Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

GOP Rep. Fitzpatrick on the President still musing about his $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund: "The votes are not there, and will not be there, to give a dime to this fund."

CNNSOTU's profile picture

State of the Union

222,670 subscribers

57,287 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsFinance
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Q: Is the $1.8 billion weaponization fund a good use of taxpayer funds? SCALISE: There is no weaponization fund
0:36

Q: Is the $1.8 billion weaponization fund a good use of taxpayer funds? SCALISE: There is no weaponization fund

Aaron Rupar

31,137 views • 2 months ago

Coons: Did you ever say no to the president on the slush fund, the anti weaponization fund? Did you advise him against this? Blanche: I am not will not talk about communications I have with the president.
0:42

Coons: Did you ever say no to the president on the slush fund, the anti weaponization fund? Did you advise him against this? Blanche: I am not will not talk about communications I have with the president.

Acyn

20,754 views • 1 month ago

The Trump administration is backing off the $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund" after a court order temporarily halted the effort. Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick who introduced legislation to block the fund says, "Mark my words, we will stop this."
1:45

The Trump administration is backing off the $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund" after a court order temporarily halted the effort. Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick who introduced legislation to block the fund says, "Mark my words, we will stop this."

Anderson Cooper 360°

26,164 views • 3 months ago

Sen. Dave McCormick: "The mission of the weaponization fund I concur with. It's not unprecedented there would be an IRS settlement. The fund was not to benefit the president himself."
2:53

Sen. Dave McCormick: "The mission of the weaponization fund I concur with. It's not unprecedented there would be an IRS settlement. The fund was not to benefit the president himself."

Aaron Rupar

24,113 views • 2 months ago

Blanche on Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund: "We are not moving forward with the fund." Rep. Meng: "We hope to see this in writing." Blanche: "I think there'll be a transcript of what I say here. So that will be in writing."
2:54

Blanche on Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund: "We are not moving forward with the fund." Rep. Meng: "We hope to see this in writing." Blanche: "I think there'll be a transcript of what I say here. So that will be in writing."

The Bulwark

26,811 views • 3 months ago

“It has to be coming from Trump”: Gretchen Carlson on Todd Blanche’s refusal to officially kill the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund as his nomination is in danger.
8:04

“It has to be coming from Trump”: Gretchen Carlson on Todd Blanche’s refusal to officially kill the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund as his nomination is in danger.

Erin Burnett OutFront

22,416 views • 1 month ago

President Trump declines to commit to permanently scrapping the DOJ's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund. "I'd have to ask the lawyers," he says. "I don't know."
2:08

President Trump declines to commit to permanently scrapping the DOJ's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund. "I'd have to ask the lawyers," he says. "I don't know."

Kaitlan Collins

219,064 views • 2 months ago

“Frankly, I was shocked, I didn’t really believe it at first,” says Rep. Glenn Ivey about the White House’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The former prosecutor tells Ruffini and David Gura he is “disgusted” over the $1.8 billion fund.
1:56

“Frankly, I was shocked, I didn’t really believe it at first,” says Rep. Glenn Ivey about the White House’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The former prosecutor tells Ruffini and David Gura he is “disgusted” over the $1.8 billion fund.

Bloomberg

25,760 views • 3 months ago

What's the fate of the $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund" as it faces major political and legal blowback?
0:42

What's the fate of the $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund" as it faces major political and legal blowback?

