Trump heads to Walter Reed today for his 3rd medical checkup in 13 months, prompting outside physicians to raise serious questions about his health and fitness

Donald Trump will make a doctor's visit today, the third such appointment for the 79-year-old president since the beginning of his second term. That comes after a report at The Washington Post (WaPo) and Yahoo! News that some physicians are starting to question  if Trump is as healthy as he often claims -- and if the White House is covering for him. Under the headline "Trump faces health questions ahead of another Walter Reed trip," Dan Diamond writes:

President Donald Trump today is expected to undergo his third scheduled medical checkup in 13 months, as outside physicians say they have persistent questions about the nearly 80-year-old president’s health and fitness.

Trump, the oldest president ever to be inaugurated, is scheduled to visit Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for a medical and dental visit, the White House said earlier this month. The president went to Walter Reed in April 2025 for his annual physical exam - and returned in October for what officials characterized as a “scheduled follow-up,” sparking weeks of inquiries about Trump’s diagnosis and procedures that the White House repeatedly sidestepped.

Nearly three months after the visit, Trump and the White House clarified that the president had received a CT scan. His doctor, Sean Barbabella, described the imaging as preventive “to definitively rule out any cardiovascular issues.”

That lack of transparency, not surprisingly, seems to be prompting alarm among medical experts about the president's health status. Diamond writes:

While the White House has a round-the-clock medical team that can privately attend to the president if needed, Walter Reed has facilities for advanced imaging and other procedures. Trump also has made two visits to a Florida dentist since January, the White House has said, with officials saying those were for routine cleaning and care.

The White House repeatedly has said the president is in “excellent health,” including in response to questions this weekend, citing medical reports produced by White House physicians, including one from Barbabella in October that said Trump “remains in exceptional health.”

Trump’s health and fitness have been central to his political identity, in part because the president has continually invoked it, seeking to turn persistent doubts about his age into a point of strength. Trump campaigned in 2023 and 2024 by touting his vigor, particularly compared with then-President Joe Biden, regularly boasting of his results on cognitive exams while attacking his opponent as “Sleepy Joe.”

While Trump once tried to fuel speculation about Biden's physical and mental capabilities, the tables -- and the skeptics -- now seem to have turned in his direction. Also, polls show that everyday Americans increasingly are skeptical about Trump's health status. From The WaPo report: 

As an aging president, [Trump] now receives some of the same questions that dogged Biden - - namely, whether he is mentally and physically fit to perform the duties of commander in chief. Independent doctors have asked why Trump’s hands have been repeatedly bruised, why his legs are swollen and whether his occasional sleepiness is a sign of a deeper issue, saying they find White House explanations insufficient. 

“This White House doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge any physical ailment, but older people develop medical issues, and the president is almost 80 years old,” said Jonathan Reiner, a longtime cardiologist for former vice president Dick Cheney. “There just seems to be a lack of candor from the White House.”

A growing share of the public has doubts, too. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll conducted last month found that 40 percent of Americans thought Trump had the mental sharpness to serve as president, down from 47 percent last September. Forty-four percent of Americans thought Trump had the physical health to do the job, down from 54 percent last September.

Presidents are not required to disclose their health records, although annual trips to Walter Reed have become a modern tradition. Some lawmakers in both parties have called for more checks on chief executives, such as creating an independent commission that could assess the president’s health. 

In addition to boasting of his physical health, Trump has regularly touted his results on cognitive exams, insisting that the tests validate his fitness. He repeated claims about his cognitive scores as recently as Friday at a rally.

Some of Trump's attempts to tout his physical and mental prowess border on the comical, even the absurd. Diamond writes:

He also has invoked past diagnoses from his physicians, including Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), who served as a White House physician in Trump’s first term. Trump has said Jackson told him he was healthier than Trump’s predecessors Barack Obama and George W. Bush, both of whom were at least 15 years younger than Trump when first sworn into office. The two former presidents also had consistent exercise routines, a contrast with Trump who eschews exercise except for golf.

“I just care that he was my doctor and he said I’m the healthiest human being he’s ever - Ronny, am I healthier than these guys back here?” Trump said in February, standing in front of the U.S. Naval Academy’s football team.

“Yes sir,” Jackson replied.

“All right. See, this is why I like him,” Trump said.

Some of Trump's aides don't help matters by joining in the jokefest: Diamond cites examples: 

His aides trumpet his energy, including this weekend, when they touted his commitment to working through Saturday.

