WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has emerged as one of the party’s fastest-rising political figures, drawing national attention for his populist message and outsider image.

But as his profile has grown, so has scrutiny of his past conduct, with controversies ranging from sexually explicit messages and offensive social media posts to a Nazi-linked tattoo and campaign staff upheaval.

PLATNER CONTROVERSIES FUEL SPECULATION ABOUT LITTLE-KNOWN MAINE BALLOT REPLACEMENT PROVISION

In continued clean-up of those scandals, Platner came to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday to huddle with party figures at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headquarters just one week before his primary election.

The Marine veteran and oyster farmer has defended himself against the criticism and retained the support of prominent Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Still, some have questioned whether the allegations could complicate Democrats’ efforts to unseat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate races.

Here’s a look at the major controversies that have engulfed Platner’s campaign.

Explicit text messages and sexting allegations

The most recent controversy surrounding Platner stems from reports that he exchanged sexually explicit messages with multiple women during his marriage, an issue that campaign aides were reportedly aware of as his Senate bid was taking shape.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner, informed a campaign aide about the text exchanges shortly after he launched his Senate bid as staffers were assessing potential political liabilities.

According to the report, Gertner discovered the messages months after the couple married in 2024 and disclosed their existence before her husband held a campaign rally alongside progressive Sen. Sanders. The campaign told Politico that the aide viewed the matter as a private issue between the couple and did not raise concerns about it publicly.

SENATE CANDIDATE GRAHAM PLATNER SENT EXPLICIT TEXTS TO MULTIPLE WOMEN WHILE MARRIED, WIFE SAYS: REPORT

Platner’s campaign later confirmed the existence of the text exchanges to Politico.

He also told Fox News Digital in a statement: “Amy and I went through something hard — because of me. We did the work, and I’m grateful for her every hour of every day.”

“I’ve learned throughout this campaign is that people don’t care about gossip or headlines, they care that you’re fighting for their hospitals, their paycheck, their kids… Our opponents want politics to be empty of content and empty of actual change — and beating that is exactly what our movement is about,” he added.

In a statement to the Journal, Gertner criticized the disclosure of the information, saying she had shared “deeply personal details” about her marriage with someone she considered a friend, only to see those details become public.

She revealed that the two attended couple’s counseling, worked through the issues in their marriage and have since emerged as a stronger couple.

“I know who Graham is. I know the man I married and the husband he has been to me on the best and the worst days of my life,” Gertner said. “That hasn’t changed, and it won’t.”

Nazi-linked tattoo

Platner’s campaign also faced intense scrutiny after it was revealed he once had a skull-and-crossbones tattoo on his chest closely resembling the “Totenkopf” symbol used by Hitler’s SS paramilitary forces.

The Maine Democrat said he got the tattoo during a “night of drinking” while on leave in Croatia in 2007 as a Marine and claimed he was entirely unaware of its meaning at the time.

In an Instagram video posted in May, Platner elaborated on the tattoo’s origins. He explained that he merely selected the design from a flash tattoo wall while “carousing” with fellow Marines in Split, Croatia.

“We thought it looked cool,” he downplayed.

Platner said he was later “appalled” to learn the image resembled a Nazi symbol, arguing that his life and career have been defined by opposition to fascism, racism and Nazism. He also noted that he was never questioned about the tattoo during his military service.

MAINE DEM SENATE HOPEFUL BACKED BY BERNIE SANDERS APOLOGIZES FOR NAZI-STYLE TATTOO, VOWS TO STAY IN RACE

Rather than undergo removal, Platner said he chose to cover the tattoo because tattoo removal services were not readily available near his rural Maine home.

“Going to a tattoo removal place is going to take a while,” he told The Associated Press. “I wanted this thing off my body.”

The symbol was ultimately covered with a tattoo featuring a Celtic knot and images of dogs, which Platner said were meant to honor his family pets.

Deleted Reddit posts reveal offensive comments

The keystone scrutiny Platner has faced during his bid stemmed from thousands of now-deleted Reddit posts that resurfaced after he launched his Senate campaign.

In posts first reported by CNN and Politico, Platner referred to himself as a “communist” and “socialist” and endorsed the slogan “all cops are b—–ds.”

In other posts, he argued that those who “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history” and said that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice.”

DELETED POSTS URGING VIOLENCE HAUNT DEMOCRATIC SENATE HOPEFUL IN MAINE RACE

The posts under his since-retired username “P-hustle” were deleted before Platner announced his Democratic Senate bid in August.

The candidate has since addressed the posts multiple times, telling CNN and Politico that he was “f—ing around on the internet” during a period when he felt “lost and very disillusioned with our government who sent me overseas to watch my friends die.”

“I made dumb jokes and picked fights,” Platner said. “But of course I’m not a socialist. I’m a small business owner, a Marine Corps veteran, and a retired s—poster.”

In the posts Platner made crude comments about masturbating in port-a-potties and claimed a U.S. service member who took enemy fire in Afghanistan “didn’t deserve to live.”

GRAHAM PLATNER VOWS TO ‘COME AFTER’ BEZOS AS SENATE HOPEFUL ESCALATES BILLIONAIRE TAX FIGHT

The controversies have done little to erode Platner’s standing within the Democratic Party as he has continued to attract national attention and grassroots support in the Democratic primary bid to challenge Sen. Collins for her seat.

