Rep. Suozzi calls on Republicans to ‘stand up’ to stop ‘anti-weaponization fund’

Rep. Suozzi Calls Republicans to Stop 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'

Bipartisan Critique of Executive Power

Rep Suozzi calls on Republicans to stand - On May 24, 2026, Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., co-chairs of the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus, sharply criticized the Justice Department’s $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund." The lawmakers argued that the initiative bypasses congressional oversight and could lead to unfair settlements for individuals accused of harming law enforcement. Their concerns were highlighted during an appearance on ABC News’ "This Week," where they emphasized the need for legislative action to counteract the fund’s implications.

“The issue here, Jonathan, is a statute that basically bypasses Congress,” Fitzpatrick told ABC News’ co-anchor Jonathan Karl. “Congress appropriates money. The executive branch does not have a dime of money in its own level. Every dollar that goes to the executive branch emanates from Article I, emanates from Congress through the appropriations process we are in now.”

Suozzi, a Democrat from New York, echoed Fitzpatrick’s warnings, urging Republicans to act against the fund. He framed the proposal as a threat to checks and balances, stressing that the Justice Department’s decision to allocate funds without congressional input risks misusing taxpayer money. The two lawmakers introduced a bill aimed at halting the fund’s payments, positioning it as a necessary step to restore legislative authority.

Controversy Over Fund’s Purpose

The "anti-weaponization fund" was launched by the Justice Department to compensate individuals who claim to have been wronged by government actions. This includes participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, some of whom were later convicted for assaulting police officers. Critics argue the fund could reward those who injured law enforcement, raising questions about its fairness and scope. Rep. Suozzi called on Republicans to unite against the measure, emphasizing its potential to enable unjust payouts.

“It’s really up to the Republicans to join with the Democrats. Everybody knows this is wrong,” Suozzi said during the interview. “That's the purpose of the checks and balances in government, so that one branch of government does something stupid or wrong, the other branch holds them accountable.”

Suozzi used a specific case to illustrate his point: Daniel Rodriguez, a Jan. 6 rioter, was tased by a police officer during the insurrection. The officer suffered a heart attack and later developed brain damage from the taser. Despite the incident, Rodriguez was pardoned by the president and is now eligible for compensation. Suozzi called this scenario "crazy," underscoring the perceived injustice of allowing such settlements under the fund.

Republican Tensions and Political Stakes

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Republican senators at the Capitol to address concerns about the fund. However, the discussion revealed growing friction, as some Trump allies criticized the initiative as a political tool. One senator reportedly told Blanche, “You created this s--- sandwich, you got to figure it out,” reflecting Republican frustration over the fund’s perceived partisan nature.

Republican lawmakers who have challenged the administration’s policies on the fund now face political pressure. In recent primaries, GOP incumbents who opposed Trump lost to candidates aligned with the president, including Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky and Sen. Bill Cassidy in Louisiana. This trend highlights the delicate balance between opposing the fund and maintaining party unity.

“I don't worry about any outside criticism. Everybody's got a job to do. Everybody's right and free to speak their mind,” Fitzpatrick said, defending the fund while acknowledging the need for congressional oversight. He emphasized that his duty is to represent the people who elected him, even if it means aligning with the administration on other issues.

Despite their differences, both Fitzpatrick and Suozzi agree that the fund’s creation marks a significant shift in executive power. They argue that the Justice Department is effectively circumventing the legislative process, using taxpayer funds without sufficient scrutiny. This debate underscores the growing tension between the branches of government and the importance of congressional oversight in shaping policy.