Trump’s Bid for $230 Million from the Justice Department

Former President Trump is pursuing up to $230 million from the Justice Department as compensation for various federal investigations into his actions. However, even if he is successful, the prospect of legal backing appears slim.

On Tuesday, Trump confirmed that his legal team is working towards a settlement, which might steer decisions on whether to compensate some of his appointees, including former defense lawyers.

This unusual situation has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats, who have labeled the effort as “blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.”

Legal experts suggest that if the Justice Department chooses to settle, there may be limited legal avenues for contesting that decision—especially when ordinary citizens rarely see compensation for similar claims.

The New York Times first highlighted the settlement proposal, and later, Trump addressed the matter from the Oval Office.

The Times detailed that Trump has initiated two lawsuits seeking damages. The first, filed in late 2023, blames rights violations stemming from the FBI and special counsel investigations related to the 2016 campaign’s alleged ties to Russia. The second lawsuit, which came in summer 2024, accuses the FBI of privacy breaches related to a search of Mar-a-Lago for classified documents, alongside claims of malicious prosecution from the Justice Department.

This request is a critical step to pursue claims against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which permits lawsuits against the U.S. for negligent actions by public officials. After waiting six months, a plaintiff can initiate a lawsuit.

Rupa Bhattacharyya, a former director at the Justice Department’s Torts Branch, indicated that FTCA claims are frequently filed, making it one of the most active areas for litigation against the government.

She pointed out that typical resolved claims usually involve clear-cut issues like car accidents or medical malpractice, which wouldn’t typically apply to a case like this.

“Honestly, I cannot picture a scenario where a Justice Department career official would back this settlement,” Bhattacharyya remarked.

For regular citizens attempting to claim money from the government, it’s essentially impossible to navigate administrative claims like Trump’s.

Neema Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and co-founder of a lawyer’s association, mentioned that in her experience with hundreds of such claims, none have been approved.

“They are denied every time,” Rahmani noted. “So, you present your case, get denied, and then you file a lawsuit,” adding that it would be surprising if Trump’s request saw approval.

Despite this, Trump seems keen to secure his compensation without going through a lengthy court process.

He mentioned to reporters that he owes “a significant amount” but hasn’t elaborated with his legal team. Interestingly, he claimed he would donate any awarded funds to charity.

“It’s peculiar that you’re using your own funds to make such decisions,” Trump stated.

However, ultimately, the decision lies with officials at the Justice Department, not Trump himself.

While lower-level officials can make settlement decisions under a limited threshold, larger sums, like the $230 million Trump is after, would require approval from either the deputy attorney general or assistant deputy general.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has previously represented Trump as a defense attorney, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Legal ethicist Stephen Gillers expressed concern in an email, emphasizing that government officials, at the president’s discretion, should not decide on reimbursing Trump for defense-related costs.

“Their job security conflicts with their duty to the United States,” he pointed out.

Earlier this week, a Justice Department spokesperson asserted that officials would follow guidance from career ethics advisors. However, Attorney General Pam Bondi had previously dismissed the department’s chief ethics advisor in July.

On Thursday, Democratic representatives announced an investigation into this potential settlement.

Reps. Jamie Raskin and Robert Garcia voiced their concerns that Trump could have pursued legal claims independently but chose to wait until he was president to influence decisions about a settlement.

They characterized the initiative as a “blatantly illegal and unconstitutional attempt to extract $230 million from American taxpayers,” pointing out that it contradicts rules preventing the president from accepting payments exceeding his salary from federal or state governments.

Paul Figley, a former deputy director of the FTCA staff at the Justice Department, suggested reimagining the scenario. He posed a hypothetical where a helicopter crashes while trying to get the president, leading to potential property damage.

“The question remains: Who would approve that settlement?” Figley reflected, adding that liability in such cases would fall within the government’s risk, although the claim process itself isn’t illegal or unconstitutional.

He clarified that the final decision rests with the Justice Department, ultimately backed by Congress.

Before 1948, Americans seeking government compensation needed special legislation from Congress, which resulted in dissatisfaction among voters. Thus, Congress amended the FTCA to shift authority to the executive branch for settling claims from the Judgment Fund, which can cover judgments against the government indefinitely.

“This is an executive branch matter, given that Congress delegated this power,” Figley explained.

Rahmani agreed there seems to be “no legal recourse” to contest a settlement with Trump.

“Politically, there’s room for dissent, but there’s no legal mechanism for taxpayers to challenge a good-faith settlement,” she elaborated.

While Bhattacharyya didn’t entirely dismiss the chance of a legal challenge, she noted it would likely be challenging to find someone with legal standing to file such a suit.

One could potentially argue that the Justice Department’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” or even file under the False Claims Act, claiming Trump was compensated for unsubstantiated claims. However, without a real, personal stake in the outcome, any challenge is unlikely to succeed.

“I’m still brainstorming who might challenge this,” Bhattacharyya admitted. “But I haven’t hit on a solid theory yet.”