2026-06-12T10:02:16.835Z / 路透社
华盛顿6月12日电（路透社）——尽管美国司法部已表示，将放弃为唐纳德·特朗普总统提议的18亿美元“政治迫害”专项基金，但他的部分盟友正将重心转向另一种方式，向其支持者发放赔偿，其中包括那些参与2021年1月6日国会山骚乱的人员。
据特朗普盟友和法律专家称，目前最可行的途径或许是依据1946年出台的《联邦侵权索赔法》对这些忠诚人士进行赔偿。该法案允许民众就指称的政府不当行为提起行政索赔——后续还可提起诉讼，随后可通过庭外和解解决赔偿问题。
“就我的级别而言，该基金已经没戏了，”司法部排名第三的官员斯坦利·伍德沃德在一次采访中表示，“如果有人想就政府行为提出索赔并起诉我们，他们仍然可以这么做。”
这位共和党总统曾多次表态，支持向其支持者发放联邦赔偿，他称这些支持者在民主党前任总统乔·拜登任内遭到了美国政府“政治迫害”。
但这笔“反政治迫害”基金原本是特朗普与司法部之间法律和解协议的一部分，用于解决特朗普针对美国国税局提起的100亿美元诉讼，该案指控国税局不当处理其税务记录。该基金因国会共和党人的强烈反对而被搁置。特朗普的批评者嘲讽该基金是用纳税人的钱奖励支持者的“黑金账户”。
在国会山骚乱中被起诉的数百人已经提起了索赔，至少有10人起诉政府要求赔偿——截至目前，政府几乎未作出回应。国会山骚乱是特朗普支持者为阻止国会认证他在2020年大选中输给拜登而发起的未遂行动。
这一策略早已在筹划中。长期为特朗普效力的迈克尔·卡普托表示，保守派律师曾在2024年共和党全国代表大会上召开一次此前未被报道过的战略会议，就该计划展开讨论，他本人也出席了此次会议。
卡普托曾在特朗普2024年竞选活动中牵头开展“反政治迫害”相关工作，并提交了已知的首笔针对现已搁置的“政治迫害”基金的索赔申请。他称，目前仍在探索其他赔偿方案。
“我没有听到任何迹象表明他们在推进受害者赔偿事宜上有所放缓，”卡普托说，他补充道，政府官员曾告诉他“拭目以待”。
卡普托在特朗普第一任期内曾担任卫生与公众服务部发言人，他就拜登政府和前特别检察官罗伯特·米勒的调查向布兰奇索要270万美元的“赔偿”。
“这是后勤上最可行的方式，”自由派法律组织“司法研究所”专攻《联邦侵权索赔法》案件的高级律师帕特里克·贾科莫说，“政府将拥有很大的灵活性。”
特朗普一再支持赔偿他口中“政治迫害”受害者的支持者，这引发了一个疑问：他现在可能会通过何种途径来实现这类赔偿。
当被问及是否有其他方案可提供此类赔偿时，白宫援引了特朗普和代理司法部长托德·布兰奇此前的表态，称“政治迫害”基金不会推进。
“我们目前没有额外的公告，任何关于未来潜在行动的猜测都只是猜测而已，”一位不愿透露姓名的白宫官员对路透社表示，“特朗普总统仍致力于解决拜登执政时期的政治迫害问题。”
一位同样不愿透露姓名的司法部官员表示，目前没有任何鼓励民众提交此类索赔的行动。
“民众理应获得赔偿”
特朗普指责拜登政府和其他政治对手不当利用执法、情报和监管机构针对他和他的盟友。批评人士则表示，这些行动是基于特朗普等人实际存在或被怀疑存在的不当行为，具有法律依据。
例如，特朗普曾对因参与国会山骚乱而被起诉的支持者给予行政赦免。
“这些人被肮脏的警察和政治迫害毁了，”特朗普在周日播出的美国全国广播公司《与媒体见面》节目中表示，“他们中的许多人理应获得赔偿。”
共和党参议员林赛·格雷厄姆在社交媒体帖子中支持通过《联邦侵权索赔法》寻求赔偿的想法，促使司法部的伍德沃德在一条随后被删除的帖子中作出了看似认可的回应。
“我们正在推进此事，”伍德沃德写道。
伍德沃德后来对路透社表示，他此举旨在传递一个信息：即便没有18亿美元的专项基金，那些认为自己遭受政府不当对待的人仍有途径获得赔偿。
从边缘想法到主流策略
向特朗普盟友提供经济赔偿，已从政治边缘议题逐渐成为共和党主流战略的一部分。
卡普托称，早在2023年10月，他就参与了有关寻找途径向“政治迫害”受害者支付赔偿的讨论。
1956年，国会设立了永久性判决基金，用于支付针对联邦政府的诉讼和解金。
卡普托表示，总统的盟友和保守派律师在2024年共和党全国代表大会上“反复讨论”使用该基金依据《联邦侵权索赔法》进行赔偿。据卡普托透露，参与这些讨论的人士反对向暴力重刑犯支付赔偿，其中包括袭击警察的人员。
卡普托说，与会者认为判决基金是一个“无限”的资金池，可避开设立新行政基金面临的政治障碍，尽管他们承认这类赔偿可能引发争议。
一些知名的特朗普盟友已经依据《联邦侵权索赔法》获得了赔偿。曾短暂担任特朗普第一任期国家安全顾问的迈克尔·弗林，依据该法案获得了125万美元的和解金。
律师彼得·蒂金表示，他的律所代表了400多名参与国会山骚乱、已提交《联邦侵权索赔法》索赔申请的人士。蒂金说，他希望政府能在案件开庭前达成和解，但尚未得知任何相关计划。
“我们要求的赔偿金额为数百万美元，”蒂金说，他补充道，他相信特朗普和司法部会确保他的客户获得赔偿。
“一场闹剧”
《联邦侵权索赔法》索赔的行政程序始于申请人提交一份名为SF-95的表格，指控政府存在不当行为并要求赔偿损失。
索赔通常必须在事件发生后两年内提出，但国会山骚乱的被告辩称，针对他们的不当行为构成持续伤害。目前尚不清楚法院或司法部将如何看待这一解释。
贾科莫表示，如果政府同意索赔金额，官员可以在指定法官之前授权付款，这意味着无需法官对付款进行审查。
如果政府未能达成和解，索赔人可以提起诉讼，届时法官将开始监督案件。蒂金已经提起了10起诉讼，并表示计划再提起数百起。
