Surprisingly, one Newsmax columnist was less then thrilled by President Trump’s proposed weaponization compensation fund. Jim Renacci denounced the fund in a May 26 column:
It suggests accountability. It promises recognition. It offers the appearance of vindication. But as is so often the case in Washington, the devil is in the details.
First, the structure of the settlement raises serious institutional concerns. The president’s lawsuit against the IRS is being dropped while the executive branch creates a massive compensation mechanism tied to broader claims of government weaponization.
Even if the intent is to address real abuses, this approach blurs the line between legitimate redress and executive control over politically charged remedies.
That matters because litigation involving the federal government should not be resolved through arrangements that leave the public wondering whether legal accountability has been replaced by political bargaining.
The process should produce clarity, not new questions.
Renacci went after the fund again in his June 12 column:
The controversy surrounding the recently-abandoned “Anti-Weaponization Fund” should concern every American who believes government must remain accountable to the Constitution.
This isn’t a question of whether federal agencies have been weaponized.
Many Americans, me included, have raised legitimate concerns about politically motivated actions by government institutions.
The real question is whether the proposed solution violated the same constitutional principles its supporters claim to defend.
If citizens are harmed by government misconduct, they deserve justice.
What became controversial was what happened next.
Trump sued the government.
His own administration later negotiated the settlement with him.
In practical terms, the executive branch found itself occupying both sides of the negotiating table.
[…]My earlier warning remains true.
Government weaponization doesn’t disappear when control changes hands.
It gets repackaged, rebranded, and handed to someone new.
If Americans focus only on who controls the machinery rather than how much power the machinery possesses, we’ll continue repeating the same mistake — mistaking a change in operators for a change in principle.
And that is how government weaponization survives — even when it changes its name.
By contrast, Jim Harden defended the fund in his June 16 column:
Washington has a remarkable ability to make old things sound new whenever politicians demand it.
The latest example is the recent uproar surrounding President Trump’s so-called “Weaponization Fund.” Opponents portray it as an unprecedented mechanism designed to reward political allies and settle ideological scores.
Lawyers have filed lawsuits.
Constitutionalists have sounded alarms.
Commentators have warned of executive overreach.
There is only one problem: the fund at the center of this controversy is not new. In fact, tens of billions of dollars have been paid out in its 70 year history.
The fund now being attacked traces its roots to the Judgment Fund, established by Congress in 1956 and codified in federal law.
[…]Yet suddenly, when the proposed beneficiaries are Americans claiming they were targeted because of their religious beliefs or political viewpoints, the same mechanism is treated as though it appeared out of thin air.
That raises an uncomfortable question.
Is the objection really about the structure of the fund, or is it about who might receive compensation?
As someone whose own organization became the victim of politically motivated violence, I cannot help but notice the disparity.
Harden made no mention of his fellow columnist’s denunciation of the fund.