Republicans Rebuke Trump on $1.8 Billion Fund and Ukraine Aid as Midterm Pressures Rise
Updated
Updated · Reuters · Jun 6
Republicans Rebuke Trump on $1.8 Billion Fund and Ukraine Aid as Midterm Pressures Rise
3 articles · Updated · Reuters · Jun 6
Summary
Multiple Republican factions in Congress have broken with Trump in the past week, rejecting his $1 billion White House ballroom funding, forcing a retreat on his $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund and blocking domestic spying legislation.
That resistance widened as the House passed a Ukraine aid and Russia sanctions bill on Thursday despite Trump's opposition, setting up what appears likely to be a presidential veto.
Lawmakers and aides said frustration has built over Trump's interference in Senate races, including moves against Bill Cassidy and John Cornyn, and over announcements that disrupted a $70 billion immigration enforcement package before Republicans later passed it.
The next test may come on nominations: Mitch McConnell has warned Bill Pulte lacks the experience for permanent DNI, and Todd Blanche could face a difficult path to attorney general in the Senate.
Republicans and the White House still downplay any full-scale revolt, but election-year politics are making more lawmakers vote with constituents rather than automatically back Trump's agenda.
With federal voter proposals stalled, how are new state laws changing what documents citizens need to vote?
Can an appointee legally lead a top intelligence agency without the national security expertise required by law?
The $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund: Legal Battles, GOP Divisions, and the Fight Over Executive Power in 2026
Overview
As of June 2026, the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, created after President Donald Trump dropped major lawsuits against the IRS, is blocked by a federal judge and faces an uncertain future. The fund, intended to compensate those claiming wrongful targeting, immediately drew bipartisan outrage and accusations of self-dealing. Senators Bill Cassidy and Cory Booker urged the court to keep the block, arguing the fund threatens constitutional order and congressional authority. Despite strong opposition and legal challenges, Congress has not formally banned the fund, leaving its fate—and the controversy over executive power and taxpayer money—unresolved.