Today, Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) introduced the Drain the Slush Fund Act, legislation aimed at dismantling President Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund and barring the use of taxpayer money for payments to the President, his associates, individuals convicted of crimes, or those involved in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
Block the use of taxpayer money for settlements or payments from DOJ or presidential-related funds that would benefit a sitting president, their associates, convicted individuals, or January 6 participants.
Occurrences
Evidence
legacy_unverified · Source version not recorded · locator unknown
Slotkin joined Schiff and Kelly to introduce the Drain the Slush Fund Act, aimed at stopping taxpayer money from being used for DOJ settlements or presidential-related payments that could benefit the president, associates, convicted individuals, or Jan. 6 participants.
legacy_unverified · Source version not recorded · locator unknown
The bill would bar judgments, awards, compromise settlements, interest, or costs for payments arising from a lawsuit or claim filed by the President or Vice President, and the text shows it was read twice and referred to committee.
legacy_unverified · Source version not recorded · locator unknown
The updated case summary says Blanche's August 2, 2026 order rescinded the May 18 order establishing the Anti-Weaponization Fund; the accompanying DOJ statement said no members were appointed, no funds transferred, no claims process established, and no claims paid. The same summary says the underlying settlement was not formally rescinded by all parties, audit-immunity remained in effect, and related fund litigation remained pending.
legacy_unverified · Source version not recorded · locator unknown
The Senate Judiciary Committee minority statement says Blanche's statements on the fund and IRS immunity agreement were not signed by the parties to the settlement agreement and were unenforceable; it also says the parties could still sue to enforce the agreement and the fund could be revived by a new DOJ order.
Assessments
Slotkin materially advanced the promise during her Senate term by cosponsoring/introducing the Drain the Slush Fund Act, which closely matched the promised taxpayer-payment restrictions. But the legislation has not been enacted and the related amendment effort was blocked, so there is no durable statutory prohibition. DOJ later rescinded the specific Anti-Weaponization Fund and no claims appear to have been paid, which partially achieved the practical goal, but the underlying settlement and future-payment risk were not fully eliminated.
Slotkin took a real legislative step by introducing the Drain the Slush Fund Act to block taxpayer-funded DOJ or presidential-related payments benefiting a sitting president, associates, convicted individuals, or Jan. 6 participants, but the evidence shows only introduction and referral to committee, not enactment or implemented policy. That is a serious attempt that did not deliver the promised outcome.