President Donald Trump’s new $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is drawing criticism not only from Democrats but from some Republicans in Congress as well – including North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis.

The fund was created through a settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. According to the US Department of Justice, Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization will receive formal apologies but no direct monetary damages.

Instead, the settlement creates a compensation fund for people who claim they were harmed by what the DOJ calls “political weaponization” or “lawfare” by the federal government.

Critics of the plan say that one likely effect is that some people charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol could potentially seek compensation from the fund after receiving pardons from Trump earlier this year.

That possibility has created discomfort among some Senate Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said he was “not a big fan” of the proposal and he added, “I’m not sure exactly how they intend to use it. But yeah, I don’t see a purpose for that.”

Tillis said there’s a “real risk” that Jan. 6 defendants pardoned by Trump could ultimately receive payments from the fund. Tillis called that possibility “absurd.”

Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis told the Deseret News that the proposal “doesn’t pass the smell test.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of Trump’s closest allies in the Senate, also expressed caution, saying, “Conceptually, I understand what he’s trying to do, but I don’t know. I think we need to ask more questions.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy called the proposal a “slush fund.”

The controversy escalated Wednesday, May 20, when two law enforcement officers involved in defending the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the fund.

Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges and former US Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn argue in their lawsuit that the fund is unconstitutional and exceeds the legal authority of the executive branch.

The lawsuit states: “No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law.”

The suit also argues that the fund could ultimately “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence” in Trump’s name.

The legal and constitutional issues surrounding the proposal are unusually broad.

Typically, settlement agreements resolve disputes between the parties directly involved in a lawsuit. In this case, however, a settlement involving Trump’s tax-return lawsuit is being used to establish a large compensation program for outside claimants who were not parties to the original case.

The money is expected to come from the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent congressional appropriation traditionally used to pay settlements and judgments against the federal government.

Critics argue that Congress – not the executive branch – ordinarily creates major compensation programs involving taxpayer money.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the settlement this week, saying the government “should never be weaponized against any American” and that the fund would create a process for victims of political targeting to seek compensation.

Blanche declined to rule out the possibility that Jan. 6 defendants who assaulted police officers could apply for payments. He said claims would be reviewed by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general, which is him right now.

The Justice Department has stated that there are “no partisan requirements” for applicants and that unused money would return to the federal government.

Still, Democrats are expected to force votes in Congress aimed at preventing Jan. 6 defendants who assaulted law enforcement officers from receiving compensation through the program.

That could place Republicans in a politically difficult position.

For years, Republicans have argued that the Biden Justice Department unfairly targeted conservatives and Trump supporters. At the same time, many Republicans have also strongly backed law enforcement and have condemned assaults on police officers during the Jan. 6 attack.

The debate over Trump’s new fund now sits directly between those two positions.

About