A federal judge on Friday issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration from moving forward with its proposed $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” citing concerns that administration officials have not formally committed to abandoning the initiative.
According to ABC News, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema questioned why Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not provided a sworn statement confirming that the Department of Justice will not establish the fund. During a court hearing, Brinkema repeatedly emphasized that Blanche’s refusal to make such a commitment under penalty of perjury left a significant gap in the government’s position.
The fund was announced by the Department of Justice last month and was intended to compensate individuals who claim they were improperly targeted by the Biden administration. Critics have argued that the proposal could result in taxpayer funds being used to compensate some individuals charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Brinkema pointed to recent comments by President Donald Trump that appeared to support compensation for Jan. 6 defendants. In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press that aired earlier this month, Trump said, “If it was up to me, I’d pay them the kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed. Lives have been destroyed.”
The proposed fund was part of a settlement arrangement under which Trump agreed to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, along with two separate civil claims totaling approximately $230 million related to the Russia investigation and the 2022 FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago residence. The arrangement sparked bipartisan criticism and allegations of self-dealing.
Justice Department attorneys have argued that the lawsuit challenging the fund is now moot because the government does not intend to move forward with the program. However, during Friday’s hearing, Brinkema repeatedly pressed DOJ attorney Andrew Block about why Blanche had not rescinded the order establishing the fund.
When asked whether he knew why Blanche had not withdrawn the directive, Block responded that he did not and could not speak on the acting attorney general’s behalf.
Brinkema expressed frustration with that response, stating that the government’s unwillingness to provide a definitive answer created a “huge gap in the record.” She added that issuing an injunction would cause no apparent harm to the government if officials truly had no intention of implementing the fund.
The judge gave the administration one week to submit a formal declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that the Anti-Weaponization Fund will not be established. Brinkema indicated that such a filing could pave the way for the case to be dismissed.
Throughout the hearing, Brinkema cited Trump’s recent public statements regarding the fund, including criticism directed at her after she temporarily halted the initiative earlier this month. Trump referred to Brinkema as a “radical left judge” following that decision.
“When the president of the United States says he’s disappointed that something is not going forward,” Brinkema said, it raises concerns that the proposal could return in the future.
The judge also revealed that an individual had recently submitted an application seeking compensation from the proposed fund directly to the court, underscoring public confusion surrounding the initiative.
“We had to send it back,” Brinkema said.
Brinkema additionally questioned the legality of the settlement arrangement that created the fund, referencing a recent order from a federal judge in Florida requiring Trump’s attorneys to respond to allegations that they may have misled the court.
At one point during the proceedings, Brinkema cited an amicus brief filed by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) urging the court to permanently block the fund because of concerns that it could benefit individuals involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.
According to ABC News, Brinkema said the filing demonstrated strong public interest in preventing the fund’s creation and questioned whether nearly $1.8 billion should be directed toward a relatively small group of individuals whose compensation would be opposed by many Americans.
The injunction will remain in place while the administration decides whether to provide the sworn assurances requested by the court.