Kaitlan Collins

72,360 views • 3 months ago

Trump: You can say what you want about the Weaponization fund and they agreed to not have a fund, there are a lot of people upset, a lot of Republican people and Democratic people are upset about it
0:42

Trump: You can say what you want about the Weaponization fund and they agreed to not have a fund, there are a lot of people upset, a lot of Republican people and Democratic people are upset about it

Acyn

24,710 views • 1 month ago

At a time when families are working harder than ever to keep up with the cost of living, we need to be focused on protecting taxpayers— not a nearly $1.8 billion discretionary payout fund created through an abuse of existing law. I joined Katie Couric to discuss my bill to stop the DOJ “Anti-Weaponization Fund” before a single dime goes out the door. We broke down what this fund is, how discharge petitions work, and why we are prepared to use every tool available to protect taxpayers and stop this fund from moving forward, plus more. 🔗 Watch a clip below and listen to our full conversation here:
9:16

At a time when families are working harder than ever to keep up with the cost of living, we need to be focused on protecting taxpayers— not a nearly $1.8 billion discretionary payout fund created through an abuse of existing law. I joined Katie Couric to discuss my bill to stop the DOJ “Anti-Weaponization Fund” before a single dime goes out the door. We broke down what this fund is, how discharge petitions work, and why we are prepared to use every tool available to protect taxpayers and stop this fund from moving forward, plus more. 🔗 Watch a clip below and listen to our full conversation here:

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick 🇺🇸

16,526 views • 3 months ago

VICTORY! In a massive win for President Trump, the Senate voted 52-47 to FULLY FUND the Department of Homeland Security & ICE: ✅ $38.6 billion for ICE ✅ $22.6 billion for border patrol ✅ $5 billion for DHS Now, the bill goes to the House. Call your Representatives & ask them to vote 👉YES👈 to the budget reconciliation package. This bill does NOT ban the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund. Fully fund DHS & ICE. Then, pass the SAVE America Act!
0:28

VICTORY! In a massive win for President Trump, the Senate voted 52-47 to FULLY FUND the Department of Homeland Security & ICE: ✅ $38.6 billion for ICE ✅ $22.6 billion for border patrol ✅ $5 billion for DHS Now, the bill goes to the House. Call your Representatives & ask them to vote 👉YES👈 to the budget reconciliation package. This bill does NOT ban the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund. Fully fund DHS & ICE. Then, pass the SAVE America Act!

ThePersistence

384,979 views • 2 months ago

Pres. Trump's so-called "anti-weaponization" fund was a key issue behind a GOP Senate rebellion against the president, and acting attorney general Todd Blanche was the public face of it. But some Republicans chose not to kill the fund with legislation. The question is why.
3:50

Pres. Trump's so-called "anti-weaponization" fund was a key issue behind a GOP Senate rebellion against the president, and acting attorney general Todd Blanche was the public face of it. But some Republicans chose not to kill the fund with legislation. The question is why.

Anderson Cooper 360°

19,185 views • 2 months ago

Me: "Is there anything stopping a future President AOC from negotiating a settlement to create a $100 billion Green New Deal fund?" Mike Howell: "You mean... like USAID?" Me: "Well, that's congressionally authorized." Mike Howell: "So is the money here." Me: "Not for this purpose." Watch our full, explosive clash over Trump's 'anti-weaponization' fund, on the latest "Brad vs The World."
1:47

Me: "Is there anything stopping a future President AOC from negotiating a settlement to create a $100 billion Green New Deal fund?" Mike Howell: "You mean... like USAID?" Me: "Well, that's congressionally authorized." Mike Howell: "So is the money here." Me: "Not for this purpose." Watch our full, explosive clash over Trump's 'anti-weaponization' fund, on the latest "Brad vs The World."

Brad Polumbo

55,372 views • 3 months ago

A nearly $1.8 billion DOJ-controlled fund cannot be created, defined, and distributed in the shadows. Today, I called on Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to provide immediate transparency on the Department’s newly announced “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” By June 1, DOJ must answer three basic questions: Where is the money coming from? Who is eligible to receive it? And under what legal authority is DOJ creating a discretionary compensation fund of this scale without explicit congressional authorization, court approval, or judicial oversight? Taxpayer dollars will not be turned into a discretionary payout fund. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable. Kaitlan Collins and I discussed this tonight TheSourceCNN ⬇️
6:12

