Capped Anti-Weaponization Fund Will Save Government Money: Legal Analyst

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-23

[00:00:01]The Justice Department's $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund getting a lot of buzz. What you might not realize is it might be more costefficient for the government to settle claims quickly.

[00:00:12]Joining me now to break it all down is Jeff Clark, vice president of litigation at the Oversight Project.

[00:00:19]Vice President of litigation at the Oversight Project. Jeff Clark, thanks so much for joining.

[00:00:26]>> It's always good to see you, Steve.

[00:00:28]Great to have you with us, Jeff. So, there's this sort of frame of thought that the $1.8 billion uh fund for those who've had weaponization um of government taken out on them could actually that this could actually save this this fund taxpayers a significant amount of money over time or at least uh the government. Walk us through how that might work.

[00:00:54]>> That would work like this. Everyone has a right to seek recovery for tors that the federal government might have inflicted on them under the federal tort claims act. The process for that is to make an administrative filing first to see if the claim can be settled and then ultimately if you're not happy with any settlement offer that you might receive, you can then go to court and potentially win a judgment. And in either case, whether you get a voluntary settlement or you get uh a court-ordered judgment, that money comes out of the judgment fund, which is bottomless. And so this is a capped fund. So if there are people who especially in exchange for uh lower procedural burdens and you know faster recovery time, decide to give up those rights and seek recovery from the fund, you can see how it would save money because that fund is capped at the $1.776 billion. Jeeoff, I've spoken to Democratic strategists on this program who say that the fund does not indicate uh that the DOJ was weaponized under President Biden. Um when it comes to those who uh don't think that that was the case, can you give us some examples and what is your response to them?

[00:02:09]>> Well, I I think the part department clearly was weaponized under uh the Biden administration. And we had uh the uh department before uh special counsel Jack Smith got appointed uh you know being uh weaponized in various ways to investigate conservatives. We obviously had another arm another branch of the federal government in the article one branch the January 6th committee. I think it abused its powers and I think people could seek uh recompense for that. uh in terms of a like the idea of a finding. I mean, I think there might be findings in particular cases that they think uh a given claim that's applied for is uh is a valid claim or not. But again, I would take a wait and see attitude on that. Steve, I think a lot of the hullaloo is based on trying to imagine uh uh the left trying to imagine who the worst possible least deserving claimant is. predict that that claimant is going to get uh a bundle of money and then say, "Oh, how can we possibly have this process?" And I just think that's an illegitimate way to to look at it, especially at this early stage.

[00:03:21]>> Jeeoff, I I must say I think you're being uh humbled by not bringing up your own case. Uh so I will uh you yourself have been in the crosshair hairs uh here. The Justice Department filed a complaint against the DC bar uh against you. Um, and you know, excuse me, against the DC bar, uh, this month calling its actions against you unlawful. Uh, there have been other situations and cases against you. Tell us about your case. I was really gratified to see, as you said, very recently, the Justice Department, uh, spearheaded by Stanley Woodward, the associate attorney general, who's personally litigating the case, filed a complaint against the DC bar, against the DC's board on professional responsibility, and against even the DC local highest home rule court because they're the ones who ultimately have the authority to impose discipline to say you can't impose discipline on Jeff Clark. he was acting within the executive branch of the government uh speaking to President Trump giving him advice and that's all very protected and uh the fact that the federal government when it is consulting with itself right in its own corridors whether that's the oval office of the white house or whether that's uh the inner sanctums of the justice department that's confidential those things shouldn't come out and any attempt by one city and that's what DC is one city's bar to penetrate into the superior federal government's deliberations is something that is uh uh you know blocked by federal law. We've been making that argument for a very long time. So uh me and my lawyers are very happy to see the uh decision by DOJ to come in on my side and try to block out and end this case that's been dragging on Steve for far too long. This is all stemming for the viewers uh from uh your time as a high-ranking official, assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice during Trump 1 uh where you were advising the president uh around the time of the highly contested 2020 election. Former United States Assistant Attorney General and president of the of litigation at the Oversight Project, Jeff Clark. Thank you so much.

[00:05:40]>> Thanks, Steve.