U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund appeared to be on shaky ground Monday as he continued to face opposition from his own party.
Trump had not yet made a public announcement by late afternoon, but several media outlets reported the president planned to possibly drop the fund to clear the way for Senate Republicans to advance a $72 billion immigration enforcement funding package. Politico reported White House officials communicated the decision Monday to Republicans on Capitol Hill, according to two unnamed sources.
Trump’s fund has sparked resistance from both parties as concerns mounted that Jan. 6, 2021, riot defendants who assaulted police officers could conceivably get reparations by claiming the law was “weaponized” against them for political purposes.
A slew of lawsuits challenging what opponents called a “slush fund” followed, including from police officers who defended the Capitol that day.
Shortly after the reports circulated that Trump might shelve the idea, the Department of Justice defended the fund on social media but said it would comply with a court order issued Friday temporarily barring the government from any further action on the fund. The order did not address the merits of a suit filed against the fund.
“The Department of Justice disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund put forth by the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, wherein the Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people. This Fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise. The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling,” according to the department’s post on X.
The DOJ and the White House directed States Newsroom to the post when asked if the president would scrap the fund altogether.
Several Republicans vehemently opposed the fund, including retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who called the fund “stupid on stilts.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., abandoned plans for a floor vote on the immigration bill ahead of the Memorial Day recess as members threatened to defect unless the budget reconciliation package also included language to apply guardrails on the massive “anti-weaponization” pot of money.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday that even if Trump says he will drop the fund, “a promise from Trump is worthless.”
“If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law,” Schumer said on the floor. “This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump’s word is nowhere near enough.”
The Department of Justice announced the $1.776 billion fund on May 18 as a condition for Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. A day later, the DOJ issued another order declaring Trump and his family would be forever immune from government inquiries, including tax audits, as part of Trump’s voluntary dismissal of the suit.
Blake McDonald (left) and Chad Stewart pose with their daughter, Flora, during the launch of the Virginians for Marriage Equality campaign near the Bell Tower in Richmond’s Capitol Square on Monday, the start of LGBTQ Pride Month. The campaign supports a constitutional amendment referendum that would permanently protect same-sex marriage in Virginia’s constitution. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury)
Chad Stewart and Blake McDonald met in college in 2007 and began dating two years later, eventually building a life together in Richmond after settling in Virginia more than a decade ago.
By 2015, the couple married — just one week before the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
“We didn’t want to have to think about politics or court cases,” McDonald said Monday outside the Bell Tower in Richmond’s Capitol Square. “We just wanted to dream about the future we’re going to build together.”
The couple spoke as Virginians for Marriage Equality formally launched its statewide campaign to pass a constitutional amendment referendum in November that would permanently protect same-sex marriage in the Virginia Constitution.
The coalition gathered at the start of LGBTQ Pride Month to rally support for the amendment, which would repeal Virginia’s dormant constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and replace it with language requiring the commonwealth to recognize all marriages, regardless of sex, gender or race.
Advocates say the amendment is needed in case federal protections for same-sex marriage are ever overturned.
Concerns intensified after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022 and Justice Clarence Thomas later suggested the court should reconsider other rulings involving privacy and due process rights, including same-sex marriage protections.
Over time, Stewart said, the future he and McDonald imagined together in Virginia expanded beyond the two of them. During the pandemic, they began the adoption process. In 2023, they received a call, giving them just 16 hours notice before bringing home their daughter, Flora.
“And so now our life is daycare drop offs, bedtime routines, holidays together, play dates with neighbors, and our daughter proudly calling the people down the street family, too,” Stewart said.
From Marshall-Newman to Obergefell
Virginia’s fight over marriage equality has spanned two decades, from one of the country’s strictest constitutional bans to this year’s referendum effort to permanently protect those marriages in state law.
Voters approved the Marshall-Newman amendment in 2006 after legislation introduced by then-Del. Bob Marshall, R-Manassass, and then-Sen. Steve Newman, R-Bedford County.
The amendment defined marriage exclusively as a union between “one man and one woman” and barred the state from recognizing same-sex relationships or similar legal arrangements.
Roughly 57% of voters backed the amendment at the time.
A federal judge struck down Virginia’s ban in 2014, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the ruling. When the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Virginia’s appeal later that year, same-sex marriages began statewide.
The following year, the high court’s Obergefell ruling established a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage under the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. Although the decision invalidated Virginia’s constitutional ban, the language itself remained in the state constitution.
The amendment before voters in the 2026 midterm elections passed the General Assembly in 2025 and again during the 2026 legislative session, satisfying the constitutional requirement that amendments pass in two separately elected legislatures before reaching the ballot.
If approved by voters this fall, the amendment would repeal the Marshall-Newman language and replace it with protections requiring Virginia to recognize marriages regardless of sex, gender or race.
Former state senator Adam Ebbin speaks during the launch of the Virginians for Marriage Equality campaign in Richmond Monday. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury)
‘Dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law’
In Richmond Monday, several speakers described the referendum as the culmination of decades of legislative efforts and legal battles.
Former state senator Adam Ebbin, a Democrat from Alexandria and the first openly gay legislator elected to Virginia’s General Assembly in 2003, recalled watching lawmakers approve the constitutional ban more than 20 years ago.
“For Mark and me, today is deeply personal,” Ebbin said, referring to Virginia Secretary of Finance Mark Sickles, another openly gay former lawmaker standing next to him.
“Twenty years ago, we stood in the General Assembly and watched Virginia write discrimination into its constitution. We argued against it, we voted against it, and for 20 years, we worked to undo that mistake.”
Ebbin said same-sex couples across Virginia have spent more than a decade building families while the constitutional ban remained written into state law.
“Back in 2006, Virginians were told that marriage equality would somehow threaten our community,” Ebbin said. “But today, for more than a decade, same-sex couples have been building marriages, raising children, buying homes, and growing all together across the commonwealth.”
Sickles said public attitudes shifted over time as LGBTQ Virginians became more visible in communities and families across the state.
“People keep organizing,” Sickles said. “Families kept showing up. Virginia has changed because people got to know their neighbors, their coworkers, their friends, their siblings, their children more fully.”
Narissa Rahaman, executive director of Equality Virginia and a committee member of Virginians for Marriage Equality, described the campaign as centered on dignity, family and personal freedom.
“This November, Virginians have the opportunity to protect the Freedom to marry and affirm what so many of us already know,” Rahaman said. “Every Virginia family deserves dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law.”
Rahaman referred to her marriage to her wife, Brianna, as “a million little decisions and a million little moments” built around love, commitment and stability.