Trump and some of his top deputies, such as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Mehmet Oz, have made a recurring joke of the scrutiny of the president’s health.

“Dr. Oz looked at his medical records and said he’s got the highest testosterone level that he’s ever seen for an individual over 70 years old,” Kennedy said on a podcast with former White House official Katie Miller this year. Officials later said he was repeating a private joke. 

The White House has a tendency to send mixed signals about Trump's health, alternating between jokiness and defensiveness:

In a sign of how seriously the White House has treated the issue, press secretary Karoline Leavitt had personally handled questions about the president’s health before she took maternity leave this month. Trump also has spoken directly to some reporters who pursued stories about his fitness.

The White House has become increasingly aggressive when rumors have spread about Trump’s health, which have sometimes corresponded with periods when the highly visible president abruptly lowered his public profile.

In early April, hundreds of thousands of social media users amplified claims that Trump had been taken to Walter Reed - drawing the ire of White House officials, who said the president was instead sequestered to monitor search-and-rescue operations in Iran. The White House subsequently created a digital “Wall of Shame” that criticized social media influencers who had fueled claims about a hospital visit. The page also included reporters and news organizations that had merely noted facts about the situation, such as that Trump had yet to make a public appearance.

“The response was warranted because this was clearly an organized misinformation campaign peddled by left-wing accounts,” Leavitt told The Washington Post in a statement last month. “Spreading false and slanderous misinformation about the President is dangerous, and the White House will always hold people accountable for their egregious lies.”

That is quite a statement from an administration led by a president with a documented propensity for engaging in falsehoods. In short, the White House wants to have it both ways -- contributing to a culture of misinformation, while tolerating misinformation that suits its needs. Diamond reports:

Trump has been a victim of misinformation, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, who has studied how misinformation spreads. The president has also contributed to it, she said.

“Conspiracy theories can be accurate,” Jamieson said, alluding to how Trump’s political career has been shaded by questions around his health - some of his own making. “It’s perfectly possible that unexplained absences are worthy of investigation.”

On the other hand, some experts seem to be growing weary of the White House's approach to queries about Trump's health. Diamond writes: 

In interviews, several physicians who have treated presidents and other VIPs said they had come to distrust the White House’s process for releasing information about Trump, with some invoking the doubts around Biden too.

“After a decade of delusion, deceit, denial or delay from the administrations and White House physicians regarding presidential evaluations, my expectation bar is pretty low,” said Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as a physician to former presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama. “I hope they are at least transparent and truthful.” 

Perhaps careful news consumers can take cues from the approach experts plan to take regarding coverage of today's visit to Walter Reed:

In interviews with The Post, Kuhlman and other physicians listed several questions they’re focused on as Trump heads to his latest Walter Reed visit.

Mental fitness

Trump has touted his performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which is used to screen for dementia or cognitive decline. The president has said he was prompted to undergo the assessment during his first administration because of persistent questions about his mental health.

“I don’t mind being called a brilliant, total tyrant dictator, but I don’t want to be called dumb,” he said at a rally on Friday. He added that “all presidents and vice-presidential candidates should be forced to take a cognitive test and a test on intelligence,” claiming that he would outperform Obama and Biden.

That's the kind of nonsensical statement Trump uses to distract the public from a serious appraisal of what should be seen as a serious issue, especially in an era when Trump recently threatened to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Age." Diamond writes:

Democrats have repeatedly called for Trump to have an independent medical evaluation, citing his sometimes shocking statements, including his recent threat to end Iran’s “civilization.” Some physicians say that given the president’s age, more cognitive testing is warranted too.

“In addition to a cognitive screening test, he may need further screening of his cognitive executive function as we know 80-year-olds do have a decline in memory, reasoning, speed of processing and spatial visualization,” said Kuhlman, who detailed his experiences treating presidents in a book called “Transforming Presidential Healthcare.”

Swollen legs

Reiner said that he had concerns about the president’s visibly swollen legs, which had become apparent by last summer. The White House last July said that Trump had developed chronic venous insufficiency, a mild but chronic illness related to his age - a rare admission of a presidential health issue.

Reiner noted that no mention of the condition was made in Trump’s April 2025 medical report. If the condition was present at the time, it raises questions of whether physicians missed or did not disclose the diagnosis, he said. 