曾在2001年美国“9·11”袭击事件中负责受害者赔偿基金的前司法部官员鲁帕·巴塔查里亚表示，司法部律师通常只会在面临很高的庭审败诉风险时才会和解，不过他们在和解事宜上拥有广泛的自由裁量权，包括在国会山骚乱案件中。
“这将是一场闹剧，因为这些诉讼非常站得住脚，”巴塔查里亚说，她曾在两党总统任内任职，“这将违背判决基金的目的和精神——但不太可能违反法律条文。”
丹·罗森茨威格-齐夫 报道
迈克尔·勒尔蒙特、威尔·邓汉姆 编辑
Trump’s allies have another way to pay ‘weaponization’ victims
2026-06-12T10:02:16.835Z / Reuters
WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) – While the Justice Department has said it has abandoned plans for President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.8 billion “weaponization” fund, some of his allies are shifting focus to a different way to make payouts to his supporters, including those who took part in the January 6, 2021, riot on the U.S. Capitol.
The most viable path, according to Trump allies and legal experts, may involve compensating these loyalists under a 1946 law called the Federal Tort Claims Act. That measure lets people file administrative claims – and subsequent lawsuits – against the U.S. government for alleged wrongdoing, which can then be settled out of court.
“At my level, the fund is dead,” Stanley Woodward, the third-ranking official at the Justice Department, said in an interview. “If somebody wants to submit a claim against the government and sue us, they can still do that.”
The Republican president repeatedly has expressed support for federal payouts to supporters who he has portrayed as being targeted by a “weaponized” U.S. government under his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden.
But the “anti-weaponization” fund, crafted as part of a legal settlement between Trump and the Justice Department to resolve his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over allegedly mishandling his tax records, was put on hold amid fierce opposition from Republicans in Congress. Trump critics derided it as a slush fund to reward supporters with taxpayer money.
Hundreds of people who were prosecuted after taking part in the Capitol attack, which was a failed bid by Trump supporters to prevent Congress from certifying his 2020 election loss to Biden, already have filed claims, and at least 10 have sued the government for damages – so far with little response.
The strategy has long been in the works. Conservative lawyers debated the plan during a previously unreported strategy session at the 2024 Republican National Convention, according to longtime Trump ally Michael Caputo, who attended the meeting.