“No family in Virginia should have to wonder whether their rights will be protected tomorrow,” she said.
Marshall, the sponsor of Virginia’s 2006 same-sex marriage ban, declined to comment when reached by phone Monday.
But the political landscape around the issue has since shifted dramatically. In 2024, then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, signed legislation sponsored by Democratic lawmakers aimed at ensuring same-sex marriage would remain legal in Virginia regardless of future federal court decisions.
Still, Youngkin’s office at the time emphasized provisions protecting religious liberties, including language allowing clergy members and religious organizations to decline to perform same-sex weddings.
Campaign heads into election season
Organizers said they plan to spend the coming months traveling across Virginia to build support ahead of the November elections.
Alexandria Democrat Del. Kirk McPike, who is also campaign co-chair, said marriage equality advocates will engage voters in communities statewide in the coming months.
“My own husband, Jason, and I have built a life together here in Virginia, just like thousands of other couples and families across the commonwealth,” McPike said. “Every Virginian has a place in this campaign and a place in this commonwealth.”
Mary Bauer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, tied the amendment effort to Virginia’s broader civil rights history, including the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down interracial marriage bans.
“This amendment is about making clear that the government has no business deciding which marriages or which families are worthy of recognition,” Bauer said.
For Stewart and McDonald, the constitutional debate ultimately comes back to protecting and honoring their union.
“When you build a family like that, legal recognition stops feeling abstract very quickly,” Stewart said. “Marriage equality is what allows families like ours to navigate healthcare, school enrollment, parenting, and all the ordinary parts of life that come with making a home together.”
The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., home of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on July 14, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Transgender military members won a temporary victory against the Trump administration in federal appeals court Monday when two judges ruled a policy banning them from service violated their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
Judges Judith W. Rogers and Robert L. Wilkins for the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia upheld a lower court ruling allowing those plaintiffs involved in the case to continue their service. The decision is a preliminary injunction, meaning the case will continue to play out in court.
The policy, issued by President Donald Trump in an executive order in January 2025 and carried out by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Wilkins wrote for the 2-1 decision.
“As such, at this preliminary stage, I conclude that the Hegseth Policy is both arbitrary and based upon animus, and for those reasons the Policy violates Plaintiff-Appellees’ constitutional right to equal protection of the law,” continued Wilkins, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2014.
Rogers was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.
Judge Justin R. Walker, a 2019 Trump appointee, dissented.
Walker argued U.S. Supreme Court precedent dictates “the military can deprive its members of rights that the Constitution may well guarantee to civilians.”
“Like today’s majority, I cherish those rights, and so I understand the impulse behind the majority’s unprecedented intervention into military affairs. But because the plaintiffs are service members not civilians, and because we are judges not generals, I respectfully dissent,” Walker wrote.
Jennifer Levi, the lead attorney for the eight military plaintiffs, said Monday’s appeals ruling is an “enormous victory.”
“I will say that the plaintiffs in this case have just served their country with incredible honor and courage, and this decision is a recognition of that fact,” Levi, senior director for GLAD Law, told States Newsroom in an interview.
“And really it’s important because (it is) recognizing that those who are capable of serving should be able to continue.”
States Newsroom reached out to the Pentagon and the White House for comment.
Eight active-duty service members and transgender individuals who are actively pursuing enlistment in the armed forces initially brought the case, Talbott et al v. Trump, against Trump and Hegseth, among other officials and three branches of the U.S. military. The number of plaintiffs has since grown.
The preliminary injunction does not extend to the plaintiffs pursuing enlistment, and does not extend universally to all active transgender service members beyond those who filed the case.
Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride, an advocacy organization for transgender service members, said many transgender service members, including her, are uncertain about the future of their careers.
“While today’s decision provides important relief for certain named plaintiffs, it does not extend protection to the broader transgender military community. Thousands of service members remain subject to ongoing administrative actions, involuntary separation processes, and significant uncertainty about their futures,” said Corcoran, an 18-year Army veteran who is awaiting the military’s decision on whether they will allow her to claim retirement instead of a separation because she is transgender.
Corcoran said “there’s a lot of unknowns to the future” for named plaintiffs and others as the government could seek an emergency stay on the ruling as they did in a separate case, Shilling et al v. Trump.
In Shilling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 18, 2025, upheld a lower court’s ruling that allowed transgender troops to continue serving, denying the government’s appeal.
In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Trump to ban transgender people from the military.
“This is now two appellate courts from both Schilling and Talbot who have now signaled to the Supreme Court that yes, this is irreparable harm to people who are in (this situation), and at the same time, it’s discrimination,” she said.
The Virginia House chamber during a special session at the Capitol in Richmond last month. Lawmakers adjourned without reaching agreement on the state's biennial budget, leaving negotiations unresolved ahead of a planned June return to Richmond. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury)
Virginia lawmakers are set to return to Richmond this month for another attempt to reach a budget deal, with just days until the start of the new fiscal year and no agreement yet on the state’s next two-year spending plan.
The House of Delegates is scheduled to reconvene its special session June 18 at 10 a.m., followed by the Senate on June 22 at noon, as negotiators continue working toward a compromise budget that can pass both chambers and reach Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s desk before the June 30 deadline.
Failure to enact a budget before the new fiscal year begins would result in a government shutdown, creating fiscal uncertainty for state agencies, local governments and school divisions that depend on state funding. Spanberger has repeatedly warned against allowing negotiations to extend beyond the deadline.
“It’s absolutely unacceptable if the General Assembly would allow for the state to go past July 1,” she told Cardinal News last month.
Lawmakers have remained at an impasse since the regular 2026 General Assembly session ended without a budget, despite Democrats controlling both chambers of the legislature. A special session in April also ended without a deal.
The biggest sticking point is a Senate-backed proposal to begin phasing out the state’s sales and use tax exemption for data centers before it expires nine years from now.
Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee Chair Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, has argued the fast-growing industry places increasing demands on Virginia’s electrical grid and water resources while producing relatively few long-term jobs.
Spanberger and House Democrats have opposed ending the incentive prematurely, arguing it could damage Virginia’s reputation with businesses and discourage future investment.
The tax exemption was approved in 2008 and is authorized through 2035. Lawmakers originally estimated it would reduce state revenue by about $1.5 million annually. Today, its value is estimated at nearly $2 billion a year, as Virginia has become the world’s largest data center market.
Spanberger said she is open to discussions about what happens after 2035.