Alternately, if Trump developed swollen legs in the weeks after the April exam, that would indicate a condition called acute edema - and “that usually warrants an  in-depth evaluation to make sure that you don’t have conditions like congestive heart failure,” Reiner said.

The president’s October medical report said nothing about the condition. 

Bruised hands

The White House has said that recurring bruises on Trump’s hands are not a sign of a more serious medical condition, chalking it up to his daily use of aspirin and frequent hand-shaking.

Reiner said he found those explanations not credible.

“If you’re taking too much aspirin, one would likely take less aspirin. So that explanation doesn’t make a lot of sense to me,” Reiner said. “We’ve seen a similar bruise from time to time on his left hand, and I doubt he’s shaking hands with his left hand,” he added.

Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol turn the tables on Trump and his "slush fund," suing to block payouts and demanding the illegal fund be dissolved

Officers Daniel Hodges and Harry Dunn (Bloomberg, via Getty Images)

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Tuesday told a Senate Appropriations subommittee, in so many words, that all systems are go on Donald Trump's plan to use a "weaponization fund" to compensate his allies who claim they were unlawfully targeted by the Joe Biden administration. In the process, Blanche brushed away concerns from one senator that proceeds from the fund could go to a very real Trump ally who was pardoned and released from prison for his crimes in the Jan. 6 riot, only to be convicted of child molestation and sentenced to life. A second senator voiced concerns about a theoretical ally who, having assaulted police officers on Jan. 6, could receive money as a reward for his actions. Blanche essentially brushed that off, too.

But we learned yesterday, that two officers who helped defend the Capitol have said, "Not so fast, Mr. acting attorney general." Blanche might find that he can't dismiss these officers so readily, according to a report at Associated Press (AP), under the headline "Officers who defended Capitol from rioters sue to block payouts from $1.8B 'anti-weaponization' fund." Reporter Michael Kunzelman writes:

Two police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol from attack by a mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters sued on Wednesday to block anyone — including Jan. 6, 2021, rioters — from receiving payouts from a new $1.776 billion settlement fund for people who claim to be victims of politically motivated prosecutions.

The officers’ attorneys filed the federal lawsuit a day after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the fund’s creation during a congressional hearing. Blanche, a personal attorney for Trump before joining the Justice Department, wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for fund payouts.

By attempting to block anyone -- not just Trump allies -- from receiving payouts, attorneys for the officers appear to be playing a serious game of hardball. They seem to be saying that the "weaponization fund," in its entirety, is an unlawful mechanism that cannot disburse funds to anyone. In fact, the officers are pushing for the fund to have a short lifespan because it is illegal. And that is exactly how the AP article  frames it. Kunzelman writes:

The lawsuit claims the government’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is an illegal slush fund that Trump will use to “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name.” It describes the fund’s creation as “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century” and calls for dissolving it.

“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 says.

As I often heard while growing up in the Ozark Mountains -- which explains my fandom of the Ozark Mountain Daredevils -- "That's telling 'em how the hog ate the cabbage." The AP report contains this telling paragraph about the sketchy nature of Trump's handiwork:

The fund stems from a settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. It’s designed to compensate those who believe they were mistreated by prior administrations’ Justice Department. Decisions on payouts will be made by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.

Notice that the fund is "designed to compensate those WHO BELIEVE they were mistreated . . . " To borrow another phrase from my Ozarks heritage, "I 'believe" doves will fly out of my butt one day, but that doesn't mean it will actually happen." In short, the factual basis for Trump's lawsuit -- and the resulting settlement that led to formation of the "weaponization fund" -- appears at this time to be virtually non-existent. Consider these words from our post of Tuesday (5/19/26):

Here are some obvious questions this all raises: Who are these Trump allies who claim the Biden DOJ targeted them? No one seems to know. How were they targeted, and what investigations or charges did they face? No one seems to know that, either. Did they present evidence of their innocence to the White House before the lawsuit was filed? You guessed it; No one knows.

These are the kinds of questions that surface when you have a hideously corrupt president who has filled the DOJ with his incompetent loyalists, and we have Republicans in Congress who checked their spines -- and their oversight authority -- at the door. Here is more from AP:

More than 100 police officers were injured during the Capitol riot. Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Jan. 6-related crimes, but Trump used his pardon powers to erase all of those cases in a sweeping act of clemency last year.