Other payout options are still being explored, according to Caputo, who helped lead “anti-weaponization” efforts in Trump’s 2024 election campaign and filed the first known claim under the now-abandoned “weaponization” fund.
“I’ve heard no indication that they’ve slowed down on trying to get victims paid,” Caputo said, adding that administration officials have told him to “watch this space.”
Caputo, who served as a Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson during Trump’s first term, asked Blanche for $2.7 million in “restitution” over investigations by the Biden administration and former special counsel Robert Mueller.
“It’s the most logistically feasible method,” said Patrick Jaicomo, a senior attorney at the libertarian legal group Institute for Justice who specializes in Federal Tort Claims Act cases. “The government would have a lot of flexibility.”
Trump’s repeated support for compensating supporters he paints as victims of “weaponization” has raised the question of what avenue he may now pursue to make such payments.
Asked if there are alternative plans to provide such compensation, the White House pointed to previous comments by Trump and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that the weaponization fund would not go forward.
“We have no additional announcements at this time and any speculation about potential future actions is just that – speculation,” a White House official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. “President Trump remains committed to addressing Biden-era weaponization.”
A Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there is no effort to encourage people to submit these claims.
‘PEOPLE SHOULD BE COMPENSATED’
Trump has accused the Biden administration and other political opponents of improperly using law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory agencies to target him and his allies. Critics have said these efforts were legally justified by actual or suspected wrongdoing by Trump and others.
Trump, for instance, gave executive clemency to his supporters who were prosecuted for their roles in the January 6 riot.
“The people were destroyed by dirty cops and by weaponization,” Trump said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program aired on Sunday. “Many of those people should be compensated.”
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in a social media post backed the idea of pursuing payouts through the Federal Tort Claims Act, prompting the Justice Department’s Woodward to respond with what looked like an endorsement in a since-deleted post.
“We’re working on it,” Woodward wrote.
Woodward later told Reuters he was trying to send a message that people who believe they were victims of government abuse continue to have a path for compensation even without the $1.8 billion fund.
FROM FRINGE IDEA TO MAINSTREAM
Financially compensating Trump allies has moved from the political fringe closer to mainstream Republican strategy.
Caputo said he was involved in conversations about finding ways to pay victims of “weaponization” dating back to October 2023.
In 1956, Congress created a permanent Judgment Fund for paying settlements of lawsuits against the federal government.
Caputo said that allies of the president and conservative lawyers discussed using this fund for payouts under the Federal Tort Claims Act “ad nauseam” during the 2024 Republican National Convention. Attendees at these discussions opposed paying violent felons, including those who assaulted police officers, according to Caputo.
The attendees viewed the Judgment Fund as a “limitless” pot of money that would avoid the political hurdles of creating a new administrative fund, Caputo said, though they acknowledged these payouts could be controversial.
Some high-profile Trump allies already have received payouts under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Michael Flynn, who briefly served as Trump’s national security adviser during his first term, received a $1.25 million settlement under the statute.
Attorney Peter Ticktin said his office is representing more than 400 people who took part in the Capitol riot who have submitted Federal Tort Claims Act claims. Ticktin said he hopes the government will settle the cases before they go to court, but has not been told of any plans to do so.
“We’re asking for restitution in the millions of dollars,” Ticktin said, adding that he trusts that Trump and the Justice Department will ensure that his clients get paid.
‘A TRAVESTY’
The administrative process for a Federal Tort Claims Act claim begins when a person files a form, known as an SF-95, alleging government wrongdoing and demanding damages.
Claims typically must be filed within two years of the incident, but January 6 defendants are arguing that the alleged wrongdoing against them constitutes ongoing harm. It remains unclear how courts or the Justice Department will treat that interpretation.
If the government agrees to the amount requested, officials can authorize payment before a judge is assigned, Jaicomo said, meaning no judge would review the payment.
If the government does not settle, claimants can file a lawsuit, at which point a judge would begin overseeing the case. Ticktin has already filed 10 lawsuits and said he plans to file hundreds more.
Rupa Bhattacharyya, a former Justice Department official who oversaw the compensation fund for victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, said department attorneys typically settle only when they face a high risk of losing at trial, though they retain broad discretion on settlements including in January 6 cases.
“That would be a travesty because these are very defensible lawsuits,” said Bhattacharyya, who served under presidents of both parties. “It would violate the purpose and spirit of the judgment fund – but it is unlikely it would violate the text of the law.”
Reporting by Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff. Editing by Michael Learmonth and Will Dunham