“There are efforts afoot in the General Assembly, as it relates to the budget, to ensure that data centers are paying their fair share, as I think everyone broadly agrees is necessary,” Spanberger said in mid-April. ”And so that will continue to play out in those negotiations.”
But the governor said she opposes changing the policy before the exemption lapses.
“If Virginia were to take an adversarial stance towards any particular industry, it sends the wrong signal broadly, and we’re already seeing it with the decision to move away from the tax abatement,” she told Cardinal News in an interview published last week.
“It is the absolute prerogative of the General Assembly to look towards the future and to have conversations about incentives they do or do not want to give into the future.”
She also warned that ending the incentive early could invite legal challenges.
“As governor, I’m not going to break a contract that the state has signed — one, because who’s going to fund those lawsuits when we have to defend ourselves from broken contracts?” Spanberger said.
The dispute has put the governor at odds with Lucas, one of the Senate’s most powerful members.
In a series of posts Wednesday on X, formerly Twitter, Lucas blamed the administration and House Democrats for the continued stalemate.
“The Governor and the House are the ones that are gambling with our future by allowing the data centers to expand without concern for power, water, or paying their fair share of taxes,” Lucas wrote.
“The Governor should be honest and tell the public what she won’t do — she won’t tax billion dollar corporations to provide long term revenue to help pay for K12 and public safety and to backfill the federal cuts from Trump.”
“That’s the budget hold up!! Once again, the Governor is wrong on the policy and knows Virginians will cook her if there is a government shutdown.”
Lucas has repeatedly defended the Senate proposal during budget discussions.
At a Senate Finance Committee meeting in May, she argued the state should not continue providing the incentive without additional policy changes.
“Data centers will employ very few permanent jobs for a sizable tax giveaway,” Lucas said.
“This is imperative to encourage responsible growth in the commonwealth to protect our electric grid and natural resources, while also ensuring hard working Virginians are not asked to pick up higher utility costs to fund a higher share of our existing core services,” she added.
Despite the disagreement, Lucas said at the time that she expects lawmakers to reach a deal before the new fiscal year begins.
“Virginia will have a budget by June 30,” she said. “We will have to get this right for Virginians.”
Meanwhile, state officials are preparing updated financial projections to aid negotiations.
Earlier this month, Spanberger directed state finance officials to roll out a revised revenue forecast that will include projections through fiscal year 2031. The administration said the updated forecast is intended to give budget conferees a clearer picture of the state’s fiscal outlook.
“When making long-term budget commitments, it is important that policymakers have the most current and accurate information available,” Spanberger said in a statement. “This updated forecast will help provide budget conferees and the public with greater confidence as negotiations continue on the commonwealth’s next two-year budget.”
The request came as Virginia Secretary of Finance Mark Sickles warned that parts of the state’s economy are showing signs of weakness.
During last month’s meeting of the Senate’s money committee, Sickles pointed to slower job growth, persistent inflation and declining consumer confidence, even as state revenues continue to exceed expectations.
Those stronger revenues have given negotiators additional room as they work toward a budget agreement before July 1.
If state leaders don’t finalize the budget by July 1, Virginia school leaders say there will be insufficient funding for special education, at-risk students, educator compensation and student services. (Photo by Getty Images)
Virginia’s education leaders say they are optimistic about the proposed K-12 funding in the state budget, but their outlook is tempered by uncertainty as state leaders and the governor have yet to reach an agreement on a new two-year spending plan.
Passing a new budget as quickly as possible is crucial for education leaders and localities because it guides their priorities including funding programs, facility projects, and, most importantly, staffing during a nationwide educator shortage.
School boards are feeling the pressure as they collaborate with local officials and administrators to prepare for the upcoming school year.
“Budget certainty is critical for school boards and school divisions,” Gina Patterson, executive director of the Virginia School Board Association, representing the largest group of board members in the commonwealth, said in a statement to the Mercury.
“At this time, our hope is simply that state leaders can come to a resolution on the budget in a timely manner so divisions across the commonwealth can move forward with greater clarity and stability.”
The main issue delaying an agreement among lawmakers is how to handle revenue from one of the most successful industries — data centers.
The Senate passed a budget that would end data centers’ sales and use tax exemption and redirect an estimated $1.6 billion annually towards other areas, including education and transportation.
The House budget, however, would maintain the exemption, which is set to end in 2035. Gov. Abigail Spanberger aligns with the House budget and preservation of data centers’ tax break.
Meanwhile, the cost of living for Virginians has risen since the budgets were proposed, largely due to factors such as the start of a U.S. war with Iran, which has increased costs for food and gasoline. The state is also facing a July 1 deadline before government operations could shut down.
Neither chair of the House or Senate appropriations committees responded to the Mercury’s requests for comment on the status of budget negotiations.
Education carveouts in the budget
The packages proposed by both chambers include line items to support students, schools and employees. But they differ in how to do so.
In the House, lawmakers proposed a flat $1,500 one-time payment for eligible school employees in 2026, instead of a small percentage bonus. In addition, eligible employees would also receive a total 4% raise, with 2% increases in both 2027 and 2028.
The Senate proposal differs from the House plan by providing eligible employees with a roughly 6% raise over the next two years and increasing funding for teaching scholarships and residency programs.
Another area of interest for localities is financial assistance for school construction, which can be costly, especially in areas with a local composite index (LCI) that determines what each locality can pay for its schools.
If the language in the Senate budget is approved by the governor, the state would allow localities to approve, by vote, up to a 1% local sales tax to pay for school construction costs, a central factor in an ongoing debate about aging school buildings.
“It’s an important mechanism for addressing our school construction needs in the state, which really, the quality of our infrastructure, despite recent investments by the General Assembly, has been in continual decline,” Chad Stewart, director of government relations and research with the Virginia Education Association, said.
In special education, the House recommended an additional $1.7 billion over the previous biennium’s budget to support students with disabilities and those at risk. The funds would also help families access affordable early childhood education and promote stability for students, teachers and the K-12 system.
As part of the proposed investment, the House is dedicating $400 million in one-time use for school divisions to provide fiscal stability and meet local needs by funding school renovation, addressing teacher recruitment challenges, or continuing tutoring programs, including some created under a statewide initiative launched by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s administration.
The Senate recommended an additional $60 million to improve school operations and infrastructure.
Stewart said lawmakers have work to do to address the different ideas in both budgets.
“Virginia really needs an education budget that meets the moment and one that’s actually responding to our educator shortages, our staff vacancies, and the serious student learning challenges that schools have faced over the last six years.