Since former Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills halted her campaign in April, much of the party establishment has consolidated behind Platner, and national Democrats have continued to support his candidacy despite the flurry of scandals.

The steady stream of allegations and past controversies has also drawn attention to a little-known provision in Maine election law that allows political parties to replace a nominee under certain circumstances after a primary election.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Under state law, a candidate who wins a primary and subsequently withdraws by 5 p.m. on July 13 can be replaced by a nominee selected by party officials. Any replacement candidate must then be chosen by 5 p.m. on July 27.

There is currently no indication that Platner plans to withdraw from the race, and the Democratic hopeful has repeatedly vowed to continue his campaign. Still, the provision has drawn renewed interest as questions persist about whether additional revelations could complicate his candidacy.

Platner’s campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass made what sounded like a victory speech Tuesday night.

Councilmember Nithya Raman made what sounded almost like a concession speech.

And former reality TV star Spencer Pratt relayed a message from the heavens.

“Well, obviously God wanted five more months of me exposing all the failures of our mayor, so it’s gonna be a fun ride,” Pratt said. “I hope she’s ready.”

Assuming Pratt holds on to one of the two spots in the Nov. 3 general election as the final votes are tallied in the next few days, the smart money will be on Bass, for reasons I’ll get into in a moment.

But the supreme being and patron of all pontiffs has to be considered a wild card. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that an incumbent mayor in the City of Angels would be running against a challenger whose campaign manager is God Almighty.

So here we go. We could be in for one of the more remarkable electoral adventures in city history, with a complete novice and MAGA conservative going up against a liberal career politician in a deep-blue city and state full of people who are tired of hearing excuses from Democrats. (If Raman ends up ousting Pratt, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. But it’s not my fault. The devil made me do it.)

If you intend to follow closely, as of course you should, maybe you can help me count the number of times Pratt plays the faith card. I went to St. Peter Martyr School and attended the church by the same name, and I don’t recall ever hearing a nun or a priest drop God’s name as often as Pratt does.

In fact, I just watched a clip of Pratt talking to Fox News TV host and Donald Trump disciple Kayleigh McEnany, and over the course of 1 minute and 52 seconds, he mentioned God or Jesus 10 times.

“Thankfully, I married an angel who was very connected with Jesus and has brought me to the light,” Pratt said of his wife and former reality TV co-star Heidi Montag. “It’s been very empowering to just pray and just be on his path and just say, ‘God, if you want me to save these animals, save these humans and protect my city, just keep putting me in the place where I can do that.’”

Is he running for mayor or cardinal?

Look, I totally respect your average true believer. But I’m not entirely comfortable with a mayor who might be sitting around City Hall waiting for signs and smoke signals rather than knowing what to do on his own.

God has a lot on his plate. He might be busy multiplying fishes and loaves so people don’t go hungry thanks to the president’s tariffs and warmongering. Is he going to rush to answer a prayer for guidance about underfunded parks or broken sidewalks in Los Angeles?

How did we get here, you ask?

Well, Pratt is an AI creation, in a way. A composite of sorts. You combine the forces of social media, political rebellion, second-rate celebrity obsession and the Peter Principle, and here’s a little Trump puppet walking around L.A. like he’s the chosen one.

Add to that the very real essence of his appeal to some voters:

Los Angeles has problems. Big problems that don’t get fixed quickly enough or at all, and Pratt represents the angry voter who wants to know why City Hall can’t do better and where all the money went. He’s absolutely right when he says we shouldn’t have people living on the streets, using drugs on the streets and dying on the streets.

But if Pratt is in the general election rather than Raman, we’re in for a national media circus rather than a summit on solutions. Raman is well-versed on matters of relevance and could have pushed back against Bass in substantive, detailed ways. On the other hand, as Pratt has fairly argued, Raman headed City Council’s homelessness committee, so isn’t she partly to blame for the failures she tried to pin on Bass?

As for Pratt’s policy chops, he has not responded to my offers of a get-together. Absent that, and given his careful avoidance of local reporters who know their stuff, I read his platform on his campaign website and I can tell you that while he touches on many of the right issues — public safety, fiscal integrity, homelessness — attention to detail and depth of knowledge are not God-given strengths.

Maybe Pratt can actually deliver on his promise of a “treatment-led recovery model that addresses mental illness and addiction as the primary drivers of chronic homelessness.” But that would require an act of God (which I suppose is possible given their relationship), because those matters are primarily under the direction of the county, not the city.

This is the main problem here. Bass was beatable, and could have been pushed by a serious challenger to do better.

In the last election, Rick Caruso gave her a scare. That was partly because he had some depth on the issues, he was a successful businessman and philanthropist, he had served on the police commission and the water and power board, he had built relationships across the city and, along with his family, he had poured time and millions of dollars into underserved communities.

In this election, it looks as though Bass could get lucky and face off against a guy who lost his house in the Palisades fire, saw a few homeless encampments through his car window, and decided he wanted to be mayor. Some might have questioned his hubris, but only before learning that he was on a mission from God.

If you’re keeping count, that’s nine mentions of God so far in this column.

One more for the tie, with an eye toward five more months of campaign fodder.

Thank you, God.

steve.lopez@latimes.com