'The View' Hosts Slam Trump's $1.7Billion 'Slush Fund' for Victims of 'Government Weaponization': 'Disgusting and Unconstitutional'
'The View' co-hosts weighed in on Trump's newly proposed $1.7billion fund.
May 18 2026, Published 5:00 p.m. ET
President Donald Trump reportedly agreed to drop his $10billion lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for a $1.776billion dollar fund that would pay alleged victims of government weaponization.
On the Monday, May 18, installment of The View, the co-hosts slammed the decision as worries swirled it would be used to give pricey payouts to the pardoned people who were involved in the January 6 Capitol riots.
Potential Constitutional Roadblocks
Sunny Hostin called Trump's proposed fund 'disgusting.'
Sunny Hostin, who is an attorney, noted that paying any insurrectionists would be outright against the law, according to Section IV of the 14th Amendment.
"It feels so wrong, and it’s just disgusting, and it’s unconstitutional," she noted.
Hostin also pointed to reports from ABC News of "another settlement option" that would potentially have the Justice Department or the IRS "agree to drop any audits, any audits of Trump, his family, and his businesses, in exchange for dropping the lawsuit."
"So, that means that any money that he owes the IRS – and we know he owes money because when his taxes were released and leaked, he only paid $750 in taxes," she continued. "The average teacher and nurse pays about $5,000 on a $50,000 salary. So we know he owes money. And part of this settlement could be that his family and Trump will never pay."
Broad Terms Called in to Question
Sara Haines pointed out that the wording of the fund's purpose was broad.
Aside from the possible constitutional barriers, Sara Haines also noted that people who may have had the government "weaponized against them" is very broad, from people targeted by ICE with no "criminal convictions" on their records to government employees who didn't get paid during government shutdowns.
"The federal employees who were fired under DOGE, the Epstein survivors, and last but certainly not least, Black Americans who talk about reparations," she added, listing off people who may attempt to get paid with the new fund.
Battle of the 'Haves and the Have-Nots'
Alyssa Farah Griffin questioned whether Epstein victims whose identities were exposed could be paid.
Alyssa Farah Griffin, who previously worked for the Trump administration, wondered if an Epstein victim could be entitled to compensation after her name appeared roughly 500 times in the Epstein files.
"It also just feels like another day where the haves and the have-nots get very different outcomes," she said. "This is so extraordinary that you ran on draining the swamp, and this is the swampiest thing I could possibly imagine, is a slush fund for your allies."
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
House Democrats Hit Back
House Democrats filed a motion to block the fund.
On Monday, May 18, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a statement declaring that the "machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again."
According to the DOJ, the fund will be used to "issue formal apologies and monetary relief owed to claimants," and there are "no partisan requirements to file a claim."
That same day, MS Now reported that nearly 100 House Democrats filed an amicus brief in an attempt to stop the fund.
"93 House Democrats have filed a motion to block Trump’s self-dealing settlement in his sham $10 billion IRS lawsuit, which would create a $1.7 billion slush fund for Jan. 6 rioters and political allies," the House Dems account on X said.