Other investment recommendations made by the House include a $160 million increase in funding for students with disabilities. Compared to the House proposal, the Senate is recommending $118.7 million more for at-risk students, $12.8 million more in each of the next two years for special education services.
The House committee also recommended $163 million to create 11,591 additional early childhood slots to clear child care waitlists. Moreover, this investment is intended to ensure all families with incomes below 85% of the state’s median income can access affordable child care.
The House budget also provides funds to support employer partnerships to share child care costs.
The Senate proposed $50 million for a pilot program that would partner with businesses to expand early childhood care.
To support its commitment to high-quality education, the House is recommending dedicating $437.8 million to rebenchmarking and other technical updates.
Finally, the Senate budgeted $17.6 million to provide free school breakfasts and $1.3 million to review and possibly redesign the state’s school funding system.
Sarah Calveric, board president for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents, said the urgency of the matter “cannot be overstated” as lawmakers continue to deliberate.
“I believe the state budget doesn’t just serve as a financial document, it really is a foundation or a roadmap for educational planning, and of course, staffing,” Calveric said.
Delayed budget highlights existing challenges
If state leaders don’t finalize the budget by July 1, school leaders say there will be insufficient funding for special education, at-risk students, educator compensation and student services.
Even with the proposed raises and school funding, some education leaders said they’re unable to keep pace with inflation, rising costs, and broader economic uncertainty.
And without knowing how much they will have to work with over the next two years, hiring and retaining employees is harder for school districts. Some divisions have been able to address the matter with financial support from their localities, but others in tighter, financially strapped jurisdictions are not able to follow suit.
Depending on when the budget is settled, leaders said multi-layered processes between local school boards and government leaders are likely to delay approving budgets, hiring or allocating staff and starting or revising programs, among other things.
The pressure to maintain services increases as expiring grant funds may lead to program cuts, and school construction and infrastructure backlogs limit the ability to address local needs.
Lawmakers to reconvene
The House is scheduled to meet June 18 and the Senate on June 22. Both bodies will be armed with an updated budget forecast, ordered by Spanberger in May. The budget must be finalized by June 30 or the state government will lapse into a shutdown. Educators are watching the clock as they anticipate students’ return to school in the late summer.
“I think the timing is critical. I appreciate the thought that the General Assembly is putting into the process, but we are very eager and anxious to receive the green light to proceed,” Calveric said.
“This is a critical aspect to being in a state of preparedness and readiness for the 26–27 school year, and so we’re looking forward to hopefully receiving some positive outcomes in the very near future.”
A “SNAP welcomed here” sign is seen at the entrance to a Big Lots store in Portland, Oregon. (Photo by Getty Images)
President Donald Trump’s Darwinian food stamp modifications – abetted last year by supine Republican congresspeople whose constituents are now suffering – is working out just as critics had predicted. Low-income and disabled residents in Virginia and elsewhere are forced to choose between food, shelter, and healthcare.
Roughly 867,000 Virginians received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits in March 2025. The figure a year later is down to almost 754,000, a spokesman with the Virginia Department of Social Services said Friday. That’s a nearly 14% drop.
Some $187 billion will be cut from the federal food stamps program over a decade because of the changes. It’s as if Inspector Javert is running the program.
Don’t just take my word for the calamity these heartless cuts have caused –all to mostly benefit wealthy Americans. Listen to the people on the front lines in the commonwealth who assist the poor, unemployed and others who are overwhelmed by decreasing federal aid, a stagnant economy andhigher gas prices because of thepoorly planned war against Iran:
Patrice Smallwood, chair of the board of Virginia Organizing, saidTrump’s H.R. 1 bill was supposed to take money from scammers and those committing fraud to redirect money to the truly needy. “That’s not what I’m seeing,” she continued. “That was deception.
“The biggest thing really is the propaganda … about how Virginians and people all across the country were going to be helped,” Smallwood said.
Though some decline in enrollment occurred before H.R. 1 passed (I refuse to call it by Trump’s risible slogan), the demand on area food pantries has rocketed in recent years, said Eddie Oliver, executive director of theFederation of Virginia Food Banks. The group is a collaboration among seven regional food banks and hundreds of agency partners around the state.
Social worker Erika Nunez, of the Feed More food bank in Richmond, visits the St. Thomas Episcopal Church Food and Wellness Pantry in Richmond twice a month to assist people applying for SNAP benefits. Here she is working with volunteer Quentin Atkins. (Photo courtesy of the St. Thomas Food and Wellness Pantry)
The federation notes that eight of the 10 localities with the highest rates of food insecurity are rural and concentrated in Southwest Virginia. Those areas typically select Republicans in Congress – and GOP congresspersons almost unanimously supported cuts to SNAP and Medicaid last year.
Many Virginians who remain eligible for food stamps are exasperated because of stricter application and work requirements, noted Hannah Wyatt, a staff attorney who specializes in food security and public benefits with the Virginia Poverty Law Center.
“Some are kind of just giving up,” Wyatt said.
Able-bodied adults without dependents, for example, already faced a three-month time limit on SNAP participation if they weren’t working at least 80 hours per month. But the legislation increased the age that adults must adhere to those work requirements and time limits, from 54 years old before to 64 now.
So older adults will be forced back into the workforce to remain eligible, even if it’s a chore because of age and general creakiness to get up, get out and get to a job.
This is just one of the regulations in the legislation that tilt away from compassion for average Americans. The law also made eligibility stricter for non-citizens and reduced exemptions for certain requirements.
Other states face the same problems. For example,NBC News recently reported on the upheaval in Arizona, where applicants must fight to prove their eligibility. Some were even quizzed about monetary birthday gifts sent by Zelle, and whether they were one time or recurring.
The article told of recipients who had to turn over even more documents to prove they’re eligible – forcing people off the rolls who should get food aid. Folks needed to visit food pantries more often. The number of Arizonans getting food stamps in March was about half the total from the same time last year; 200,000 children have lost benefits, state data showed.
The claims by toadies for the Trump administration that the new regs are ending “fraud, waste and abuse” have been illusory – especially since those receiving aid are jumping through more hurdles to receive what they deserve.
Plus, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research and policy institute, previously reported that “cases of intentional fraud by participants or SNAP authorized retailers are relatively rare.”
VDSS has published a webpage with a dedicated list of resources for SNAP participants that covers employment and volunteer opportunities, medical resources and more information.
“The primary impact of this law on the Commonwealth is that now more families are going hungry when nobody should have to go hungry,” the spokesman said.
