Summary
- Senate Republicans narrowly rejected a Democratic effort to kill President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion fund for people who claim they were victimized by the government.
- The vote exposed deep GOP divisions over the fund that critics say could grant payouts to rioters who attacked police officers during the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.
- Trump has defended the fund, though his acting attorney general has told Congress it is not moving forward.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
Senate Republicans rejected multiple efforts on Thursday to formally kill President Donald Trump’s push for a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people who claim they were victimized by the government.
First, the GOP-led Senate voted down an effort led by Democratic leader Chuck Schumer to shut down the fund. Then, the chamber blocked a push from retiring Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina to put an end to the fund, though Democrats argued that left room for the White House to resurrect it under another name.
Some Republicans voted in favor of the efforts, including lawmakers facing tough reelection races in November, highlighting concern within the party over the controversial fund. Critics say it would serve as a slush fund for Trump allies and could grant payouts to rioters who attacked police officers during the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
The efforts to kill the fund come as the Senate holds a marathon voting session on amendments to a $70 billion GOP immigration bill. The immigration bill, which some Republicans predict could be Trump’s last major legislative victory before the midterms, has been stalled for weeks by an ongoing GOP rebellion over the “anti-weaponization” fund.
Following intense GOP pushback, the administration has sought to convince Congress that the fund is dead, with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche telling lawmakers earlier in the week that the administration is “not moving forward with the fund, period.”
Trump, though, has been far less clear, defending the fund on Wednesday and refusing to commit to scrapping it permanently.
“I’d have to ask the lawyers, I don’t know,” Trump told CNN Wednesday on whether the fund is fully dead or just on hold. “As far as I’m concerned, it was a beautiful thing.”
Senate Democrats forced a vote at the start of a marathon voting session known as “vote-a-rama” that will allow votes on amendments to the $70 billion GOP immigration bill ahead of final passage. If it had succeeded, it could have jeopardized that immigration enforcement funding package, a key Trump priority.
That effort to kill the fund failed 49 to 50, with GOP Sens. Susan Collins, Jon Husted and Dan Sullivan crossing party lines to vote with Democrats. The vote put Republicans in a tough spot given that many want to see the fund shut down, but don’t want to derail the broader immigration enforcement bill.
Before the vote was gaveled closed, the GOP’s push to pass the immigration enforcement bill stalled for hours – forcing the Senate to a halt as GOP leaders were in talks with a group of Republican holdouts who had been refusing to vote down the Democratic attempt to kill the Trump administration’s controversial “anti-weaponization fund.”
The group of GOP holdouts, which included GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy, who recently lost his primary after public clashes with Trump, had been refusing to fall in line behind leadership. But Cassidy ultimately voted against the push from Democrats.
GOP leaders have been looking to defuse a potential revolt by a small gang of Republicans who have concerns about backing the immigration bill without explicitly killing the fund in writing.
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said on Thursday that he will not vote for the immigration enforcement funding bill if it does not include an amendment to kill the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, meaning the legislation is likely in jeopardy after Republican leaders said that it would take more than a simple majority to amend it.
“No, I’m not going to,” Tillis told CNN when asked if he could support the bill without language to kill the fund. “I voted to get on it with the goal of potentially getting an amendment done or supporting some other members’ amendment.”
