Senate Majority Leader John Thune is finding himself in an increasingly difficult position as President Donald Trump’s controversial “Anti-Weaponization Fund” faces mounting legal challenges and growing skepticism from members of his own party.

The South Dakota Republican declined to declare victory Monday after the Department of Justice announced it would comply with a federal court order temporarily blocking payouts from the fund until at least June 12. The decision followed a surprise ruling by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who reopened litigation connected to Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns.

While the Justice Department’s announcement appeared to signal a retreat, Thune suggested many Senate Republicans remain unconvinced that the controversy has been resolved.

“The way the statement is worded, I think it’s clear that they’re not proceeding with the fund, but obviously whether that’s sufficient to satisfy a number of our members is something we’re still sorting through,” Thune said.

However, it was a separate exchange that quickly grabbed attention.

When reporters asked whether he was concerned Trump might veto a broader funding package if Congress moved to prohibit the fund entirely, Thune responded with a short but pointed reply.

“Oh yeah, don’t you?”

The comment immediately sparked criticism from some conservatives who interpreted the response as dismissive or mocking toward the president at a particularly sensitive moment for Republicans.

The dispute comes as GOP leaders attempt to keep their conference united while negotiating a massive $70 billion immigration enforcement funding package. Democrats could attempt to force amendment votes targeting the Anti-Weaponization Fund, potentially putting Republicans in the uncomfortable position of choosing between supporting Trump’s priorities and avoiding a politically damaging battle ahead of the midterm elections.

Even some of Trump’s strongest Senate allies have signaled dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of the issue.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley argued that the White House needs to provide a much clearer answer.

“It’s pretty clear that the President has to say very explicitly that there’s not going to be a weaponization fund,” Grassley said.

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy was equally blunt while describing the broader funding negotiations.

“The reconciliation bill looks like a broken arm with the bones sticking out,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy also dismissed suggestions that the Justice Department’s promise to follow the court order should end the controversy.

“Saying you’re going to follow a court order doesn’t tell me anything. You have to follow the court order.”

Last week, Judge Brinkema ordered the administration to halt any efforts to establish or operate the fund pending a June 12 hearing. In response, the Justice Department said it “disagrees strongly” with the ruling but would nevertheless comply.

The department defended the fund, arguing it was created to compensate Americans who were unfairly targeted by government actions.

According to the DOJ, the program was intended to address “the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people” and would be open to anyone who believed they had been subjected to government weaponization or political persecution, regardless of political affiliation.

Despite that defense, reports indicate the administration may now abandon the initiative altogether. One source familiar with the situation told Axios that the fund is “dead for now.”

Still, ending the fund may not fully eliminate the controversy. Critics argue the settlement included another significant provision reportedly granting Trump, his sons, and Trump-affiliated businesses protection from future IRS audits. Whether those protections would remain in place if the fund is terminated remains unclear.

The White House referred questions about the matter to the Justice Department.

The $1.776 billion fund originated from a settlement connected to Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS after a former government contractor leaked his confidential tax returns. The administration has maintained that the money was intended to compensate victims of government “weaponization” and “lawfare,” phrases Trump has frequently used to describe what he believes was politically motivated targeting of conservatives.

Opponents, however, argue the fund lacks congressional authorization, sufficient oversight, and a clear legal foundation. Several lawsuits have challenged the arrangement, including legal actions brought by government watchdog organizations and law enforcement officers involved in the January 6 Capitol riot response.

For now, Thune remains caught in the middle of a growing political storm. Democrats see an opportunity to deepen divisions within the Republican conference, while many conservatives continue demanding a more definitive answer from the Trump administration. As legal challenges continue and tensions rise on Capitol Hill, the Senate majority leader is left trying to prevent a controversial funding dispute from becoming an even larger headache for Republicans.