Contrast the amount of documentation that SNAP recipients must provide to the lack of oversight involving repairs to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in D.C. Trump put a proverbial thumb on the scale to help a contractor that he knew. (Trump later claimed he didn’t know the firm. But we’ve seen this story before.)
Atlantic Industrial Coatings, a Virginia firm, received a no-bid contract, bypassing a requirement to seek competing offers – reportedly because a delay would cause “serious injury” to the government. The president wants the repairs done before the nation’s 250th birthday on July 4.
The New York Times has reported that Trump promised the repairs would cost nearly $2 million; the total is now more than $13 million. The company also hasan inflated profit margin of 20%, a government analysis found.
Trump said he chose the company because it had worked on swimming pools at his golf club in Sterling, Virginia. He doesn’t even try to disguise his obvious conflict of interest.
It’s too bad that millions of Americans, desperate for food, don’t have such a chummy relationship with the president. They’re just trying to survive.
The callousness is a disgrace. Trump’s cuts are heartless and have endangered lives and livelihoods.
The government’s contempt for the poor is a blight on our nation.
The Rapidan River experiencing drought conditions in early September of 2023 (Charlie Paullin/Virginia Mercury)
Many parts of Virginia ended May with soaking rains after reports showed 80% of the state was experiencing “severe drought” conditions. While the rain that moved through much of the state helped ease some of the dryness, the drought remains.
“We realized about 2-5 inches of rain throughout the commonwealth,” said Weedon Cloe, who manages the Department of Environmental Quality’s Office of Water Supply. “And that went a long way to making some short term improvements in stream flow, and precipitation.”
The state is mostly classified under a “drought warning” by DEQ, but many regions spanning from Southside Virginia into the central part of the state remain in critical groundwater conditions.
This time of year, much of the rain gets caught up in the tree canopy and is absorbed by vegetation before it can reach the water table and replenish groundwater supplies. Cloe said officials did see areas where the water table had bottomed out and received some water recharge from recent rains.
U.S. Drought monitor shows conditions across Virginia at the end of May 2026. (U.S. Drought Monitor)
The state experienced an overall dry winter, which left water tables lower than usual, and the dry spring hasn’t helped. DEQ reports that of the 24 groundwater monitoring wells, groundwater levels in 20 are still below the 10th percentile for this time of the year. The state is also about 7.5 inches short on precipitation for the water year that began in October, DEQ states.
“We are limping along,” Cloe said, describing conditions leading into the final weeks of spring before summer heat intensifies.
“I would still say it’s probably one of the driest springs, if not one of in recent history,” Cloe said. “There’s still (a) large swath of D3 (extreme) in the U.S. drought monitor punching up from the southside, up through the middle of the state.”
Drought Indicators and key to Drought Map for the end of May 2026. (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality)
Despite the persistent dry conditions, drinking water reservoirs remain in good condition, Cloe said. If rainfall tapers off, as forecast in the short term, and temperatures rise significantly, agencies have procedures in place to restrict water use if necessary.
It will take more sustained rainfall to fully replenish the water table and make up for the long-term dry conditions the state has experienced.
For a drought warning, DEQ recommends minimizing nonessential water use and beginning voluntary water conservation efforts. The agency also encourages local governments to publicly share water conservation information, continue leak detection and repair programs, and impose mandatory water use restrictions when local water supply conditions warrant.
A server room in a data center. (Photo by Getty Images)
Data centers require a massive amount of water to cool their systems, which heat up as they process digital information through numerous computers and network servers. Systems that aren’t “closed loop” have to cycle out water that doesn’t evaporate.
Most data centers in Virginia are permitted to discharge water into municipal wastewater systems, the same place household water goes to be treated and recycled for consumption. But there’s limited data tracking of potential chemicals in data centers’ discharge water.
At least one data center is permitted to discharge directly into a natural water source in the state: Northeast Creek in Louisa County. Another is applying for a similar permit to discharge into nearby Sedges Creek which feeds into Lake Anna.
That water is pretreated before being released into the creek and has limits to certain metals and temperature set by the Department of Environmental Quality. But the knowledge gaps about the chemical makeup of data centers’ water discharge poses major questions over whether “forever chemicals” could be contaminating water from the facilities, posing risks to human and environmental health.
Cooling the waters
Amazon’s Lake Anna Tech Park project will include an evaporative water cooling system, which is what they use in the Northeast Creek location. The H2O will come from well water until industrial systems are hooked up. At that point, the water will be run through a “membrane” that cools the air and fans will blow it onto the data halls containing the computers.
Amazon – which operates dozens of data centers in the state – explained that at the two Louisa sites they are only using the evaporation method a small portion of the year; the rest of the time they pull in air from outside for cooling. Water sent through an evaporative cooling system is considered non-contact, meaning it does not directly touch the computer equipment.
“In Louisa County, we rely on outside natural air-cooling for about 96% of the year and only use water-based cooling during the hottest periods, which is about 4% of annual operations,” Amazon said in a statement.
After a few cycles the water has to be released. The system dechlorinates the water and manages pH balance before sending it into the creek.
“As part of this process, cooling water needs to be periodically discharged; this cooling water is called ‘non-contact cooling water.’ It never touches IT equipment, and it’s treated before release in alignment with state environmental standards,” an Amazon representative said.
Larger, newer data centers are more frequently designed with “closed loop” systems, meaning they don’t take in as much water on a daily basis. Initially, hundreds of gallons of water are pumped into this type of system, much of which evaporates, and then it’s topped off as needed.
But they take more energy to operate.
In an aerial view, an Amazon Web Services data center is shown situated near single-family homes on July 17, 2024 in Stone Ridge, Virginia. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)
Closed loop systems will often use what is described as mechanical cooling or liquid cooling, where the water is recycled through the system, cooled, and placed directly on chips to bring the temperature down. The heat from those systems still has to be expelled through an HVAC system.
The water is pretreated before being released into the creek and has limits for certain metals and temperature set by DEQ. But with recent reports showing the ubiquitous nature of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in everything from water to soil to household products, community members are increasingly worried about whether the data center’s discharge water contains them, too.
Residents have also cited concerns over PFAS being present in the equipment inside of data centers that is used to cool the heated systems and routinely replaced every few years.
These chemicals can have serious health impacts when people are exposed to even small amounts, such as decreased fertility, higher risk of some cancers, and weakening of the immune system.
Virginia currently does not have requirements for the testing of the discharge water of data centers for PFAS, nor does the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Because the water being discharged from data centers either into wastewater systems or into the creek are not explicitly required to be tested for PFAS, it is unclear whether they are present or not.
