Trump produced this latest one through an\u00a0unprecedented legal maneuver<\/a>: suing his own government over disclosure of his tax returns, then settling the case through his former criminal defense lawyer, now Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. The legality of that settlement is now under active judicial review, even as Trump appears to be\u00a0backing away<\/a>\u00a0from the fund after unusually strong political opposition, including from Republicans in Congress. But this fund is merely the latest example of a broader pattern. During his second term, Trump has repeatedly created and controlled large pools of money in connection with the presidency without the legal, financial, and reporting controls that ordinarily apply when money is raised, committed, or spent under presidential authority.<\/p>\n So far, Trump has done this through the anti-weaponization fund, the Venezuelan oil proceeds structure, his International Board of Peace, the White House ballroom fund, and his Freedom 250 anniversary fund. While these entities differ in purpose and legal form, their operating logic is remarkably similar. Trump or his administration announces a public purpose. Money begins moving. Trump or people close to him retain control. Then the paper trail disappears.<\/p>\n Congress cannot determine how much money has entered any of these structures. Congress cannot reliably identify where the accounts are held. Congress cannot identify the signatories, the governing documents, the approval process for expenditures, the recipients, or the terms under which funds have been paid out.<\/p>\n In ordinary federal operations, money leaves a record trail. Congress appropriates the money. Agencies obligate it. Treasury accounts for it. Inspectors General audit the spending. The GAO determines whether the funds were spent properly. Journalists can reconstruct how the funds were used. Members of Congress can demand records from agencies that keep books and answer to law.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s financial structures repeatedly interrupt that chain.<\/p>\n The Anti-Weaponization Fund: A Public Fund Without Rules<\/em><\/p>\n The anti-weaponization fund illustrates<\/a> the pattern clearly. Blanche\u2019s Justice Department announces the amount: $1.776 billion. Blanche announces the purpose: compensation for victims of governmental \u201cweaponization.\u201d The administration announces that a five-member commission of its choosing will administer claims. Then the public record largely stops.<\/p>\n Blanche has not published a final commission charter. He has not identified the commissioners. He has not issued binding eligibility rules, only rough guidelines<\/a> that the commission is free to \u201cweigh\u201d under the \u201ctotality of the circumstances<\/a>.\u201d \u00a0He has not released procedures for filing claims, reviewing applications, calculating awards, approving disbursements, or reporting recipients. But the deeper problem is not simply lack of procedure. There is also no meaningful accountability mechanism for awards once made: no requirement for public reporting of recipients, no independent review of decisions, and no clear process for Congress or the public to audit how the money is ultimately distributed.<\/p>\n Notably, the Blanche-Trump settlement expressly enables payments to compensate people prosecuted for their involvement in the January 6 insurrection and does not exclude January 6 defendants convicted of violent crimes, including assaults on law enforcement officers. It does not exclude people convicted of seditious conspiracy. It does not exclude domestic terrorists. It does not exclude drug traffickers. It does not exclude sex offenders. It does not exclude anyone whose claims of \u201cweaponization\u201d rest not on innocence or legal exoneration, but on political grievance.<\/p>\n The settlement does not require claimants to prove actual damages. It does not require proof of financial loss. It does not require proof of wrongful prosecution. It does not require reversal of conviction. It does not require exoneration. It does not require a judicial finding of government misconduct. It does not require any showing that the government acted unlawfully at all.<\/p>\n Under the terms of the settlement, a claimant may not need to establish that their \u201cinjury\u201d violated federal law or that they suffered measurable damages. The only requirement is that the five Trump political appointees determine that he or she qualifies as a victim of \u201cweaponization,\u201d a political category the administration itself controls and has never defined with legal precision.<\/p>\n This is not a traditional compensation fund, such as the one authorized by Congress for victims of the 9\/11 terrorist attacks<\/a> or the settlement in the Keepseagle<\/em> case<\/a>, which resolved a long-standing class action brought by Native American farmers alleging decades of discrimination against them by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in lending and other forms of farm assistance. It is the use of public money to make financial awards to people Trump identifies as victims of his political opponents, with Trump and his appointees deciding who gets paid and how much.<\/p>\n The Venezuelan Funds: One Public Structure, Another in Practice<\/em><\/p>\n The Venezuelan oil proceeds structure offers the clearest case study because Congress has uncovered more there than anywhere else.