The plaintiffs suing Trump over the fund are Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who is running in Maryland for a seat in Congress. Hodges and Dunn both testified before Congress about their harrowing experiences on Jan. 6. Videos captured a rioter ripping a mask off Hodges as he was pinned against a door during a fight for control of a tunnel entrance.

For the plaintiffs, issues raised by the Trump fund are matters of life and death, but it's not clear that Blanche is taking the process seriously, Kunzelman reports:

The officers claim the fund “encourages those who enacted violence in the President’s name to continue to do so.”

“Dunn and Hodges already face credible threats of death and violence on regular basis; the Fund substantially increases the danger,” the suit alleges.

A commission, whose members will be chosen by Blanche but have not yet been announced, will be charged with deciding who gets paid and how much.

Blanche said in a CNN interview on Wednesday that the board will have to consider the person’s actions, among other factors, when deciding whether to give them money. But the attorney general added: “Whether the commissioners will give that person money — that claimant — it’s up to them.”

Blanche said “it’s abhorrent” to harm law enforcement, but added that “people that hurt police get money all the time” from suing the government. He dismissed backlash to the fund as “fake outrage.” 

Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also are named as defendants in the officers’ lawsuit. Spokespeople for the Justice and Treasury departments didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit.

One of the attorneys for the officers is Brendan Ballou, a former Justice Department prosecutor who handled Jan. 6 cases.

As we close, I am reminded of one more idiom from my celebrated Ozark Mountains Period, and it comes in the form of a question:

Why are Todd Blanche, and all other Trump loyalists, "crooked as a dog's hind leg?" 

 

Blanche fails to assure senators that Trump's new "slush fund" won't go in the pocket of a pardoned J6 rioter/child molester or a J6er who beat a cop

This Jan. 6 rioter, pardoned by Trump, now is a convicted  child molester

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who ramrodded Donald Trump's "weaponization fund" into existence, was the subject of a hearing before the U.S. Senate yesterday. and that proceeding produced proof that the smell of Trump's latest venture -- some are calling it a "slush fund"-- is getting more rancid by the day.  Let's consider two stomach-churning moments from Blanche's testimony:

First, Blanche was given ample opportunity to state that his Department of Justice (DOJ), which will be in charge of disbursing funds, would ensure that money will not go to a pardoned Jan. 6 attacker who now is a convicted child molester. Blanche failed to provide such assurance, per a report at Raw Story:

Attorney General Todd Blanche got an earful from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) on Tuesday after a Senate Appropriations hearing devolved into a heated confrontation over the Justice Department's controversial anti-weaponization fund — and whether a pardoned child molester could collect from it.

The fireworks started when Van Hollen pressed Blanche on a deeply troubling case: a Trump pardon recipient who allegedly molested two children after receiving clemency and then tried to buy their silence by promising them money he expected to receive from the DOJ fund.

"Can you commit to making the rule so that that person is not eligible for a payout under this fund?" Van Hollen demanded.

Blanche immediately got defensive and never gave Van Hollen a satisfactory answer. To be clear, Van Hollen was not asking about a theoretical matter; this disturbing case is very real. In fact, it is worse than Raw Story makes it sound. It involved a Florida man named Andrew Paul Johnson, who was a Jan. 6 rioter granted a pardon by Trump. 

After being released from prison on that matter, Johnson was accused of molesting two children. Contrary to Raw Story's report, Johnson did not just "allegedly molest two children." A jury convicted him of five criminal charges, and a judge sentenced him to life in prison on March 5, 2026. From a report at NPR:

Just months after President Trump's mass pardons for Jan. 6 rioters freed him from prison, a Florida man repeatedly sexually abused two middle-school aged children.

The man, Andrew Paul Johnson, was sentenced to life in prison, after a Florida jury found him guilty of five criminal charges, including molestation, lewd and lascivious exhibition and transmission of material harmful to a minor.

Police reported that Johnson, 45, tried to keep the children quiet by telling them he would share millions of dollars in restitution money he expected to receive from the Trump administration in connection with his Jan. 6 case.

"He said not to tell anybody," one of Johnson's victims testified. 

Both children later testified that they were too afraid to tell any adults about what they had endured, according to trial records obtained by NPR. 

"We were scared," Johnson's other victim testified. "Like, we didn't realize that this stuff was not okay because we were 12 years old." 

