Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Friday described a closed-door Senate Republican meeting with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche over the Trump administration's $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund as contentious and heated, with GOP senators voicing fierce opposition to the proposal that has drawn bipartisan criticism.
The meeting took place Thursday and ultimately derailed a planned vote on a Republican bill to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, according to NBC News reporting of the incident.
What the Right Is Saying
Cruz offered a stark assessment on his podcast 'Verdict with Ted Cruz,' saying 'fiery does not begin to cut it' when describing Thursday's meeting. 'My guess is there're probably 45 senators in the room, at least half of them were blasting the attorney general, and they were pissed,' Cruz said.
Several Republican senators expressed concerns that the fund appeared as though Trump had 'cut a deal with himself.' Cruz quoted colleagues saying 'this feels like self-dealing' during the meeting.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., called the fund a 'payout pot for punks,' referencing the administration's previous stance that it had not ruled out compensating people convicted of January 6 participation. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said Thursday 'I think the administration is putting itself in a bad spot' and noted 'Congress has had no input.'
A White House official told NBC News on Friday that 'the Administration appreciated yesterday's conversation and feedback. We look forward to additional conversations as needed.' Cruz emphasized on his podcast that if the fund remains unchanged when the Senate returns June 1, 'they've got a full-on revolt in the Senate.'
What the Left Is Saying
Senate Democrats have widely condemned the anti-weaponization fund since its announcement. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., wrote in a letter to Blanche on Wednesday that 'the notion of the federal government doling out compensation to rioters' is 'absurd and offensive,' referring to concerns that people convicted for participating in the January 6 Capitol riot could be eligible for compensation from the fund.
On the House side, Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at prohibiting federal money from being used by the anti-weaponization fund. The move came after Fitzpatrick demanded answers on the fund's legal authority in a Wednesday letter to Blanche.
Democrats have argued that Congress should have input into such a significant expenditure and have questioned the legal basis for the fund, which was announced Monday after President Donald Trump agreed to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS related to a 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago.
What the Numbers Show
The anti-weaponization fund totals $1.8 billion, announced Monday after Trump agreed to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS along with other damage claims related to the search of Mar-a-Lago and the Russian collusion investigation connected to the 2016 presidential election.
Justice Department officials stated the fund came 'in exchange' for Trump dropping those legal claims and would involve 'a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare.'
Cruz estimated that roughly half of the Republican caucus, approximately 45 senators present at Thursday's meeting, would have voted with Democrats in favor of amendments seeking to rein in the fund had the ICE and Border Patrol bill vote proceeded as planned Thursday night.
The Senate is scheduled to return to session June 1, which Trump has identified as his target date for signing an ICE and Border Patrol funding bill into law.
The Bottom Line
Thursday's meeting represents a significant rupture between Senate Republicans and the Trump administration's priorities. The $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund has exposed divisions within the GOP over executive authority and congressional oversight of federal spending.
Cruz's warning of a 'full-on revolt' suggests the administration will need to make modifications to the fund or provide more robust legal justification before the Senate returns June 1, or face bipartisan opposition to its agenda. The bipartisan legislation introduced by Suozzi and Fitzpatrick in the House signals that efforts to constrain the fund will continue on both sides of Congress.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Cruz's characterization of Thursday's meeting.