Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is facing mounting criticism after citing the landmark Native American farmers discrimination case Keepseagle v. Vilsack as precedent for a proposed $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” backed by the Trump administration.
The Justice Department argues the fund would compensate Americans who it claims were unfairly targeted by federal law enforcement and prosecutorial actions during prior administrations. Blanche pointed to the 2010 settlement involving Native American farmers and ranchers as an example of the federal government creating large compensation programs for groups alleging systemic mistreatment. The settlement happened during the Obama adminstration.
The Keepseagle settlement resolved longstanding claims that the U.S. Department of Agriculture discriminated against Native American farmers in loan and assistance programs between 1981 and 1999. The case resulted in a $760 million settlement intended to compensate Native producers who were denied equal access to federal agricultural support.
Blanche said the settlement demonstrated that Congress and the federal government have previously recognized broad-based harm and established large compensation mechanisms outside traditional litigation pathways.
But critics say the comparison is deeply flawed.
Democratic lawmakers and government ethics advocates have condemned the proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund as a politically motivated “slush fund” that could funnel taxpayer dollars to allies of President Donald Trump, including individuals prosecuted in connection with the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Opponents argue that the Keepseagle case involved documented racial discrimination supported by years of litigation, judicial oversight, and negotiated settlement terms, while the new proposal lacks comparable legal findings or independent review.
“This is not remotely comparable to compensating Native farmers who faced proven discrimination by the federal government,” several Democratic lawmakers said during recent criticism of the proposal. “This appears designed to reward political supporters.”
Native advocates have also expressed concern over the use of the Keepseagle settlement in the debate, noting that the case represented decades of organizing by Native farmers who struggled to access the same federal resources routinely available to white producers.
The proposed fund has not yet received congressional approval, and lawmakers are expected to scrutinize both its legal framework and potential recipients in upcoming hearings.
The controversy has reignited broader debates over political accountability, federal compensation programs, and the legacy of landmark civil rights settlements involving Indigenous communities.
Another major difference is the Keepseagle settlement was handled by a federal judge. Unlike Keepseagle v. Vilsack, which was negotiated through federal court proceedings and approved with judicial oversight, President Donald Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” was not established by a federal judge.
The $1.776 billion fund was created as part of a settlement agreement between the Trump administration and the IRS after Trump agreed to drop his lawsuit over leaked tax returns.
The agreement was announced by the U.S. Department of Justice and administered through the executive branch, with a five-member commission appointed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche
