-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Twelve years ago, the Atlantic published “The Case for Reparations,” a stunning piece of journalism by Ta-Nehisi Coates.
In it, Coates painfully detailed how slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation and racist housing policies have inflicted lasting harm on African Americans, robbing them of the ability to build the kind of generational wealth that is usually taken for granted by white families.
The piece helped revive serious conversations about reparations that led, eventually, to a unique but still unrealized effort in California.
Over the decades, many citizens have benefited from reparations; Japanese Americans who were imprisoned during World War II, Native American and African American farmers who were discriminated against when the federal government refused them access to credit, loans, land assistance programs and disaster relief. Locally, Santa Monica paid thousands of dollars to the family of a Black man whose land was seized. In Manhattan Beach, Los Angeles County returned land known as Bruce’s Beach to descendants of a Black couple who had been run off their property in 1924.
Other countries have also used reparations to atone for great wrongs.
The German government has paid Holocaust survivors. Canada has compensated survivors of its Indigenous residential schools. New Zealand has settled with Maori tribes for confiscating tribal lands. In post-apartheid South Africa, a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” brought some amount of healing to victims of that racist system.
All were ethical attempts to redress real harms inflicted on citizens by their governments.
And then there’s President Trump, hellbent on finding new ways to embarrass America. Trump has now decided to funnel nearly $1.8 billion of taxpayer money into an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate people who believe they are victims of government overreach.
A memo circulated to Republican senators by the Department of Justice suggests that a vast number of Americans have suffered from “lawfare and weaponization,” vague partisan concepts that have no real meaning in the law.
That could include, according to the memo, “Millions of Americans whose online speech was censored at the behest of the government, parents silenced at schoolboards, Senators whose records were secretly subpoenaed, churchgoers targeted by the FBI, and so on.”
And so on?
The fund’s most controversial likely beneficiaries are the insurrectionists who ransacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, injuring scores of police officers, some of whom later died. In one of the first official acts of his second term, Trump issued blanket pardons and commutations for the entire mob.
When acting Atty Gen. Todd Blanche appeared Tuesday before the Senate Appropriations Committee, he refused to say whether those who attacked police would be barred from receiving money. “People that hurt police officers receive settlements all the time,” he said, a breathtaking example of moral vacuity. “Anyone can apply.”
This scam is nothing less than reparations for insurrectionists, most of whom are white. All are entirely undeserving because they brought their suffering (and legal bills) on themselves.
“This is just stupid on stilts,” said Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis. “This is beyond the pale.”
Payments are to be determined by a five-member committee appointed by Trump’s attorney general, and will be made in secret.
The fund arises from a settlement of Trump’s preposterous $10-billion lawsuit against the government (essentially himself) after an IRS contractor gave 15 years of Trump’s tax returns to the New York Times. (The contractor, who pleaded guilty, is serving a five-year federal prison sentence.)
Trump dropped the lawsuit in exchange for the Justice Department — which is run by his former personal defense attorney Blanche — creating the fund.
Oh and by the way, the Justice Department quietly announced, the IRS will be “forever barred” from auditing Trump, his children and his companies.
“Has there ever been an episode of presidential corruption so blatant and threatening to constitutional order?” asked the New York Times editorial board.
Two of the officers who were injured in the Capitol attack — Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, who was repeatedly assaulted and crushed in a door frame — are suing the government to stop this travesty.
“The Fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches,” the lawsuit claims.
In Republican circles, it would seem that a mutiny is afoot.
“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops?” said Republican Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell. “Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick.”
On Thursday, House members introduced a bipartisan bill to shut down the fund.
That afternoon, NPR featured an interview with Jake Lang, who was in jail for using a bat to attack police on Jan. 6, and was awaiting trial when Trump issued his sweeping pardons.
Lang, a white nationalist provocateur who thrills in his racism and hatred for Muslims, Jews and immigrants, told NPR he believes his government payout will be “upwards of a million dollars.”
“If you sacrifice for your country, if you do the right thing in the face of evil, you will be rewarded,” Lang said. “That’s the message President Trump is sending.”
Yeah, well, Trump is most definitely sending a message. But that ain’t it.
Bluesky: @rabcarian
Threads: @rabcarian
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The column frames reparations as an ethical tool governments have used to atone for grave, systemic harms they themselves inflicted, citing examples such as payments to Japanese Americans incarcerated during World War II, settlements with discriminated-against Native American and Black farmers, local actions like Santa Monica’s payout to a Black family whose land was seized, and the return of Bruce’s Beach to descendants of a Black couple forced off their property in 1924. These, along with international examples like German compensation for Holocaust survivors and settlements with Indigenous communities in Canada, New Zealand, and post-apartheid South Africa, are presented as legitimate reparative justice grounded in documented injustice.
Against that backdrop, the piece argues that President Trump’s nearly $1.8-billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is a cynical distortion of the reparations concept: rather than redressing state-inflicted harms, it is described as “reparations for insurrectionists,” channeling taxpayer money to people who chose to participate in political violence, especially those involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The article contends that the fund rests on nebulous and partisan notions of “lawfare” and “weaponization” of government, terms the column describes as having no clear standing in law yet being used to cast a wide net over supposed victims of government “overreach,” from social media users complaining of censorship to parents who clashed with school boards and individuals claiming religious or political targeting by federal agencies.
