Although the cases done by Obama and Biden were done arguably under a better claim of color of constitutional legitimacy, they constitute a greater threat to democracy because they enabled the executive branch to establish policy without specific participation of Congress. Trump's funds is less dangerous because it only dispenses money, although without close reference to federal standards encoded by law.
As a constitutional conservative, I don't like the creation and dispensation of taxpayer monies by an unchecked executive branch even though with respect to the anti-weaponization compensations I fully support the claims and the justice of the claims.
When policy amounts to the making of a law, it should pass through Congress and the president's veto power to be constitutionally legitimate.
Biden and Obama exploited this device to force left-wing policy on states, counties, cities, Indian tribes and individuals without checking in with the legislative branch.
Biden and Obama got away with their end run around the Constitution and, typical of our history, a bad precedent now might well be cited to establish another bad precedent.

The Obama-era “Keepseagle” case........
and a whole series of civil rights cases, supervision of police cases, and agriculture cases ........
are in theory similar to the current Anti-Weaponization Fund;
they set up tax dollar compensation without specific congressional participation as required by US law.
Good point