<\/p>\n Trump created the structure through Executive Order 14373,<\/a> signed January 9, 2026, invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The order states that revenues tied to Venezuelan oil sales will go into designated Treasury accounts as \u201cForeign Government Deposit Funds\u201d held by the United States in a custodial and governmental capacity for the benefit of Venezuela. Trump also used the order to shield those funds from attachment by private creditors seeking to seize Venezuelan assets through U.S. courts.<\/p>\n That is the legal structure Trump publicly described. What emerged through the public process, however scant, was something very different.<\/p>\n After U.S. forces captured Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, the administration took control of tens of millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil. The oil generated proceeds reportedly worth billions. The first sale was valued at $500 million. Semafor<\/em> reported on January 14 that the main account holding the Venezuelan oil revenues was located in Qatar<\/a>, a fact later confirmed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio<\/a> in Congressional testimony.<\/p>\n A few weeks later, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged<\/a> that Treasury had no formal audit agreement in place to track the funds internally. Bessent stated Treasury intended to retain private auditors<\/a>, rather than the normal federal accounting mechanisms.<\/p>\n The administration then offered yet another description. In late February, Energy Secretary Chris Wright<\/a> stated that Venezuelan proceeds were no longer routed through Qatar and were instead going directly to Treasury-managed accounts owned by Venezuela\u2019s state oil company, PdVSA.<\/p>\n The Trump Administration has therefore publicly described at least three versions of the structure: Treasury custodial accounts under EO 14373; the Qatari account confirmed by Rubio; and the later Treasury\/PdVSA account structure described by Wright.<\/p>\n Congress still does not know which description reflects how the money actually moved. Congress does not know whether the Qatar account was temporary, whether additional foreign accounts exist, who authorized the transfers, what banks processed them, what records accompany the payments, or whether the Treasury-account structure described in the executive order reflects the actual operational structure. On April 17, with legislation to force an audit\u00a0 blocked<\/a> in Congress, two Senators and two members of Congress asked the GAO to audit<\/a> the administration\u2019s handling of the Venezuela fund on an urgent basis. Since then, there has been no update on any results.<\/p>\n The records to answer those questions almost certainly exist. The Venezuelan oil arrangement likely produced records across Treasury, State, Justice, Energy, and the National Security Council. It almost certainly produced records with buyers of the oil, outside counsel, banks, and Venezuelan entities involved in the sales. The commodity traders selected by the Trump Administration to handle Venezuelan oil, Vitol and Trafigura, have records (as well as a history of past involvement in bribery schemes<\/a>.) Banks that processed dollar payments have records. Qatar has records. Venezuelan officials almost certainly have records. Some foreign governments, foreign banks, and commercial counterparties may know more about the movement of Venezuelan oil proceeds than Congress does. That fact makes disclosure more urgent, not less.<\/p>\n In principle, Congress does not need to wait for the White House to volunteer the truth, or even for it to cooperate with the GAO. Congress can subpoena Treasury. It can subpoena State. It can subpoena banks that cleared dollar transactions. It can subpoena traders, auditors, and counterparties. It can follow the records wherever they exist.<\/p>\n The Venezuelan funds matter not simply because of the money involved, but because they show the broader pattern in its clearest form: one structure publicly announced, another operating behind it, and the records needed to reconcile the two still withheld.<\/p>\n Hiding the Ball on the Ballroom<\/em><\/p>\n Trump says private donors are financing the White House ballroom. That claim no longer resolves the central question. Trump has also sought substantial federal funding tied to security and infrastructure surrounding the project while withholding any meaningful accounting of the private money already raised.<\/p>\n The White House released a list of 37 of the donors<\/a>. It includes major technology, defense, finance, crypto, industrial, and media interests, including Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Palantir, Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen Hamilton, Coinbase, Ripple, Tether America, Caterpillar, Comcast, Union Pacific, Stephen Schwarzman, Harold Hamm, the Adelson Family Foundation, and the Lutnick family. ArcelorMittal has separately confirmed that it contributed approximately 600 tons of steel.<\/p>\n The list discloses names. It does not disclose the amounts contributed by any donor.<\/p>\n That omission matters. The White House has not released a complete donor ledger. It has not disclosed the value of in-kind contributions. It has not published audited financial statements. It has not produced a list of pledges, receipts, expenditures, contracts, or outstanding obligations. It has not disclosed where the funds are held, what entity holds them, who has signatory authority over the accounts, who approves expenditures, or under what procedures payments are made.