“We know that they may be using, not only PFAS, but other toxic chemicals. We know that they released massive amounts of water, at least to treatment works, and some of them to surface waters,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz with EarthJustice, a nonprofit that litigates environmental issues. ”And beyond that, it’s just a void. There’s really a dangerous lack of information.”
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute reports that PFAS can be present in the cooling systems that are liquid based – which is not what the Louisa Amazon data centers use. Data on how much of those chemicals are released from centers and cause pollution is minimal.
Documents DEQ provided in response to community concerns about potential chemicals in the treated water for the Sedges Creek permit application provide some answers.
“25% sodium hydroxide, 93% sulfuric acid, 40% sodium bisulfite, polyaluminum chloride, polymer, sulfide‐functional polymer, and 32% calcium chloride,” the agency wrote. “These chemicals are removed during the treatment process; however, Total Residual Chlorine (TRC), chlorides and pH are monitored to ensure they have been removed and that the treatment process is operating properly.”
What Virginia allows
Data centers that discharge their pretreated water into wastewater infrastructure have to comply with local treatment requirements and regulations. The amount of water they may unload varies by project and is determined by local leaders.
Industry representatives emphasize that they follow local and state regulations, which do not include the PFAS testing in the water discharge.
“Those that do produce wastewater handle it in a variety of ways in compliance with the law. Some may send their wastewater back to a municipal treatment plant, while others may treat it on site,” Nicole Riley with the Data Center Coalition said in an interview. “Some data centers are actually discharging cleaner water than they take in. In all cases, the industry takes seriously its responsibility to comply with applicable laws and regulations.”
The permit for the Amazon data center in the Northeast Tech Campus in Louisa is allowed to discharge up to 460,000 gallons of water a day into Northeast Creek that feeds into Lake Anna.
Under the pollutant discharge elimination system permit for that data center, operators must test monthly, and in some cases daily, for residual chlorine used in the treatment phase, as well as aluminum, cadmium, copper, zinc, hardness and pH. The water temperature must be maintained below 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
In general, data collected over most data centers’ five-year permits must be evaluated by state regulators before the permit may be re-issued. Depending on the results, data center operators may have to make adjustments.
“In the case of a data center, the source water, type of cooling system, and any additives used with the cooling system are key and need to be evaluated to determine the reasonable potential for a pollutant to be in the discharge,” a DEQ representative said.
PFAS, which pose harm to human and environmental health, also find their way into drinking water and human bodies. (Photo by CasarsaGuru via Getty Images)
The draft permit for the additional Amazon data center in the Lake Anna Tech campus that would discharge into Sedges Creek allows up to 280,000 gallons a day. It will abide by the same standards for metals, pH, and temperature regulation.
Amazon anticipates not needing to use the cooling system all year round. DEQ states they plan to use it “mainly in April through October of each year,” which would presumably lead to less water use than the permitted gallons. The company claims it will be even less, with only 4% of the year needing the water cooling system rather than using air from outside the facility.
The draft permit also allows for it to be altered to potentially include PFAS testing in the future, if that is something regulators desire.
“The permit may be reopened to incorporate changes to any applicable standard or requirement, including those related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances” DEQ said. It’s a step that advocates want to see the state take.
“They can test their wastewater before they discharge it to the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) and they should be doing that. POTWs need to know what the sources of PFAS that they’re dealing with are,” Kalmuss-Katz said.
New PFAS regulations in the works
The General Assembly this year advanced legislation towards testing for PFAS in wastewater and trying to locate the largest polluters of forever chemicals.
Senate Bill 138 requires public wastewater treatment facilities, industrial companies that use PFAS, airports and firefighting facilities to test their discharge for PFAS. Data centers do not currently fall under this legislation’s self reporting requirements.
Additionally, other bills were signed into law that require biosolids — sewage sludge from wastewater treatment facilities that is converted into fertilizer for farms — to be tested for the presence of PFAS. This pairs with past legislation to track down the largest sources of PFAS that are ending up in wastewater treatment facilities.
The Trump Administration has been adamant about expanding AI infrastructure, which includes data centers, by signing executive orders to beef up the expansion of the industry and the necessary transmission lines and power generation needed to support it.
Subsequently, the EPA announced the fast-track review of new chemicals that are intended to be used by the data center industry for their equipment and the manufacturing of their components.
What comes next
For the draft permit for the Amazon data center discharge into Sedges Creek, the next public hearing will be at Louisa County Middle School on June 9, 2026 at 7 to 9 p.m. From there, DEQ will make final decisions on if they will approve the permit for the facility.
It remains to be seen whether state or local officials will begin requiring data center discharge water be tested for PFAS and what that process might entail.
Pete Buttigieg speaks at a rally the day before the Iowa Caucuses at Lincoln High School in Des Moines, on Feb. 2, 2020. (Photo by Kathie Obradovich/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
WASHINGTON — Democratic Party leaders from a dozen states traveled to Washington, D.C., at the end of May to press for their voters to cast the first ballots in the next presidential primary.
State representatives argued that diversifying the early states would ensure Democrats nominate a presidential candidate who not only holds broad appeal among the base, but can ultimately win over independent voters in swing states and the White House in November 2028.
A final decision from the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will, however, have to contend with state laws and the officials who actually set primary dates.
Iowa and New Hampshire traditionally hold the first caucus and first primary election for presidential candidates — though South Carolina had the first DNC-sanctioned primary in 2024 — and both states argued it’s better to stay that way.
“Look, New Hampshire will make every effort it can to comply with the Rules and Bylaws Committee, but there are some factors outside of our control,” said U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan. “Our secretary of state is required by law to schedule the New Hampshire primary before other states.”
A “Write-In Joe Biden” campaign sign in a Portsmouth, New Hampshire, snow bank in 2024, when New Hampshire held its primary first in the nation in defiance of the Democratic National Committee. (Photo by Hadley Barndollar/New Hampshire Bulletin)
New Hampshire Democrats, she said, don’t believe their voters should pick the nominee, but would instead vet “the nominee so that they are better prepared for the states that follow, which will by definition be larger, more diverse and that’s really important too.”
“The one other thing I will add is that the Republicans are going to have the first-in-the-nation primary be New Hampshire,” Hassan added. “And there is a big vacuum when a whole bunch of Republican presidential candidates are coming into our state, highlighting local candidates who are Republicans and there isn’t the same fulsome, evenly balanced Democratic response. And I think that can put us at a disadvantage at the local level and occasionally at the federal level as well.”
