Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, said Monday he plans to force a floor vote on legislation blocking the Trump administration's nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, even after the Justice Department announced it would comply with a federal court order temporarily halting the program.

Fitzpatrick, who co-authored the bill with Rep. Tom Suozzi, a New York Democrat, told CNN's Anderson Cooper that the DOJ's statement was "not satisfactory." He and Suozzi are pursuing a discharge petition, a procedural maneuver requiring 218 signatures to bypass House leadership and bring their bill directly to the floor, The Hill reported.

The fund, designed to compensate individuals who believe they were unfairly targeted or prosecuted under Biden's Department of Justice, has drawn fierce opposition, not just from Democrats but from within Republican ranks. Senate Republicans erupted over the proposal before the Memorial Day recess, with some arguing it could benefit Jan. 6 rioters. That backlash forced Senate Majority Leader John Thune to shelve action on a broader immigration enforcement funding bill.

A DOJ concession that didn't end the fight

The Justice Department's Monday announcement, that it would abide by a federal court decision temporarily blocking the administration from establishing the fund, might have been enough to quiet some critics. Not Fitzpatrick.

He made clear he wants both legal and legislative guardrails in place. As he told Cooper:

"We need both a legal avenue here and a statutory legislative avenue. That's what Tom and I have introduced, and that's what we're going to force to the floor."

The distinction matters. A court injunction can be lifted. A statute is harder to undo. Fitzpatrick's argument is that Congress should lock the door, not just lean against it.

His language left no room for ambiguity about his view of the fund itself:

"I just think it's a gross abuse of discretion, that's what this is."

That is a Republican congressman describing a Republican administration's spending initiative. And he went further, connecting the fund to kitchen-table economics in a way that puts pressure on colleagues who might prefer to look the other way.

Fitzpatrick frames the fight around taxpayer priorities

Fitzpatrick grounded his opposition in the concerns of voters back home in Bucks and Montgomery counties, not in Washington power dynamics. He cast the fund as a misuse of public money at a time when families are stretched thin.

"So, you know, we're going to stop this instance, and we're going to prevent future instances from happening... we have half of this country living paycheck to paycheck. They're struggling to meet the most basic needs to govern their households, and you know, when we're focused on these infrastructure projects and these slush funds, that is not the way we should be governing. It's not a wise use of taxpayer money, and it's why I'm asking all of my colleagues to step up and join us in this fight."

The word "slush fund" is doing heavy lifting in that quote. It is the kind of label that sticks, and it signals Fitzpatrick views the anti-weaponization fund as discretionary excess, not a serious policy instrument.

This kind of intra-party tension is not new for House Republicans. Earlier this year, members erupted over a DHS funding reversal that left conservatives feeling blindsided by leadership.

The discharge petition gamble

A discharge petition is a rare and politically risky tool. It requires 218 House members, a simple majority, to sign on. In a narrowly divided chamber, that means Fitzpatrick and Suozzi would need a meaningful number of Republicans to join every willing Democrat.

That is a tall order. Discharge petitions succeed infrequently, in part because signing one is a direct challenge to the Speaker's control of the floor calendar. Members who sign them tend to draw leadership's displeasure.

Fitzpatrick, described by The Hill as one of the House GOP's most centrist members, appears unbothered. When Cooper raised the question of whether his independent streak has drawn President Trump's ire, Fitzpatrick was blunt:

"I answer to no person or no party in Washington, DC."

He followed that with a pointed reminder of where his loyalties lie:

"I work for the people in Bucks and Montgomery counties in Pennsylvania. They're my bosses. That's the approach that every member of Congress is supposed to take. They are the ones who send us to DC. We have to represent them, and my constituents have made clear they don't want money for a ballroom. They don't want money for a slush fund. They want us to focus on affordability issues, and that's what we're going to do for them."

The "ballroom" reference underscores the depth of his objection. He is not simply questioning the legal structure of the fund. He is questioning whether taxpayer dollars should flow toward anything that looks like a perk rather than a public necessity.

Senate backlash already forced a retreat

Fitzpatrick is not operating in a vacuum. The anti-weaponization fund already triggered a significant revolt on the Senate side. Republican senators argued the fund could end up compensating Jan. 6 defendants, a political liability that made the proposal radioactive for members facing voters who expect law-and-order consistency.

That backlash had concrete consequences. Senate Majority Leader John Thune pulled an immigration enforcement funding bill before the Memorial Day recess rather than risk a floor fight over the attached fund. The delay stalled money for border enforcement priorities that most Republicans support, an outcome that frustrated members on both sides of the internal debate.

The broader pattern, Senate Republicans hitting the brakes on ICE and Border Patrol funding over the DOJ fund, shows how a single controversial spending item can jam up an entire legislative agenda.

Meanwhile, the federal court injunction temporarily blocking the fund adds a legal dimension that may give some Republicans cover to wait rather than act. The DOJ's announcement that it would comply with the court order could be read as a de facto pause, one that lets the administration save face while the litigation plays out.

Fitzpatrick is betting that a pause is not enough. His push for legislation reflects a view that executive discretion created the problem and only a statutory fix can prevent it from recurring.

A broader pattern of GOP friction

The anti-weaponization fund fight is one of several recent episodes exposing fault lines within the Republican conference. House members have clashed repeatedly over spending priorities, immigration policy, and the boundaries of executive authority.

Some of those disputes have produced uncomfortable optics. House Republicans who pledged to block a DHS funding bill later reversed course and voted for it, drawing accusations of capitulation from conservative critics.

On immigration, the divisions run even deeper. A group of nineteen House Republicans recently co-sponsored legislation offering legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, a move that drew sharp criticism from the party's base.

Fitzpatrick's discharge petition effort adds another pressure point. If he can attract enough Republican signatures, it will signal that a meaningful faction of the House GOP is willing to publicly break with the administration on spending discretion. If the petition fizzles, it will confirm that most Republicans prefer to let the courts handle the matter rather than cast a politically complicated vote.

What happens next

Several questions remain unanswered. How many lawmakers have committed to signing the discharge petition? What is the formal bill number for the Fitzpatrick-Suozzi legislation? Which court issued the temporary injunction, and on what grounds? None of these details have been publicly clarified.

What is clear is that a sitting Republican congressman has called a Republican administration's signature DOJ initiative a "gross abuse of discretion" and a "slush fund", and is now working with a Democrat to force his own party's hand on the House floor.

That is not a minor disagreement. It is a direct challenge to how taxpayer money is spent, who benefits, and whether Congress or the executive branch gets the final word.

Voters who sent Republicans to Washington to cut waste, enforce the law, and guard the public purse are watching. The discharge petition will tell them which of their representatives meant it.