WASHINGTON ― Democrats could soon force a vote in the House of Representatives on a bill permanently banning President Donald Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and the personal tax break he gave himself along with it.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) intends to file a “discharge petition” as soon as this week on legislation outlawing Trump’s slush fund and banning presidents from settling lawsuits against their own administrations without court approval.

Discharge petitions allow any House lawmaker to force the House to vote on legislation without approval from party leadership or a committee. Successful discharge petitions used to be rare, but it’s happened four times in the last year, including on a bill to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. All Raskin has to do is get signatures from 218 members, meaning he’d need all Democrats and six Republicans.

“The people’s representatives must decide whether to uphold the rule of law and protect taxpayer dollars – or stand aside as this unprecedented corruption spins out of control,” Raskin said in a statement Thursday.

The Justice Department announced the creation of the approximately $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund last month as a result of a faux legal settlement between the department and the president, who sued his own administration in January over a past leak of his tax information. The fund appeared to fulfill the wishes of Jan. 6 rioters who’d lobbied the government for reparations for their supposed mistreatment.

“They are determined to compensate Trump’s private street-fighting militia and create 1,600 MAGA Millionaires with our money,” Raskin said.

The settlement also freed Trump, his family and his businesses from any ongoing tax audits, potentially saving them many millions of dollars. The court hearing the lawsuit did not approve the settlement, which was announced before a skeptical judge could throw out the case.

Amid fierce backlash, including from Republican senators, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the fund would not be moving forward. But the Justice Department has refused to formally disavow the slush fund and fought a lawsuit seeking to have it blocked. (A judge has temporarily blocked it pending the outcome of the case.)

If Raskin succeeds in getting 218 signatures, not a sure thing, a vote could happen as soon as next month. But even if the House passed the legislation, it’s not likely the Senate would follow suit, since Republicans in the upper chamber have already passed up opportunities to ban the slush fund.

By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.