Stop the
SLUSH FUND

Yes. A certified class of Native American farmers sued the USDA for documented loan discrimination. The government contested liability for years before settling. Parties were genuinely adverse.

No. Trump sued an agency he controls. His former personal criminal defense attorney — now Acting AG — privately negotiated a settlement on behalf of the U.S. in a few weeks.

Yes – and unlike ordinary settlements, court approval was legally mandatory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, because Keepseagle was a certified class action. A federal judge held a public fairness hearing, approved the settlement, and retained supervisory jurisdiction throughout the claims process.

No – the parties dismissed the case before any judge reviewed it. There was no public fairness hearing and no requirement that anyone represent the interests of the taxpayers footing the bill.

Eligibility was defined in advance by a court-certified class: Native American farmers who applied for USDA loans within specific dates. The administrator had discretion over award amounts — but not over who qualified. That threshold was set by a federal judge, in public, before a dollar moved.

Anyone claiming to be a "victim of weaponization," as determined by 5 AG-appointed commissioners. Adjudication criteria determined in secret. Jan. 6 defendants who physically attacked law enforcement are not excluded. Potential for abuse.

After 3,600+ Native American farmers were paid, $380 million remained unclaimed. A federal judge approved distributing the surplus to nonprofits already serving the same Native American farming community. The recipients were limited to the same subject matter and population as the original case.

The settlement states that unspent funds by Dec. 15, 2028 would be transferred to a federal account "designated by the President." No judicial or congressional control of public funds. 

Claims were adjudicated by a court-appointed neutral (JAMS / Lester Levy) with no connection to either party — not removable by plaintiff – under published procedures with defined evidence requirements. Court retained supervisory jurisdiction and had to approve any changes to settlement terms.

A 5-person commission to be appointed by the Attorney General and removable by the plaintiff (President) at will. Settlement asserts that the commission will write its own rules and may publish them "in whole or in part, in its discretion."

Yes, class members could object, and two did – all the way up to the Supreme Court.   SEE D. CRAIG TINGLE, NO. 16-5189; & K. MANDAN, NO. 16-5190

No, the settlement explicitly bars any appeal, arbitration, or judicial review of any determination made by the fund. A denied claimant has no recourse inside the fund's secret processes.

Yes, the settlement was part of a public court record, modifications required court approval and public notice to class members, and the claims process operated under continuing judicial jurisdiction. Accountability was structural, not discretionary.

No, the settlement only requires confidential reports to the Attorney General. Blanche asserts that recipient names may be withheld under "privacy laws" or "privilege." Critics flag this lack of transparency as formula for political patronage and abuse.