Russiagate investigation, Davis\u2019s phone and email records were subpoenaed, something he only discovered years later. He told the New York Times in 2024 that it \u201cfelt like a violation, not simply on a personal level, but more importantly of the separation of powers given the nature of our oversight work.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alright, calm down. Davis\u2019s records were subpoenaed, meaning a judge signed off on the whole thing. Judges approve millions of subpoenas a year that don\u2019t result in fat paydays for those whose records were sought. But the Anti-Weaponization Fund was only really about vibes and the belief that anything that ever made a Trump ally uncomfortable was an abuse of government power deserving taxpayer-funded restitution. Under that standard, Davis presumably qualifies.<\/p>\n

The problem, as his colleagues noted, is that Davis was the person responsible for explaining the fund to the senators, which made his sudden desire to recuse himself and potentially collect from it noteworthy. \u201c[Davis] has relationships with the senators, and it was a very tough time for him to back out,\u201d one administration official told Politico. \u201cIn a very fraught moment, with legislative affairs and stuff with the Hill, DOJ needed to have the head of leg affairs involved.\u201d<\/p>\n

A second official was less charitable, suggesting the recusal request was more about conflict-avoidance than conflict-of-interest: \u201cIt was a hard issue and he just didn\u2019t want to deal with it and didn\u2019t want to be there to address the difficult conversations. The thing was a cop-out.\u201d<\/p>\n

A DOJ spokesperson told Politico that Davis temporarily recused himself \u201cout of an abundance of caution\u201d and that after internal consultation it was decided \u201crecusal was not necessary for a number of reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n

So the DOJ official tapped to defend a legally dubious slush fund to Congress tried to bail on those conversations because he was planning to cash in on the same fund. You almost have to appreciate the efficiency of the self-dealing.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Top DOJ Official Wanted A Cut Of The Trump Slush Fund<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTotally not suspicious at all.\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Trump \u201cAnti-Weaponization Fund\u201d \u2014 the $1.776 billion slush fund the DOJ announced in May<\/a> without congressional authorization, to pay out Trump allies including January 6 rioters, administered by Trump\u2019s personal lawyer<\/a> turned Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, potentially including a pardoned child molester<\/a> \u2014 is, as of this writing, dead. Probably.<\/p>\n

The fund has been indefinitely blocked <\/a>by Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, who remains unimpressed by the Trump administration\u2019s assurances that the whole thing is moot. She\u2019s not taking Blanche\u2019s un-sworn word for it, noting that his statements, and Trump\u2019s, for that matter, have not been made under penalty of perjury. This matters because Blanche told House lawmakers the fund was finished (\u201cWe\u2019re not moving forward with the fund, period\u201d), while Trump, asked the same question the following day, told reporters \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d A different judge, D.C.\u2019s Richard Leon, accepted the mootness argument in a parallel case (with a pointed warning, \u201cDon\u2019t play possum with this court\u201d<\/a>). But Judge Brinkema is not gambling on this administration\u2019s good faith, and frankly, who could blame her.<\/p>\n

But Politico uncovered <\/a>an additional wrinkle to this mess: Patrick Davis, the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs \u2014 i.e., the DOJ official whose job<\/em> was to sell the slush fund to Congress \u2014 quietly told colleagues in May that he intended to file a personal claim against the fund and asked to recuse himself from related work because he saw it as a conflict.<\/p>\n

The conflict stems from Davis\u2019s prior life as Sen. Chuck Grassley\u2019s senior aide. During the Russiagate investigation, Davis\u2019s phone and email records were subpoenaed, something he only discovered years later. He told the New York Times in 2024 that it \u201cfelt like a violation, not simply on a personal level, but more importantly of the separation of powers given the nature of our oversight work.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alright, calm down. Davis\u2019s records were subpoenaed, meaning a judge signed off on the whole thing. Judges approve millions of subpoenas a year that don\u2019t result in fat paydays for those whose records were sought. But the Anti-Weaponization Fund was only really about vibes and the belief that anything that ever made a Trump ally uncomfortable was an abuse of government power deserving taxpayer-funded restitution. Under that standard, Davis presumably qualifies.<\/p>\n

The problem, as his colleagues noted, is that Davis was the person responsible for explaining the fund to the senators, which made his sudden desire to recuse himself and potentially collect from it noteworthy. \u201c[Davis] has relationships with the senators, and it was a very tough time for him to back out,\u201d one administration official told Politico. \u201cIn a very fraught moment, with legislative affairs and stuff with the Hill, DOJ needed to have the head of leg affairs involved.\u201d<\/p>\n

A second official was less charitable, suggesting the recusal request was more about conflict-avoidance than conflict-of-interest: \u201cIt was a hard issue and he just didn\u2019t want to deal with it and didn\u2019t want to be there to address the difficult conversations. The thing was a cop-out.\u201d<\/p>\n

A DOJ spokesperson told Politico that Davis temporarily recused himself \u201cout of an abundance of caution\u201d and that after internal consultation it was decided \u201crecusal was not necessary for a number of reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n

So the DOJ official tapped to defend a legally dubious slush fund to Congress tried to bail on those conversations because he was planning to cash in on the same fund. You almost have to appreciate the efficiency of the self-dealing.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Trump \u201cAnti-Weaponization Fund\u201d \u2014 the $1.776 billion slush fund the DOJ announced in May without congressional authorization, to pay out Trump allies including January 6 rioters, administered by Trump\u2019s personal lawyer turned Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, potentially including a pardoned child molester \u2014 is, as of this writing, dead. Probably. The fund has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":154768,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154787","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-v6XBpi.jpg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154787","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154787"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154787\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154768"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154787"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154787"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}