Yes, Johnson tried to bribe his victims, apparently based on the word of a Trump DOJ official who predicted months ago that Capitol rioters would receive millions. And Johnson is just one of the most recent examples of the impunity Trump has helped breed into his followers. Here is more from NPR:

Johnson is one of several pardoned Capitol riot defendants who have been arrested for new crimes since receiving clemency for their actions during the 2021 insurrection. Opponents of Trump's mass pardons say the president's actions have instilled a sense of impunity among members of the mob who stormed the Capitol.

"They think they're untouchable," said Congressman Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who served on the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack. Trump's pardons, Raskin told NPR, "definitely have made Americans less safe."

In recent weeks, two former Jan. 6 defendants were arrested in the Washington, D.C. area.

Jake Lang, who was charged with assaulting police with a baseball bat during the riot, was arrested for allegedly threatening a police officer who had also previously protected the Capitol.

"Public execution is the only solution for animals like you," Lang told the officer at a rally for the fifth anniversary of the attack, according to prosecutors and video of the scene. Lang has pleaded not guilty.  

Lang also appeared in court this week in St. Paul, Minn., on a felony charge of damaging property after posting a video of himself knocking down an ice sculpture put up by protesters opposing the federal government's immigration crackdown.

Meanwhile, Bryan Betancur, who already has a lengthy criminal record, was also arrested this week on charges of assault and battery. At the time of the Capitol riot, Betancur was on probation and wearing a court-mandated GPS monitor for a prior burglary conviction. His latest arrest took place after videos emerged that appeared to show him touching women's hair while riding the D.C. Metro. Multiple women have accused Betancur of stalking them and making harassing comments online.  

Last year, after another pardoned Jan. 6 rioter was charged with threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Trump was asked if his pardons undermined his tough-on-crime policies. 

"No, you have thousands of people that we're dealing with, and, you know, if one goes haywire," Trump said, before pivoting to criticize Democrats. 

As part of the administration's push to rewrite the history of the attack, which injured approximately 140 police officers, an official White House website describes all of the Jan. 6 defendants as "patriotic Americans prosecuted for their presence at the Capitol." Trump himself has referred to the rioters as "great people." 

What about the second stomach-churning moment from Blanche's testimony? Details on that come from a separate Raw Story report under the headline "Todd Blanche forced to admit violent MAGA rioters could get federal payouts":

During his testimony Tuesday before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made the startling admission that Jan. 6 Capitol rioters who had been convicted of assaulting police officers could be eligible for “multi-million dollar payouts” using taxpayer dollars.

While testifying, Blanche was asked by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) about whether violent insurrectionists who participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would be eligible for payouts from the new fund.

Backed into a corner while under oath, Blanche took the unusual approach -- for a Trumper -- of telling the truth:

“During Police Week, I heard from a number of law enforcement friends who found it appalling that there was the possibility that folks like the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys who had assaulted Capitol Police officers could receive multi-million dollar payouts from this fund,” Merkley said. “Will you commit that no one who has been convicted of assaulting a police officer will receive a payout from this fund?”

Blanche conceded that while he shared in Merkley’s “concerns,” the fund would ultimately be eligible for anyone who claims to have been unfairly targeted by the Biden administration’s Justice Department.

“Anybody can apply,” Blanche said. “The commissioners [of the fund] will set rules, I'm sure – that's not for me to set, that's for the commissioners. And whether an individual, an Oath Keeper as you just mentioned, applies for compensation... anybody in this country can apply.”

Trump drops lawsuit against the IRS to create a fund that could allow his allies to make money from the Jan. 6 attack -- and one observer calls it "the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency"

(Instagram)

The Trump administration yesterday, in a staggering display of lawlessness, dropped its $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for formation of a $1.78 billion fund to benefit White House allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration. Many Americans probably have never heard of a "collusive lawsuit," which essentially is an elaborate ruse where the parties appear to be in a dispute when they actually are colluding to reach an agreement that will benefit them both. If you think that smells fishy, you are using delicate language. The Trump deal with his own Justice Department is a classic case of collusion, and it emits a suffocating stench. 

Here is how the Legal information Institute at Cornell Law School describes such a lawsuit:

A collusive suit (also referred to as a friendly suit) is a lawsuit where the parties are not actually in disagreement but are cooperating to steer the court towards some agreed-upon conclusion. As seen in United States v. Johnson, collusive suits are not allowed in federal court because they are not adversarial.