<\/p>\n Congress therefore cannot determine how much money Trump has raised for the ballroom, how much has already been spent, what obligations have already been incurred, or whether private funds and any future public appropriations are being kept separate.<\/p>\n That uncertainty has become more significant because Trump has now sought federal support tied to the project. Senate Republicans were given a private White House briefing<\/a>, from which Democrats were excluded, concerning a request for approximately $1 billion for security and infrastructure improvements associated with the White House complex and the ballroom, including hardening, visitor screening, Secret Service facilities, and related upgrades. To date, neither Congress nor the public has received any accounting of how the private money already raised for the ballroom has been spent before being asked to support related expenditures with taxpayer funds.<\/p>\n Congress cannot assess the $1 billion request responsibly without the missing records: who gave what; what was pledged; what was actually paid in; where the money is held; who chose the contractors; who controls disbursements; what contracts have been signed; who received them; whether the work was awarded at fair market rates; what has already been spent; and whether any public funds would supplement, reimburse, or replace private money already collected.<\/p>\n So far, Congress has refused to fund the ballroom in the absence of that information. No one should vote on the President\u2019s request until the full Congress sees the underlying records showing how the private funds have been spent to date and who benefited from spending them.<\/p>\n Shielding the Foreign Funds Behind Trump\u2019s Board of Peace<\/em><\/p>\n Trump\u2019s Board of Peace is the foreign-policy version of the same financial model.<\/p>\n On paper, the Board was created to oversee reconstruction and stabilization in Gaza<\/a>. But though the Board describes itself as a transitional authority for Gaza, its financial and institutional reach extends well beyond Gaza. The Board\u2019s inaugural resolution<\/a> does not confine it to Gaza. It permits the Board to raise money, hold funds, enter contracts, and disburse funds through entities operating outside the territory itself. Gaza is the stated mission, the operating structure is international. Trump serves as Chairman. The Executive Board includes senior U.S. officials, Trump advisers, members of Trump\u2019s family, private financiers, and foreign representatives. The charter gives Trump final authority over the budget and broad power over the Board\u2019s decisions Because Trump has the unilateral power to issue resolutions and override committee choices, traditional independent checks on its decisions and activities do not fully exist<\/a> within the organization’s architecture.<\/p>\n Trump announced that the Board had secured $10 billion from the United States<\/a> and billions more from foreign governments in the Gulf and elsewhere. Yet Congress has never approved a $10 billion appropriation for the Board. On May 15, the UN reported that the Board had received $17 billion in pledges, but that there was a substantial gap between what was pledged and what was actually transferred, describing it as a \u201cframework that exists on paper\u201d rather than one that was delivering on the ground.<\/p>\n The UN report leaves a series of basic questions unanswered. Which governments actually paid, and which merely pledged? How much was transferred? Where was the money sent? What accounts hold it? What banks processed the transactions? Who directs disbursements and who \u00a0has signatory authority? What contractors, consultants, or security providers have been paid from \u00a0the fund? And what legal obligations, if any, has the United States assumed in connection with the funds?<\/p>\n The Board\u2019s own resolution says it may open bank accounts and establish financial controls. But Trump has not disclosed the accounts, the custodians, the governance documents, the audit arrangements, the procurement rules, or the disbursement records. Those records should exist. If foreign governments contributed, they received payment instructions. Banks processed transfers. Accounts were identified. Legal documents were drafted. Someone decided where the money would sit and who could spend it.<\/p>\n At least some records must exist. But Congress and the public have not seen them.<\/p>\n That makes the Board of Peace uniquely dangerous as a financial structure. Foreign governments with direct interests before the United States have been invited to place money into a Trump-chaired body operating in parallel to formal U.S. and multilateral institutions, under rules Trump helped write, through financial channels he has not disclosed.<\/p>\n Congress cannot determine whether the Board is functioning as a reconstruction mechanism, a diplomatic initiative, a parallel international financing vehicle under Trump\u2019s personal control, or some combination of all three, until it sees the underlying financial records.<\/p>\n Freedom from Disclosure: The 250th Anniversary Fund<\/em><\/p>\n Freedom 250 is a limited liability company established at Trump\u2019s direction<\/a> to handle events for America\u2019s 250th while operating alongside the congressionally chartered America250 commission. It has received public funds for the purpose, with the exact amount still undisclosed, as well as millions of dollars of private money from undisclosed donors making contributions of undisclosed amounts<\/a> in parallel to that official process without the disclosure rules, financial reporting, and accountability that ordinarily accompany events conducted in the name of the United States.