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.

California voters headed to the polls Tuesday to begin the process of selecting a successor to Gov. Gavin Newsom, and one result immediately grabbed the attention of political observers across the country: Republican Steve Hilton’s surprisingly strong performance in the state’s gubernatorial primary.

Although millions of ballots remain outstanding and California’s lengthy vote-counting process means final results may not be known for days or even weeks, early returns indicate Hilton and former Biden administration official Xavier Becerra are on track to advance to a highly anticipated November showdown.

California’s June 2 primary operated under the state’s top-two election system, which places all candidates on a single ballot regardless of party affiliation. The two candidates receiving the most votes advance to the general election, creating a dynamic that often produces unpredictable outcomes.

Democrats entered the race with a significant numerical advantage but faced a challenge of their own making: a crowded field that threatened to divide support among multiple high-profile candidates. That concern appeared to materialize as results rolled in Tuesday night.

As of Wednesday morning, Hilton held the lead with approximately 28 percent of the vote, outperforming expectations and positioning himself as the early frontrunner. Becerra followed in second place with roughly 25 percent, while billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer trailed in third at just under 20 percent despite investing heavily in his campaign.

The results left several well-known Democratic contenders on the outside looking in. Former Rep. Katie Porter, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa all failed to generate enough support to remain competitive, effectively ending their bids for the governor’s office.

Hilton’s strong showing is likely to energize Republicans who have struggled for statewide success in California for years. While Democrats still maintain a substantial registration advantage, the fragmented primary field created an opening that Hilton successfully capitalized on.

With ballots continuing to be counted, the exact margins remain subject to change. However, barring a dramatic shift in the outstanding vote, the race to replace Newsom appears increasingly likely to feature a head-to-head contest between Hilton and Becerra this fall.

The outcome sets the stage for what could become one of the nation’s most closely watched gubernatorial races, as voters in the country’s most populous state prepare to choose their next governor amid growing debates over the economy, public safety, homelessness, and the future direction of California.

Hilton’s strong performance quickly emerged as one of the night’s biggest surprises. The former Fox News host and onetime adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron entered the race as a political outsider, but his campaign gained momentum by tapping into voter frustration over California’s most persistent problems. Endorsed by President Donald Trump, Hilton focused heavily on issues such as homelessness, soaring housing costs, public safety concerns, burdensome regulations, and the state’s rising cost of living. Early results suggest that message struck a chord with voters increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo.

Becerra’s advancement to the projected runoff was significant in its own right. The former California attorney general and former Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden mounted a late surge after months of uncertainty about whether any Democrat could emerge from the crowded field as the clear favorite. While he never fully united the party’s various factions, Becerra ultimately secured enough support to claim a spot in November’s general election. If successful, he would become California’s first Latino governor.

The results also highlighted growing divisions within California’s Democratic coalition. Establishment Democrats largely coalesced around Becerra, while many progressive voters gravitated toward billionaire activist Tom Steyer and other candidates. The fractured Democratic vote likely contributed to Hilton’s first-place finish and provided Republicans with a significant morale boost heading into the fall campaign.

National political observers are watching the race closely because of California’s outsized influence. Home to nearly 40 million residents and boasting a state economy worth more than $4 trillion, California often serves as a political bellwether and policy laboratory for the rest of the country. The state’s next governor will inherit a daunting list of challenges, including housing affordability, homelessness, wildfire preparedness, water management, and an increasingly unstable insurance market. Those concerns dominated voter conversations throughout the primary campaign and are expected to remain central issues in the general election.

Despite the early projections, election officials continue to count millions of ballots. California law allows valid mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted after polls close, meaning final vote totals could continue shifting over the coming days. Nevertheless, current returns strongly indicate that Hilton and Becerra are positioned to advance to a November showdown.

Beyond the governor’s race, Californians also voted in a number of congressional and statewide contests that could have national implications. Several competitive House districts are expected to become major battlegrounds as both parties fight for control of Congress.

For now, however, the spotlight remains firmly on Hilton. By outperforming expectations and finishing atop the primary field, he demonstrated that Republicans may possess more political strength in California than many analysts assumed. Democrats remain the favorites in a state that has voted reliably blue for decades, but Tuesday night’s results suggest the race to replace Gavin Newsom could be far more competitive than initially anticipated.