On Sunday, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) took aim at President Donald Trump, accusing him of using a $1.8 billion fund to reward allies while everyday Americans feel the pinch at the pump.
In a post on X, Kelly wrote that "as gas continues to rise," Trump was "awarding himself a $1.8 billion slush fund for his loyalists." He also claimed that healthcare was being cut to fund tax breaks for the wealthy. "Arizonans are filling up their tanks, wondering who Washington is actually working for," Kelly added.
Kelly isn't alone in his criticism. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Trump's administration went beyond pardoning Jan. 6 defendants, alleging he "set them up for payments through a slush fund" funded by taxpayers. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) accused the administration of diverting funds away from affordability priorities, citing what he described as a $1.8 billion "slush fund" for Jan. 6-related individuals. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the federal budget a "personal slush fund," alleging nearly $2 billion was directed to a "MAGA slush fund" and additional spending on political projects. He said there was no plan to reduce costs for families. Rep. Jamie Raskin also criticized a proposed $1.7 billion IRS settlement arrangement, calling it an unconstitutional "political slush fund" and saying Congress had not approved the funding.
The controversy centers on reports that President Trump is expected to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. A possible settlement could include a $1.7 billion fund for allies who claimed political targeting. The plan may also cover some Jan. 6 defendants and Trump-linked entities.
For Democrats, the issue is a clear political weapon: a president who promised to lower costs is instead, they argue, funneling money to his supporters. With gas prices rising and midterm elections looming, the "slush fund" narrative is likely to stick.