The column highlights that one of the fund’s most controversial potential beneficiary groups is the Jan. 6 mob that stormed the Capitol, injuring scores of officers. It stresses that Trump has already granted blanket pardons and commutations to those involved, and now may be enabling them to receive financial compensation for their own legal troubles and injuries.
The piece sharply criticizes acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s refusal, in Senate testimony, to rule out payments to those who attacked police, and portrays Blanche’s comment that “people that hurt police officers receive settlements all the time” as a morally empty attempt to normalize paying violent offenders from public funds.
The article argues that the fund itself is rooted in a corrupt bargain: Trump dropped a “preposterous” $10-billion lawsuit against the federal government over the leak of years of his tax returns in exchange for the Justice Department creating this massive compensation pool, while also securing an extraordinary pledge that the IRS will be permanently barred from auditing Trump, his children, or his companies. The column notes that the New York Times editorial board has described this arrangement as a glaring act of presidential corruption and a threat to constitutional order.
The piece underscores growing institutional resistance, noting that two officers injured on Jan. 6, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, have filed suit to block the fund, arguing that it sends a “clear and chilling message” that those who commit violence in Trump’s name will not only escape punishment but be rewarded financially.[1][2] It situates their lawsuit alongside broader litigation by individuals and organizations seeking to halt what critics call a $1.776-billion “slush fund” that misuses taxpayer money.[2]
The column further emphasizes that criticism of the fund is bipartisan, quoting Republican Sens. Thom Tillis and Mitch McConnell condemning the proposal as “stupid on stilts,” “beyond the pale,” and “utterly stupid, morally wrong.” It notes that a bipartisan group in the House has introduced legislation to shut the fund down, illustrating that alarm over the program spans party lines.[1][2]
Finally, the piece highlights the comments of Jake Lang, a Jan. 6 participant and self-described white nationalist who attacked police with a bat and now expects to receive “upwards of a million dollars” from the fund, as emblematic of the initiative’s dangers. The column suggests Lang’s boast that Trump is rewarding those who “sacrifice for your country” in “the face of evil” reveals how the program is being interpreted by extremists: as proof that political violence in support of Trump is not only tolerated but lucrative.
Different views on the topic
Supporters of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” including officials in the Trump-Vance administration, characterize it as a necessary remedy for what they describe as years of government “lawfare” and partisan misuse of federal power. According to a Justice Department memo circulated to Republican senators, the fund is intended to compensate “millions of Americans” whose rights were allegedly violated through actions such as online speech being restricted at the government’s urging, parents being “silenced” at school board meetings, and political or religious groups being inappropriately scrutinized by agencies like the FBI.
From this perspective, the fund is not seen as a slush fund for extremists but as a broad-based response to what allies of Trump describe as systemic bias within the federal bureaucracy and law-enforcement apparatus, particularly during investigations related to Trump, conservative activists, and the Jan. 6 prosecutions. Proponents argue that traditional avenues for redress are slow, costly, and often inaccessible, and claim that a dedicated federal program is warranted to help people who incurred heavy legal bills or suffered economic and reputational harm because of politically motivated investigations.
Defenders of the program point to perceived double standards, arguing that law enforcement misconduct or overreach has led to settlements in many other contexts, including cases involving protests or clashes with police. In that light, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s remark that “people that hurt police officers receive settlements all the time” is invoked by supporters as an assertion that the justice system already recognizes complex situations in which individuals accused of violence can still be entitled to compensation if their rights were violated.
Some conservative commentators and activists also frame the fund as a corrective to what they describe as the suppression of conservative viewpoints in the digital public square. They contend that coordination between government officials and social media platforms around misinformation and security led to disproportionate takedowns or throttling of right-leaning content, and argue that people who lost income, audiences, or reputations as a result deserve compensation when those actions are tied to government pressure.
Among Jan. 6 defendants and their sympathizers, the fund is sometimes celebrated as overdue recognition that participants were, in their view, acting out of patriotic motives rather than criminal intent. In the NPR interview cited in the column, Jake Lang interprets the anticipated payouts as evidence that “if you sacrifice for your country” and “do the right thing in the face of evil, you will be rewarded,” and takes Trump’s moves as validation that those prosecuted for the Capitol attack were treated as political enemies rather than ordinary criminal defendants.
Additionally, some Trump allies argue that resolving Trump’s lawsuit over the leak of his tax returns through the creation of the fund is a legitimate way to address what they view as serious failures of government confidentiality and internal controls. In this telling, using a negotiated settlement to both compensate those harmed by alleged weaponization and to impose limits on future IRS scrutiny of Trump’s finances is portrayed as a defensible effort to rein in perceived abuses by powerful agencies rather than as self-dealing or corruption.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It started as a ploy to scare Texas out of redrawing its congressional map and ended with California voters approving a new map of their own, one that could hat could help alter the balance of power in Washington.
William Mulholland was the water boss who made L.A. possible. His reputation gave him unchecked authority as a dam builder. In 1928, that led to one of America’s deadliest disasters--and the question of whether it was a crime.