A nearly $1.8 billion DOJ-controlled fund cannot be created, defined, and distributed in the shadows. Today, I called on Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to provide immediate transparency on the Department’s newly announced “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” By June 1, DOJ must answer three basic questions: Where is the money coming from? Who is eligible to receive it? And under what legal authority is DOJ creating a discretionary compensation fund of this scale without explicit congressional authorization, court approval, or judicial oversight? Taxpayer dollars will not be turned into a discretionary payout fund. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable. Kaitlan Collins and I discussed this tonight TheSourceCNN ⬇️

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick 🇺🇸

244,673 views • 3 months ago

#BREAKING: Hayes: “Acting AG Todd Blanche told Congress not to worry about the $1.8 billion slush fund for insurrectionists…The DOJ then told the court the same thing—don’t worry, it’s moot, it’s dropped, and then last week, the judge said okay, fine, put it in writing. She ordered Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and an associate AG to all sign ‘a declaration under the penalty of perjury, they will not take any action to create or operate the anti-weaponization fund and that the anti-weaponization fund will not proceed in any manner or under any name.’ Well, today was the deadline for that and guess what? They came back to the court and they said no, we’re NOT doing it. We’re NOT filing any declaration to officially kill the fund, which probably means the slush fund is NOT dead.”🙄🤦‍♀️
1:01

#BREAKING: Hayes: “Acting AG Todd Blanche told Congress not to worry about the $1.8 billion slush fund for insurrectionists…The DOJ then told the court the same thing—don’t worry, it’s moot, it’s dropped, and then last week, the judge said okay, fine, put it in writing. She ordered Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and an associate AG to all sign ‘a declaration under the penalty of perjury, they will not take any action to create or operate the anti-weaponization fund and that the anti-weaponization fund will not proceed in any manner or under any name.’ Well, today was the deadline for that and guess what? They came back to the court and they said no, we’re NOT doing it. We’re NOT filing any declaration to officially kill the fund, which probably means the slush fund is NOT dead.”🙄🤦‍♀️

Emoluments Clause

527,430 views • 2 months ago

AG Nominee Todd Blanche says he did not talk to President Trump about the "anti-weaponization fund": "He had outside counsel; I did not discuss it with his outside counsel either."
1:39

AG Nominee Todd Blanche says he did not talk to President Trump about the "anti-weaponization fund": "He had outside counsel; I did not discuss it with his outside counsel either."

CSPAN

13,200 views • 1 month ago

JD Vance dropped qualification criteria for the anti-weaponization fund AKA Trump reparations for his $1.8 billion settlement from the IRS. Black are the only people who truely qualified.
1:29

JD Vance dropped qualification criteria for the anti-weaponization fund AKA Trump reparations for his $1.8 billion settlement from the IRS. Black are the only people who truely qualified.

kevin blue

11,871 views • 3 months ago

Tommy Tuberville on Weaponization Fund: The people that are complaining did not hesitate one time to send hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine. But they are complaining about a billion and a half dollars for this? It does not make sense to me.
0:36

Tommy Tuberville on Weaponization Fund: The people that are complaining did not hesitate one time to send hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine. But they are complaining about a billion and a half dollars for this? It does not make sense to me.

Acyn

325,580 views • 3 months ago

Republican opposition to Trump’s $1.776 billion slush fund is continuing to grow. Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska publicly came out against the fund, saying: “I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6 insurrectionist.” Flood said taxpayers should not be funding people who committed violence against law enforcement. Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick and Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi are now pushing bipartisan legislation to outlaw the fund entirely. At the same time, three separate federal lawsuits are already challenging the fund in court. Scott MacFarlane reports on the latest.
1:15

Republican opposition to Trump’s $1.776 billion slush fund is continuing to grow. Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska publicly came out against the fund, saying: “I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6 insurrectionist.” Flood said taxpayers should not be funding people who committed violence against law enforcement. Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick and Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi are now pushing bipartisan legislation to outlaw the fund entirely. At the same time, three separate federal lawsuits are already challenging the fund in court. Scott MacFarlane reports on the latest.

MeidasTouch

37,551 views • 3 months ago