If that's the case, how was Donald Trump able to file his garbage case and walk away with a favorable result? We will be examining that question and more in upcoming posts, but first let's examine reporting from the Associated Press (AP) that shows the rule of law is battered beyond recognition in Trump's America. How grim is this? One legal and ethics expert in Washington D.C., called it "one of the single most corrupt acts in American history." Here is how AP set the stage for the legal carnage that followed:

The Trump administration announced Monday the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion fund to compensate allies of the Republican president who believe they have been unjustly investigated and prosecuted, an arrangement that Democrats and government watchdogs derided as “corrupt” and unconstitutional.

The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” of $1.776 billion is part of a settlement that resolves President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. It will allow people who believe they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes, including by the Biden administration Justice Department, to apply for payouts, creating what acting Attorney General Todd Blanche called “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Blanche went on to make this astounding statement:

“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Blanche said in a statement that made no mention of how investigations and prosecutions of Trump’s political opponents under his watch have exposed the Justice Department to the same claims of politicized law enforcement that he said he opposed.

Those words must make folks like Letitia James and Adam Schiff guffaw. In short, Trump and Blanche seem to have ears made of such thick tin that they can't hear how preposterous their words sound to others. Blanche is expected to be pressed on the fund when he testifies today on Capitol Hill about the Justice Department budget.

That Trump and his No. 1 toady, Blanche, would invoke the terms "lawfare" and "weaponization" is a case of hypocrisy on amphetamines -- or in Trump's case, Adderall. After all, Trump openly has called for his perceived political opponents to be prosecuted, which led to Blanche indicting former FBI Director James Comey for "arranging seashells by the seashore."

Here are some obvious questions this all raises: Who are these Trump allies who claim the Biden DOJ targeted them? No one seems to know. How were they targeted, and what investigations or charges did they face? No one seems to know that, either. Did they present evidence of their innocence to the White House before the lawsuit was filed? You guessed it; No one knows. We do have this from a report at TIME magazine: 

While the DOJ did not release detailed eligibility criteria, officials said the fund is intended for individuals who believe they were improperly targeted by the federal government on political, personal, or ideological grounds.

Previous reporting by The New York Times and ABC News ahead of the fund’s official announcement indicated that it could be used to compensate Trump allies, including the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, who claim they were unfairly prosecuted.

You read that correctly: Those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 could financially gain from their misdeeds, which reportedly included severely beating law-enforcement officers. That's patriotism, Trump style. Try not to reach too quickly for a vomit bag. Let's return to AP's coverage, where we learn Democrats in Congress are struggling to contain their outrage:

Nearly 100 Democrats in the House of Representatives signed onto a legal brief urging a judge to block what they described as an unprecedented resolution that they said would unjustly enrich people close to the president with taxpayer dollars and open the door to meritless claims of political persecution.

The fund would represent not only a highly unorthodox resolution but also a further demonstration of the administration’s eagerness to reward allies of Trump who have long insisted that they have been unjustly investigated and in some cases charged and convicted. Most notably, the president on his first day back in office pardoned or commuted the sentences of supporters who rioted at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His Justice Department since then has approved payouts to supporters entangled in the Trump-Russia investigation and investigated and prosecuted some of his perceived adversaries.

Trump’s attorneys suggested in their court filing seeking to dismiss the case that the resolution would not be reviewable by a judge. But a group of 93 members of Congress filed a brief teeing up a challenge.

“This case is nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters, and white supremacists, including those who brutally beat police officers on January 6, 2021, and sycophant accomplices to his election stealing schemes,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.

I would say Jamie Raskin nicely summed it up. If he didn't, we still have this, from a report at AOL and HuffPost: 

“Of all the corrupt things he has done, this is one of the most depraved,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “No president should be able to use the Department of Justice as a personal rewards program for the people who helped him attack our democracy. . . . ”

“President Trump’s action against the federal government he currently leads is a collusive lawsuit that undermines the separation of powers, frustrates Congress’ lawmaking prerogative, and ― unless rightfully dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ― could siphon billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the President, his family, and his allies,” the Democrats said in their filing. 

And finally, we have this:

“By settling his absurd $10-billion lawsuit against his own administration, Trump and the Justice Department just engaged in the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency, and did so quickly in order to avoid the scrutiny of the judicial process,” Donald Sherman, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said in a statement. “This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history.”