Iowa Democrat Scott Brennan told panel members that state law “requires that we be a caucus and that we go before any competing process.”
Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart also noted that Republicans and the journalists who cover their campaigns will be in the state for months ahead of the GOP presidential primary.
“In 2028, no matter what your decision is regarding the nominating calendar, Iowa will be the center of politics because the Republicans will be here right along with scads of national reporters,” she said.
Members of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee asked questions throughout the two days of presentations, including what states were doing to protect voter privacy, whether states had implemented restrictions on abortion and how much rent will cost campaign staffers for a one-bedroom apartment in larger cities.
State Democratic Party members repeatedly told the committee that voters in their home states are best positioned to winnow down what is expected to be a large group of presidential candidates. Here’s some of what they argued:
South Carolina
South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain said her presentation wasn’t about keeping the state toward the front of the calendar for “nostalgia,” but “about whether the Democratic Party understands where the fight for democracy actually is.”
“This is not a routine calendar debate,” she said. “Republicans are not debating theory, they’re moving in real time to weaken voting rights, redraw maps, dilute Black political power and change the rules where they don’t like the voters’ choices.”
The Democratic Party, Spain said, must ensure that Black voters “help shape the nomination from the beginning” and argued South Carolina is best positioned to do that.
“If Black voters are the backbone of the Democratic Party, then the calendar should reflect that,” she added.
Spain also called on the national party to recognize that Southern states hold crucial Democratic voters, despite the fact that region of the country typically gives its Electoral College votes to Republican presidential candidates during the general election.
“If Democrats want a long-term national majority, we cannot write off the deep South and then act surprised when the math doesn’t work,” she said.
Drawing a contrast with many of the other states, Spain noted that in South Carolina, the Democratic Party’s executive committee picks the date of its primary, not state law or the secretary of state.
New Mexico
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told the panel her state had “everything to offer” the party and its presidential candidates.
“We’re a minority-majority state,” she said. “We have demonstrated getting Democratic value-led policies on the ground in ways that no other poor state in this country’s history has done.”
The state’s economy, she said, would give Democrats the chance to dispel the notion that the two political parties offer a “binary choice” on key issues that could determine the outcome of the next presidential race.
“If you want truth and fairness, it’s got to be Democrats, but if you’re worried about jobs and if you’re working in oil and gas then you can’t vote for a Democrat. That’s just not true,” she said. “New Mexico outpaced Texas in oil and gas production last year and we have the lowest methane emissions of any state doing high-energy production. Guess what else? All of the energy to power the eastern United States is in New Mexico and what is it? It’s solar, it’s wind.”
The state would give Democratic presidential candidates the opportunity to talk about immigration and border security, which have been central to Republicans in the last several election cycles, she said.
“We can talk about public safety and the border and we can talk about energy in a way that renews our commitment to Democratic values and engages minority voters,” Lujan Grisham said, later adding that voters “want a cohesive approach to public safety, border security and fair support.”
The Trump administration’s “indiscriminate, unjust, unconstitutional deportation effort,” she said, has left voters from both political parties in the state “unhappy.”
“And it’s enough to get solid Republican voters to vote in a general election for a Democrat,” she said.
Georgia
Georgia Democratic Party Chair Charlie Bailey told the committee that having voters in the state go first during the next presidential primary would accomplish the “twin objectives of having a diverse electorate and being a battleground state.”
“No state better fits the stated goals that the DNC has for competitiveness, diversity and the accessibility that our infrastructure provides,” he said. “And our nationally recognized voter protection department has already proven its ability to guarantee fair, transparent and inclusive elections.”
Bailey told the panel that Georgia is the only state in the South with two Democratic U.S. senators and represents the party’s best chance to gain a foothold in that region.
Whether the secretary of state would actually move the primary date depends on whom voters elect to the role this November, he said.
A Democrat winning the seat would very likely schedule whatever the DNC chooses, but a Republican keeping that role would need to decide whether it’s in their party’s best interest to move the presidential primary election earlier in the year.
Michigan
Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel said his state’s history as a battleground in the general election and its demographics make it a strong candidate for the early window.
“There are very few states that represent the entire political spectrum of what the Democratic Party is. Michigan is one of them,” he said. “We’re the most diverse battleground state in the country. We look like America.”
Michigan, he said, would give presidential candidates a platform to talk about the party’s support for unions, wages and other cost-of-living issues.
Hertel said that every investment a Democratic presidential candidate makes in the state would be “important to winning the general election.”
North Carolina
North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said the state’s location, diversity and rural communities make it a strong choice.
“Democrats have been losing rural America. It’s no secret to anybody we have not been engaging in these communities,” she said. “And to me one of the biggest ways that we can put a priority on them again is investing in a state that, again, besides Texas, has the second-highest rural population.”
Clayton said the state also represents a chance for Democratic presidential candidates to speak with a cross-section of the party’s base.
“If you can win races in North Carolina, presidents that are battleground and battle tested here can win in other states across the country that we have not consistently won as Democrats, but we used to and we need to win back,” she said.
Nevada
Nevada U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford said the state has everything a Democratic presidential candidate needs to win both the primary and then the general election.
“Elevating a union-strong, diverse and highly competitive battleground state will lay the foundation to help Democrats win back the trust of working class voters and voters of color,” he said. “We are the working class. We are the coalition Democrats must win to win America and we represent the future of our party.”
Virginia
Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said the purple state holds the different types of voters Democratic candidates need to hone their policy goals and their message.
“I promise you if you put Virginia early in that calendar, they are going to put every presidential candidate through the toughest set of questions,” he said. “You’re going to have to answer military questions, urban questions, rural questions. And if you can’t do that you’re not going to be successful. That’s what we want as our nominee in 2028 and we have the ability to do that.”
Democrats throughout Virginia, including those just outside Washington, D.C., whose lives were affected by the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal workforce, are well suited to ensure any nominee is ready to win a general election, he said.
Tennessee
Tennessee state Sen. London Lamar told panel members voters in that state shouldn’t be “afterthoughts” when it comes to vetting presidential candidates.
“Tennessee sits at the center of the South. We border eight states, which means our influence is not just local, not just statewide, but it’s regional,” she said. “What happens in Tennessee has the power to reach across the South and shape national momentum, because we all know the South is the last battleground of this nation. And if we win the South, we take the nation every single presidential election.”
Voters in and around Memphis, she said, represent “the very people Democrats say we are fighting for — working families; Black voters; young people; communities demanding affordability, representation, justice and opportunity.”
“Memphis is one of the largest majority Black cities in America,” she added. “And African American voters remain the backbone of the Democratic Party.”