<\/p>\n That overlap matters because the celebration is not private. It is a national commemoration carried out under federal authority, using federal property, federal personnel, and the symbols of the United States.<\/p>\n Yet the financial picture remains hidden. Congress lacks a donor list, the amounts contributed, the terms attached to those contributions, the accounts holding the funds, the entity controlling disbursement, and any clear explanation of how private fundraising through Freedom 250 intersects with taxpayer-supported programming undertaken by America250 and participating federal agencies. As a result, the money raised in the name of the country is moving through overlapping public and private channels without Congress or the public able to determine where one ends and the other begins.<\/p>\n Freedom 250 may be wrapped in the language of civic celebration. Financially, it reflects the same pattern visible elsewhere: a publicly announced purpose, private fundraising around presidential power, blurred lines between official and unofficial activity, and hidden records concerning who paid, where the money sits, and how it is being spent.<\/p>\n The Legal and Constitutional Issues<\/em><\/p>\n These structures differ politically. One serves Trump\u2019s grievance narrative. Another concerns Venezuelan oil. Another claims to promote Middle East peace. Another attaches itself to the White House itself. Another wraps itself in national commemoration.<\/p>\n Yet Trump runs all of them through the same operational playbook: announce the purpose, assert presidential authority, move the money, and disclose as little as possible about the machinery behind it.<\/p>\n That strategy collides directly with constitutional and statutory limits.<\/p>\n The Constitution gives Congress<\/a>, not the President, the power of the purse. The Appropriations Clause<\/a> bars money from leaving the Treasury except pursuant to appropriations made by law. The Antideficiency Act<\/a> bars federal officials from obligating or committing government funds without appropriated authority. The Administrative Procedure Act<\/a> governs executive procedures affecting legal rights and payments. Federal fiscal law governs public money. Federal ethics law governs gifts, conflicts, and financial relationships involving public office.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s structures push against all of them.<\/p>\n Trump and his administration have not produced the account records, transfer histories, payment ledgers, donor agreements, escrow documents, or internal memoranda needed to trace how these structures actually operate. That is not a failure of bookkeeping. Trump built these structures. His administration controls the records behind them. Yet he has withheld the documentation needed to verify how the money has been raised, where it has gone, and who has benefited.<\/p>\n And the records are not held solely inside the administration. Banks have them. Foreign contributors have them. Traders have them. Contractors have them. Payment instructions were sent. Accounts were opened. Transfers cleared. Agreements were signed. Others know where this money went even if Congress does not.<\/p>\n Trump has claimed presidential authority to create these structures while withholding the records that would allow Congress to follow the money through them. He has used the presidency to assemble financial mechanisms that operate outside the ordinary channels of disclosure and accountability.<\/p>\n The veil is not incidental. Trump and his advisers drew it deliberately.<\/p>\n And when a President raises and spends money through structures designed to conceal how they operate, where the money goes, who receives it, and what obligations attach to it, the secrecy serves an obvious purpose: to hide conduct the administration does not want Congress or the public to see until the favors have been delivered, the money has been spent, and no one can be held accountable.<\/p>\n\n Jonathan M. Winer, a former senior State Department official, is a member of The Washington Spectator Editorial Board.\u00a0\u00a0 He is also active with The Steady State, a nonpartisan organization of more than 280 former senior national security professionals from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security which advocates for constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the preservation of America\u2019s national security institutions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n Source<\/a><\/p>\r\n
Source link washingtonspectator.org<\/a>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Trump produced this latest one through an\u00a0unprecedented legal maneuver: suing his own government over disclosure of his tax returns, then settling the case through his former criminal defense lawyer, now Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. The legality of that settlement is now under active judicial review, even as Trump appears to be\u00a0backing away\u00a0from the fund after unusually strong political opposition,…","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":70,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_analytify_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2610","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2610\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/70"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}