Almost no one on Capitol Hill is convinced by the White House’s offer to drop its plans for President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion settlement fund, a pot of money that’s fueling a growing crisis for GOP leaders.

Instead, Democrats want to address the issue legislatively, and Republicans may have no choice — and may also want some congressional clarity.

Nearly two weeks after the planned fund sparked a GOP revolt against a key immigration funding bill, the Trump administration on Monday promised to drop the payout proposal. A senior White House official told MS NOW the administration was halting its plans, and the Justice Department posted on X it would “abide by” a temporary court ruling against the fund.

Play

Those promises were too vague for critics in either party.

“They have to follow the law,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said of the DOJ post vowing to follow a court order. “We all have to follow the law. That’s why God made jails. Yeah, if you don’t follow the law, you go to jail. It doesn’t tell me much.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, called for a clear end to the plans for a fund.

“The only thing that’s going to solve this problem to get immigration funded and law enforced is for the president to do away with the weaponization fund,” Grassley told reporters.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, questioned whether the DOJ plan to follow a roughly two-week court order would actually eliminate the fund. 

And Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said he was open to voting for legislation to block the fund and said he’d look into the White House’s statements about it.

“I need to be convinced,” Cassidy told reporters.

Democrats were even more skeptical about the White House’s promise.

“For five minutes,” Sen. Patty Murray scoffed when asked about the plan to drop the fund. “I don’t believe that.”

This week’s congressional search for meaning in a hazy set of promises from the White House is unusually urgent. A Republican bill with $72 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection is dependent on a resolution on the settlement fund. Democrats have vowed to force votes to amend the ICE-funding bill to include a measure barring Trump’s “slush fund,” as they call it. 

Before the White House said it was abandoning its plans, it looked like some of those Democratic amendments would get enough Republican support to be adopted. Now? It’s possible those proposals get even more votes, with GOP lawmakers seeing a jailbreak forming.

“I’m sure the Democrats are going to give us an opportunity to vote on lots of different amendment ideas, but I think if the administration effectively shuts it down, and makes that very, very clear, then that to me should answer the question,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Monday afternoon.

Thune left open the possibility of votes this week on the reconciliation bill.

The nominal concessions from the White House do highlight the ability of Republican lawmakers to pressure the White House — at least, when they’re motivated to do so. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., met with Trump on Monday, and that meeting played a key role in the decision to drop the anti-weaponization fund, a source familiar with the matter told MS NOW. Johnson helped convince Trump to drop the proposal to help achieve a path forward for ICE funds. A House Republican told MS NOW that several GOP lawmakers leaned on Johnson to try to kill the fund.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor on Monday that if Republicans take up the bill, “the first amendment I will offer will be to ban the slush fund permanently and forever.”

Recommended

Play

Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told MS NOW she expects to debate the issue as part of the annual government-funding negotiations, as well as via the GOP’s attempt to pass a one-time reconciliation bill.

Of course, Republican critics of the proposal may seek a softer response, rather than a permanent ban. Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said GOP conversations have centered on how to “get some guardrails” on the fund.

And some Republicans may simply accept Trump’s promise to drop the issue. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told reporters he spoke to a White House official on Monday and was assured the administration is dropping the fund. 

“I’m comfortable,” Scott said. “They told me they’re dropping it.”

But more and more Democratic proposals to block the fund are springing up. 

Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said they were introducing a bill to block the fund — and any similar lawsuit funds created by future presidents. Kelly said he’s discussed the fund with Republican colleagues who were concerned about it and said he’d revive those conversations about the bill to block it.

Schiff said he views the White House offer to drop the fund as a “tactical retreat.” Slotkin also said she isn’t buying it.

“If you believe that a temporary two-week hold by this president means anything, I have a bridge I want to sell you,” she told reporters.

There’s also the unresolved issue of Trump and his family’s immunity from IRS audits. As part of the president’s decision to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, the DOJ promised to create the $1.8 billion fund and shield Trump and his family from audits — including a pending audit in which Trump is said to owe the IRS roughly $100 million.

While Trump appears to be dropping the $1.8 billion fund — at least for now — the fate of Trump’s get-out-of-audits-free card is more unclear.

Democrats appear likely to offer amendments addressing that resolution during the upcoming reconciliation fight, as well as measures forcing votes on other Trump-related priorities, like his proposed ballroom project.

In all cases, Trump looks like he wants to avoid lawmakers weighing in — something Thune acknowledged Monday when he said the addition of language blocking the fund to the reconciliation bill could jeopardize Trump’s signature.

Whether Trump’s supposed promise is enough for Republicans remains uncertain, as does the fate of the underlying reconciliation bill. “To be determined,” Thune said Monday night.

Asked whether Republicans would try to move forward with the measure this week, Thune told reporters they’d “know by tomorrow.”

Jack Fitzpatrick

Jack Fitzpatrick covers Congress for MS NOW. He previously reported for Bloomberg Government, Morning Consult and National Journal. He has bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Arizona State University.