A mob of Trump supporters gathers in front of the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. An "anti-weaponization" fund was created by the Department of Justice in May 2026 that could make payments to those who took part in the Jan. 6 attack. (Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images
President Donald Trump’s extraordinary $1.776 billion fund to pay off allies and others who say they have been wronged by past administrations has drawn widespread condemnation by opponents, including some Republicans, who characterize it as an act of brazen corruption.
But the Trump administration’s push to reward its supporters also harkens back to an earlier era of American cronyism, experts say, while expanding the frontiers of political favoritism.
From the early years of the United States until well into the 19th century, a spoils system dominated the federal government. Presidents handed out jobs to supporters, filling the bureaucracy with workers who had demonstrated loyalty to the administration in power.
President Andrew Jackson (Courtesy Library of Congress)
Trump’s political idol, President Andrew Jackson, replaced large numbers of federal officials after his 1829 inauguration, for instance. One appointee to a role at the Port of New York made out with more than $1 million, valued at tens of millions today.
The comparison isn’t exact. The spoils system was associated with the distribution of government jobs to political allies, a practice called patronage. Trump’s new fund would instead deliver taxpayer dollars directly to favored individuals.
Yet, academics who have studied the spoils system and the presidency see parallels between the past and present — with a desire to reward allies and build allegiance at the center of it all.
“It seems to me that may be the common element here,” said Sidney Shapiro, a professor of law at Wake Forest University who wrote before the 2024 election that Trump wanted to reinstate the spoils system. “It appears President Trump is thinking about using the fund to reward people unfairly punished, but I think in his mind it’s unfairly punished because they were trying to support him.”
Five-member board to be named by Trump
The Department of Justice announced the “anti-weaponization fund,” which critics call a “slush fund,” on May 18 as it moved to settle a lawsuit Trump had filed in his personal capacity against the IRS over the leaking of his tax returns by a former agency contractor.
The suit placed Trump in the extremely unusual position of effectively negotiating with himself because he has erased the DOJ’s post-Watergate tradition of independence from the White House.
Even before the settlement, the Justice Department under Trump had taken actions that would have been unheard of in other recent administrations. For instance, federal prosecutors have brought a case against former FBI Director James Comey and tried to pursue criminal charges against New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James.
The DOJ has also obtained an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, a frequent critic of GOP politicians.
Trump’s settlement agreement provides for the creation of the fund overseen by a board of five members chosen by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s personal attorney. Trump can fire the members for any reason.
The fund’s board will have the power to make decisions about payments, as well as issue formal apologies. Claims submitted to the fund must be processed by Dec. 1, 2028, prior to the end of Trump’s term.
Jan. 6 rioters line up
A bevy of Trump supporters and hangers-on have said they plan to apply for compensation. They include individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, disrupting Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory. Trump previously pardoned rioters when he took office in January 2025.
Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 22 years in prison before Trump pardoned him, predicted on a recent podcast that a “lot of J6ers are going to spend their money on firearms.”
Former national Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio looked on as far-right activists celebrating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack marched down Constitution Avenue on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026. Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in prison on sedition charges related to the attack, but President Donald Trump commuted his sentence. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
Trump has cast the fund as an act of magnanimity on his part because the settlement agreement doesn’t include a monetary payout to him.
However, Blanche also signed a document barring any additional scrutiny of the president’s past tax history, a move that shields him from audits. The New York Times and ProPublica reported in 2024 that Trump could have owed $100 million if he lost an audit battle over improper tax breaks.
“I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my Tax Returns and the equally illegal BREAK IN of Mar-a-Lago, for an absolute fortune,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, referring to the FBI search of his Florida residence in 2022.
“Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!”
Trump has adopted a “patrimonial” approach to governing, James Pfiffner, a professor emeritus at George Mason University who has studied the presidency, wrote in an email to States Newsroom.
Benefits, like federal contracts, go to those who are loyal, Pfiffner wrote, and the government is treated as if it were a family business and the state’s resources were his personal property.
The “anti-weaponization fund” represents an extension of that approach, Pfiffner wrote, but also goes further than past presidents. He wrote that he could think of no past precedents in the modern presidency for such a blatant use of taxpayer money to potentially reward loyalists.
“At least in the spoils system, the people hired by the government were working and presumably doing their jobs,” Pfiffner wrote. “The beneficiaries of this fund have done nothing to earn their benefits, and presumably some will be rewarded for having committed crimes to overturn the 2020 election.”
Congress began curbing the spoils system after the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield by a spurned job seeker.
Over the next two decades, many federal positions were moved into a civil service system. While the federal government still includes some 4,000 political appointees today, the vast majority of the bureaucracy is staffed by civil servants.
Critics and defenders in Congress
But it’s unclear whether Congress will block Trump’s fund, despite an intense backlash.
Anger among Republican senators has stalled action on budget legislation funding immigration enforcement, which Democrats would have used to force votes on amendments to block the fund. Democrats have introduced multiple bills aimed at halting it.
“Congress cannot stand by while Trump turns the federal government into a political operation for his friends and cronies,” Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, said in a statement.
Obstacles exist to congressional action. Even if Republicans who control both chambers voted with Democrats, Trump could veto bills passed placing restrictions on the fund, which would require two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate to override.
And some GOP lawmakers have defended the fund.
U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., speaks to reporters after voting in the GOP primary in Auburn, Alabama on May 19, 2026. Tuberville has defended President Donald Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund. (Photo by Anna Barrett/Alabama Reflector)
On May 21, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, objected to a unanimous consent request by Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, to pass a bill that would prohibit payments to Jan. 6 rioters.
“Thankfully, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Trump Department of Justice established a standard and lawful process to hear from American citizens who suffered lawfare or weaponization under the Biden administration,” Tuberville said on the Senate floor.
Lawsuits have been filed challenging the fund and how it’s structured. Two police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 have sued, warning that rioters could use the money to organize.
Fund blocked temporarily
On Friday, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the Trump administration to halt work on the fund for at least two weeks while she considers ordering a lengthier pause.
The decision came in a lawsuit brought by a former federal prosecutor fired by the DOJ and a California professor who was charged but acquitted of assaulting a federal officer after protesting an immigration raid.
Legal advocacy groups also argue Congress didn’t intend for federal money to be used for these kinds of payoffs.
“Another commonality is we the taxpayers are funding both,” Shapiro, the Wake Forest professor, said of the spoils system and the Trump fund. “We certainly fund the jobs that people have and now we’re funding this fund.”
