Hickenlooper Bets on Excluding Tina Peters from Trump Tax Settlement Fund

A $1.8 billion pot of money. That’s the size of the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" created to settle President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over his leaked tax returns.

Sen. John Hickenlooper is betting that Colorado neighbors will want to know if any of that cash is going to Tina Peters.

Specifically, Hickenlooper plans to force Republicans to vote on an amendment that prohibits the Trump administration from sending money to former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters and others found guilty of election-related offenses. The goal is simple: stop the payout. The source of the funds is a settlement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

The fund, officially valued at $1.776 billion, allows people who believe they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes to apply for payouts. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche called it “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Hickenlooper’s office defines the exclusions broadly. Anyone convicted of crimes related to state or federal election interference, impersonation, identity theft, official misconduct, violation of duty in elections, and failure to comply with the requirements of the secretary of state is out.

This isn't just about Peters. It’s about the mechanism. The amendment is tied to a roughly $70 billion bill Republicans are bringing to restore funding to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. Hickenlooper plans to introduce the amendment whenever that larger bill is taken up.

The timing has shifted. The vote was originally scheduled for late Thursday or early Friday. It’s now postponed until June. The delay follows a two-hour meeting between Senate Republicans and Blanche. Instead of forcing a quick vote before a weeklong recess, Republicans are tabling the matter. Some members are hesitant. They aren't ready to back the compensation fund entirely without these exclusions.

Hickenlooper knows the math doesn't guarantee success. The amendment will likely fail. But it forces Republican senators to go on the record. It puts a spotlight on who gets paid and who doesn't.

“Election deniers who break the law are not victims. They are criminals,” Hickenlooper said in a written statement. “The last thing we should do is reward these people with your taxpayer dollars.”

Let's look at the local angle. Peters is the former Mesa County Clerk. She’s a known figure in our local political landscape. If the fund pays her, it pays her with money derived from a federal settlement tied to the President’s personal legal battles. It’s a direct transfer from the public treasury to a local official convicted of crimes affecting the ballot box.

The fund covers more than just Peters. It covers anyone who believes they were targeted for political purposes, including by the Biden administration Justice Department. The definition of "victim" is wide. The definition of "criminal" in the amendment is specific.

The $70 billion immigration bill is the vehicle. The $1.8 billion fund is the cargo. Hickenlooper wants to unload the criminals before the truck leaves the dock.

The practical impact for locals is visibility. We get to see which Republicans vote to exclude Peters and which ones vote to keep her in the payout pool. It’s a direct line from our taxes to her bank account, mediated by Washington.

Hickenlooper’s office says the amendment targets anyone convicted of crimes related to state or federal election interference. It’s a specific carve-out from a general fund. The fund is designed to compensate allies of the GOP president who believe they have been unjustly investigated and prosecuted. The amendment says those who broke the law shouldn't be compensated.

The vote is delayed. The money is still there. The question is whether the exclusions stick when the final bill passes.

If the amendment fails, Peters gets paid. If it passes, she doesn’t. The rest of the fund remains intact. The $1.776 billion is still available for those who qualify. The cost to the taxpayer is the difference between a targeted exclusion and a blanket payout.

Hickenlooper is making the case that breaking the law disqualifies you from the "lawfare" club. It’s a simple argument. It might not win the vote. But it forces the record.